When Global Warmingest-in-Chief Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize last year, the media's prideful gushing was so obvious it was almost sick-making.
Now, six months later, a fellow Nobel Peace Prize recipient is part of a group asking the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change "admit that there is no observational evidence in measured data going back 22,000 years or even millions of years that CO2 levels (whether from man or nature) have driven or are driving world temperatures."
Since it is a metaphysical certitude media will ignore this Prize winner, the following is a complete reprint of a letter sent to the IPCC on Monday (with permission):
14 April 2008
Dear Dr. Pachauri and others associated with IPCC
We are writing to you and others associated with the IPCC position – that man’s CO2 is a driver of global warming and climate change – to ask that you now in view of the evidence retract support from the current IPCC position [as in footnote 1] and admit that there is no observational evidence in measured data going back 22,000 years or even millions of years that CO2 levels (whether from man or nature) have driven or are driving world temperatures or climate change.
If you believe there is evidence of the CO2 driver theory in the available data please present a graph of it.
We draw your attention to three observational refutations of the IPCC position (and note there are more). Ice-core data from the ACIA (Arctic Climate Impact Assessment) shows that temperatures have fallen since around 4,000 years ago (the Bronze Age Climate Optimum) while CO2 levels have risen, yet this graphical data was not included in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers (Fig. SPM1 Feb07) which graphed the CO2 rise.
More recent data shows that in the opposite sense to IPCC predictions world temperatures have not risen and indeed have fallen over the past 10 years while CO2 levels have risen dramatically.
The up-dated temperature measurements have been released by the NASA’s Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) [1] as well as by the UK’s Hadley Climate Research Unit (Temperature v. 3, variance adjusted - Hadley CRUT3v) [2]. In parallel, readings of atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have been released by the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii [3]. They have been combined in graphical form by Joe D’Aleo [4], and are shown below.
![]()
These latest temperature readings represent averages of records obtained from standardized meteorological stations from around the planet, located in both urban as well as rural settings. They are augmented by satellite data, now generally accepted as ultimately authoritative, since they have a global footprint and are not easily vulnerable to manipulation nor observer error. What is also clear from the graphs is that average global temperatures have been in stasis for almost a decade, and may now even be falling.
A third important observation is that contrary to the CO2 driver theory, temperatures in the upper troposphere (where most jets fly) have fallen over the past two decades. [Footnote 2]
IPCC policy is already leading to economic and unintended environmental damage. Specifically the policy of burning food - maize as biofuel - has contributed to sharp rises in food prices which are causing great hardship in many countries and is also now leading to increased deforestation in Brazil, Malaysia, Indonesia, Togo, Cambodia, Nigeria, Burundi, Sri Lanka, Benin and Uganda for cultivation of crops [5].
Given the economic devastation that is already happening and which is now widely recognised will continue to flow from this policy, what possible justification can there be for its retention?
We ask you and all those whose names are associated with IPCC policy to accept the scientific observations and renounce current IPCC policy.
Yours sincerely,
Hans Schreuder, Analytical Chemist, mMensa, hans@tech-know.eu
Piers Corbyn, Astrophysicist UK, Dir. WeatherAction.com, piers@weatheraction.com
Dr Don Parkes, Prof. Em. Human Ecology, Australia, dnp@networksmm.com.au
Svend Hendriksen, Nobel Peace Prize 1988 (shared), Greenland, hendriksen@greennet.gl
Cc: IPCC's yu.izrael@g23.relcom.ru christy@nsstc.uah.edu spencer@nsstc.uah.edu dy.pitman@gmail.com
Tim Yeo MP (Chairman Environmental Audit Committee) Lord Martin Rees (President Royal Society)
Gordon Brown MP David Cameron MP Nick Glegg MP
Footnote 1: Two heavily publicised quotations which emerged from your organisation, respectively in February and December last year, are:
Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations. It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica) (Figure SPM.4).{2.4} [6] and
The 2007 IPCC report, compiled by several hundred climate scientists, has unequivocally concluded that our climate is warming rapidly, and that we are now at least 90% certain that this is mostly due to human activities. The amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere now far exceeds the natural range of the past 650,000 years, and it is rising very quickly due to human activity. If this trend is not halted soon, many millions of people will be at risk from extreme events such as heat waves, drought, floods and storms, our coasts and cities will be threatened by rising sea levels, and many ecosystems, plants and animal species will be in serious danger of extinction. (Summary statement, Bali Conference.) [7].
Footnote 2: "Data over the past two decades indicates that temperatures have actually declined in the upper troposphere, even though there has been some minor upward trends in temperature at sea level and lower altitudes. This completely contradicts conventional global warming models. Before we radically rearrange the political economy of the world because some scientists claim anthropogenic CO2 is the cause of climate change, it might be worthwhile for anyone taking a position on the topic to consider whether or not this is indeed "well settled science." Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT, March 2008.
References:
1. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/msu.html
2. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature
3. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
4. http://icecap.us/index.php/go/experts Joseph D’Aleo, Certified Consultant Meteorologist,
Fellow of the American Meteorological Society (AMS), Executive Director Icecap.us
5. http://rainforests.mongabay.com/0801.htm
6. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf
For those interested, Hendriksen was once part of the United Nations Peacekeeping Forces, which collectively received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1988.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I'm going to set a reminder
April 14, 2008 - 16:26 ET by JohnMI'm going to set a reminder to come back and follow up on this... since I sincerely doubt it will be hitting MSM headlines anytime soon.
Thanks for this piece, Noel. I wish more non-alarmist scientists would make requests such as this and apply more public pressure to the UN.
I was envisioning some
April 14, 2008 - 17:07 ET by radiofitz34I was envisioning some responses by the IPCC : 1) Well, that's just your reality. 2) Thank you for your concern about this issue. It has been duely noted (trashed) by our advisors (lawyers) and we encourage you to be cheerful and have a nice day. 3) What letter? We didn't receive any frickin letter.
It won't hit MSM headlines
April 16, 2008 - 08:57 ET by DJEddleIt won't hit MSM headlines and the "scientists" that enjoy being "the consensus" will simply disparage these guys.
It's not as if there is real opposition to what is already "settled science," right? Do these people really think there are legitimate concerns regarding what many claim to know about our climate?
We know everything. Anyone who disagrees with that is just being silly.
*If you like the comments, check out the articles.
I hope they really dont
April 14, 2008 - 16:44 ET by bassndudeI hope they really dont expect the UN and the IPCC will give up any hope of collecting the millions of dollars that this cash cow is providing for them. Honesty is not what the UN is famous for.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
bass... I normally agree
April 14, 2008 - 20:39 ET by Clear thinkerbass...
I normally agree with you, but I find myself having to set you straight on something...
"I hope they really dont expect the UN and the IPCC will give up any hope of collecting the millions of dollars that this cash cow is providing for them"
I would have used the term BILLIONS of dollars.
Picky, ain't I?
"Abstain from McCain"
Bookmarked, copied, and
April 14, 2008 - 16:44 ET by CortillaenBookmarked, copied, and forwarded to a number of people. If this ever got wide exposure, maybe some people would rethink their positions (which defines said positions as ignorant), but the MSM will make sure that doesn't happen. <sarc>Those who threaten the Goracle's pocketboo-er, prophecies must not have a voice.</sarc>
www.rhjunior.com Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi
Noel, Was this/did this
April 14, 2008 - 17:51 ET by Sick-n-TiredNoel, Was this/did this letter double as a press release, or was it specifically and solely a letter to the UN's IPCC that was shared with you. Reason I ask is might we see it in other "skeptical" news outlets? Might this letter have the chance to make its rounds elsewhere? Excluding the MSM of course. I am going to share this with ALL of my AGW disciple friends!
The house of cards is starting to fall all around them---no wonder Gore is making a last ditch, $300 million effort to re-indoctrinate the sheeple.. "Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life," Richard Lindzen - March 2007.
posted at - Ilovemycarbondioxide
April 14, 2008 - 18:49 ET by Giles Winterbournehttp://www.ilovemyca... (PDF)
link from front page (warning: autostart sound and vid). No copyright notice on that page, though he does say "Read my letters please and copy them to send to your local Council or MP" about.htm
That crazy Al Gore. He's
April 14, 2008 - 18:58 ET by Jack BauerThat crazy Al Gore. He's such a damn Warm Monger.
somewhat selective data choices
April 14, 2008 - 20:20 ET by Giles WinterbourneWell, you could look at some of the other data setsand note the continued warming trend that fits to IPCC predictions.
And note 10 years really isn't a trend - run the figures back to beginnings of the various data sets for longer trends.
Or that they don't mention ice melt...
Rather odd that they would throw in a "...three observational refutations of the IPCC position (and note there are more)." statement with no links and little further discussion. Sorry to get all English teacher, but that really makes this read like a first draft, not a 'ready for publishing' piece.
FYI: reference 5 doesn't mention deforestation caused by corn/ ethanol production, but does mention banning soy production as lessening deforestation.
Giles Winterbourne
April 14, 2008 - 20:24 ET by Free StinkerIt's interesting that you don't mention thickening glaciers . . .
as in the glaciers are growing . . .
Pledge to not support RINOs ever again!
forgot to link to a resource
April 15, 2008 - 01:31 ET by Giles WinterbourneSince FS forgot to link to a resource, here is some data:
"The average mass balance of the glaciers with available long-term mass balance series around the world continues to decrease"
Glaciers are Growing
April 15, 2008 - 10:40 ET by PopularTechThere are plenty of Glaciers that are Growing Giles:
Antarctica - Antarctic ice sheet thickening, researcher says (Associated Press)
Antarctica - East Antarctica's surface slowly rising (The New York Times)
Antarctica - Ice 'thickens' in West Antarctica (BBC)
Antarctica - Researchers find Antarctic ice is thickening (USA Today)
Antarctica - Scientists Detect Thickening Of West Antarctic Ice Sheet (Science Daily)
Antarctica - Snowfall-Driven Growth in East Antarctic Ice Sheet Mitigates Recent Sea-Level Rise (Science)
Antarctica - Study: Antarctic Ice Sheet Is Thickening, Not Thinning (ABC News)
Antarctica - The Antarctic Ice Sheet is Growing Thicker (Not by Fire but by Ice)
Glaciers - Fox Glacier, Fox Glacier has been advancing since 1985 (Alpine Guides)
Glaciers - Franz Josef Glacier, A Glacier Grows, Undeterred by Heated Kyoto Debate (CNSNews)
Glaciers - Glacier National Park, Science debunks Glacier Park warming alarm (The Heartland Institute)
Glaciers - Global warming boost to glaciers (BBC)
Glaciers - Himalayan Glaciers Are Growing ... and Confounding Global Warming Alarmists (The Heartland Institute)
Glaciers - Hubbard Glacier, Alaska: Growing and Advancing in Spite of Global Climate Change (USGS)
Glaciers - Icy Bay Glaciers get up and go (SitNews)
Glaciers - Johns Hopkins Glacier is advancing and moving 3000 feet per year (Glacier Bay National Park)
Glaciers - Kolka Glacier is growing again (NTV, Russia)
Glaciers - Kilimanjaro's ice set to linger (BBC)
Glaciers - Kilimanjaro Glacier, The Woes Of Kilimanjaro: Don't Blame Global Warming (Science Daily)
Glaciers - McGinnis Glacier, Chance Discovery: Alaska Range Glacier Surges (Science Daily)
Glaciers - Meares Glacier, an advancing glacier tearing up trees and rocks in its path as it grows (Alaska Tours)
Glaciers - Melting glacier 'false alarm' (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
Glaciers - Mont Blanc Glacier, Global warming makes Mont Blanc grow (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
Glaciers - Mont Blanc Glaciers Refuse to Shrink? (World Climate Report)
Glaciers - Mount Shasta Glaciers Defy Global Warming, Grow (CBS)
Glaciers - Mount St. Helens Glacier, At the crater’s rim, something ‘mind-bogglingly cool’ (The News Tribune)
Glaciers - Nigardsbreen Glacier is growing by 25 to 50 meters per year (Jostedal Glacier National Park)
Glaciers - Norway's glaciers growing at record pace (Agence-France Presse)
Glaciers - Perito Moreno Glacier, The largest glacier in Argentina Advances Continuously (Los Glaciares National Park)
Glaciers - Permanent Ice Fields Are Resisting Global Warming (Science Daily)
Glaciers - Pio XI Glacier, The biggest glacier in South America keeps growing every year (Visit Chile)
Glaciers - Small Glaciers In Northern California Buck Global Warming Trend (Science Daily)
Glaciers - Study: Glacier melting can be variable (Breitbart)
Glaciers - Study Says Glaciers Formed During a Very Warm Period (The New York Times)
Glaciers - Warming Climate Can Support Glacial Ice: It Did In Much Warmer Times (Science Daily)
Greenland - ERS Altimeter Survey Shows Growth of Greenland Ice Sheet Interior (ESA - European Space Agency)
Greenland - Study Shows Greenland’s Ice Growing (CO2 Science)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
anomalies v. real science
April 15, 2008 - 11:25 ET by Giles Winterbourne"In contrast, the advance phase is characterised by anomalous southwest
airflow, especially during the ablation season, and higher
precipitation. The high pressure anomaly is shifted westward by about
55° of longitude so as to lie south of Australia. The advance phase is
also related to a higher frequency of El Niño events."
"The observed downward trend in summer temperature and runoff is
consistent with the observed thickening and expansion of Karakoram
glaciers, in contrast to widespread decay and retreat in the eastern
Himalayas. This suggests that the western Himalayas are showing a
different response to global warming than other parts of the globe."
Also, you are mixing up advancing and surging; so review is in order (maybe you could start at Wikipedia).
So, you have a short list of glaciers, no long term studies, mostly from delayer sites or newspapers with no links to the actual reports. Also, many are tourist attraction sites, where advancing glaciers are mentioned as something special. That should give the reader a hint.
On the other hand, we can go to the World Glacier Monitoring Service (WGMS) and look at the losses dating back years (from 1980 on pages 87and 88 (13mb PDF).
Might want to check your list for broken links.
See? I didn't need to give
April 15, 2008 - 11:29 ET by Free StinkerSee? I didn't need to give you a link. PT has much better lists than I do, and you dismiss them as "anomolies" anyway!
Pledge to not support RINOs ever again!
truth ???
April 15, 2008 - 12:19 ET by LionKingFunny. Deniers (aka realists) data gets dismissed as anomalies while Warmers (aka cultists) do not have any real science.
It is amazing how arrogant Warmers are to think that we can actually control climate change.
real science
April 15, 2008 - 12:30 ET by Giles WinterbourneI pointed out that the real science is available.
The reader can choose which is better to make an informed decision.
Propaganda vs. Science
April 15, 2008 - 12:58 ET by PopularTechThe reader can also choose to observe that a mass balance of 30 glaciers out of over 100,000 is meaningless. While on the other hand I clearly proved that not all glaciers are melting as is widely exaggerated. But as you clearly pointed out the ones that are growing are due to nature and the ones that are melting are due to man, both at the same time! Yes the reader can make up their own minds.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
read more closely
April 15, 2008 - 15:39 ET by Giles WinterbourneThe reader can make the choice to use a list of a few glaciers that have some newspaper reportage and tourism information of advancing or surging, or look at a long term, well documented worldwide study by a rebutable organization.
A single report of a glacier in Alaska that might have surged two years ago with no further updates, no history of observationis is about as accurate a statement of current climate changes as someone's blog noting they think they saw birds nesting earlier in the spring than last year.
'growing are due to nature' & ' melting are due to man' - Better phrased as anthropogenic climate change creating regional effects on glaciers world wide. Increased or reduced precipitation, wind currents, etc.
Umm, Giles...
April 15, 2008 - 15:50 ET by Karma...you may want to correct this.
...worldwide study by a rebutable organization. ??
Touring the Glaciers
April 15, 2008 - 20:20 ET by PopularTechNo Giles this is even better they can take tours and see glaciers advancing for themselves!
And yes all these organizations are so unreputable:
ABC News
Associated Press
BBC
Breitbart
CNSNews
European Space Agency
The New York Times
USA Today
USGS
Science
Science Daily
The Daily Telegraph, UK
Of course Giles no matter what happens a glacier advancing or retreating are both caused by man. We already know AGW causes everything:
A complete list of things caused by global warming (Number Watch)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
What would be the point of
April 15, 2008 - 11:41 ET by dscottWhat would be the point of checking WGMS when their record only goes back to 1980? Since the Ice Age scare of the 70s would have caused the glaciers to increase significantly during that time period and it takes a few years (up to 5 years) to see that fully reflected in the glacier measurements, all you accomplished is setting an artifically high base line from which to fall. All the cooling of the last few years will take another few years to show up in the measurements, then what will you say?
Not to mention WGMS doesn't measure many of the world's glaciers, as you should have figured out by now, cherry picking the data by claiming the data you are sampling is a representation of the whole is extrapolation. We all know that extrapolation makes lots of assumptions which are not true and is sloppy science.
Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008 Long Live the Empire! Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.
"Basic information on
April 15, 2008 - 15:39 ET by Giles Winterbourne"Basic information
on specific net balance, cumulative specific balance, accumulation area
ratio and equilibrium line altitude is given for 105 glaciers."
With data back to 1945.
bad link, however in any
April 15, 2008 - 16:00 ET by dscottbad link, however in any event 105 glaciers isn't most of the glaciers and as you yourself pointed out regional conditions determine whether any particular glacier grows or shrinks. So what's your point? You still don't have sufficient information to make a judgement call on AGW and glaciers. Like with Kilomanjaro, humidity and precip conditions have way more to do with glacier formation than any so called theory of AGW. This is why they pretty much stopped pushing glacier activity, one look at Mt. St. Helens glacier (on a volcano) blows the whole idea of AGW out the door.
Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008 Long Live the Empire! Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.
Kilimanjaro...
April 15, 2008 - 16:41 ET by danboKilimanjaro... It's changing?
Larger from An inconvinient truth. And in 2008.
"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
Propaganda vs. Science
April 15, 2008 - 12:21 ET by PopularTechSo again when they advance it is caused by nature but when they retreat it is caused by man! I got it Giles.
I wouldn't want to mix up a lot of ice moving closer to you as that would confuse the non-scientist as to what is going on.
Sorry about some of the sources Giles as we all know only alarmist sites such as RealClimate are correct.
I am sure the local tourist boards must be manipulating the glaciers to grow for money, got it. The reader should pretend these glaciers do not exist so it is easier to except the AGW con.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Have you noticed most of
April 15, 2008 - 12:32 ET by dscottHave you noticed most of the glaciers you listed as growing don't show up on the WGMS mass balance? I wonder why that is??? Why spoil a perfectly good narrative with the clutter of all the facts? In the legal business, it's called relevant facts - culling the multitude of facts by ruling out irrelevent facts not conforming to the line of argument. It's called lying by omission.
Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008 Long Live the Empire! Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.
Your first reference
April 14, 2008 - 22:06 ET by NL207Your first reference reports 4 data sets. For the moment, lets assume they are all actually real data. Three of them clearly show that observed warming has deviated sufficiently from the IPCC prediction that it has fallen below the lower error bar of the IPCC prediction. Translation: 3 of the 4 datasets you present here contradict the IPCC's predictions.
The fourth data set is interesting. It shows temperatures are now in the lower quartile of the IPCC prediction. I note that data set is from GISS. Do you know who GISS is? It's NASA/GISS, home of Dr. Gavin Schmidt, one of your lovely friends at realclimate.org. Why is their "data" different from everybody else's?
Giles, are you a complete idiot?
Insulting or projecting?
April 15, 2008 - 03:44 ET by Giles WinterbourneIPCC scenarios from previous reports and observed changes - Look at IPCC WG1 Technical Summary page 69 or WG1 ch. 1 pg 98 or Recent Climate Observations Compared to Projections
Note also that my link was to a NYT blog discussion of Pielke data - might want to read through the discussion on that ...
RealClimate article about data selection and Hansen's 1988 predictions, Discussion of Hansen's data at Rabett Run.
Pielke Jr. Obliterated Hansen's 1988 "Predictions"
April 15, 2008 - 08:40 ET by PopularTechEvaluating Jim Hansen’s 1988 Climate Forecast (Roger A. Pielke (Jr.), Ph.D. Political Science)
Hansen's 1988 predictions are worthless as are all the others based on computer models.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
PT I assume you've seen the
April 15, 2008 - 09:50 ET by danboPT I assume you've seen the update by Pielke.
Watching Realclimates attempt to minimize this has been funny and also enlightening.
"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
Again, GISS is out of touch with reality
April 15, 2008 - 10:51 ET by PopularTechIt is becoming comical to watch the GISS records adjusted... I mean "corrected" off the charts.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Still linking the same
April 15, 2008 - 18:51 ET by NL207Still linking the same guys, aren't we.
Still can't debate the science either.
The bottom line is this: The IPCC 2AR [1995] did not have the cheek to make predictions, unlike Dr. Hansen and your friends at realclimate.org. It reported there had been a 0.3 - 0.6 degree K increase in mean near surface global temoperature over the previous century. IPCC in the 3AR [2001] predicted 1.4 to 5.8 Celsius degrees for the next century. The IPCC 4AR [2007] predicted 1.1 and 6.4 °C over the same interval.
The real data has come in consistently at or below the lower bounds of the IPCC predictions. The 3AR is the metric for the last ten years. The 4AR wasn't published until that interval was all but over, so it can be hardly called a prediction w.r.t. the last ten years. The 3AR suggests on average we should have seen a 0.36 degree K increase in mean near surface temps over the last ten years. We did not see an increase of any kind over that period. This might suggest to people with critical thinking ability that the prediction was incorrect. But what do you do? You struggle to find a dataset that just barely fits into the very bottom of the later 4AR ex post facto "prediction" and then declare that these geniuses at the IPCC and realclimate.org were correct!
They got it wrong Giles. Fessup. Point mine. You lose.
A real scientist would be asking questions like: "Why was the prediction wrong?". Political activists spin their wheels, make excuses and fudge data just like the folks at realclimate.org and NASA/GISS are doing right now. Do a little "Google" on 'adjusted temperature data' and see what comes up. If you are intellectually honest, you will see it immediately. If you are not, I get to win another debate point from you.
Thanks for making my point
April 14, 2008 - 20:53 ET by dboAnd note 10 years really isn't a trend ...
If ten years isn't really a trend why did James Hansen claim the sky is falling in 1988 after only 9 years of modest warming?
try a century
April 15, 2008 - 02:02 ET by Giles Winterbourne"The global temperature rose by 0.2 degrees C between the middle 1960's
and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4 degrees C in the past century."
" It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980's."
Science 28 August 1981 Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
J. Hansen,
D. Johnson,
A. Lacis,
S. Lebedeff,
P. Lee,
D. Rind, and
G. Russell
Data back to the 1880's
Who gives a rats
April 15, 2008 - 02:07 ET by bigtimerWho gives a rats rear...it's snowing here now...and supposed to snow tomorrow.
It's spring dang it all...my daffodils never saw the day of light because of the snow...where is the global warming...I'm patiently waiting because I trust and believe the alarmists so....algore where art thou?
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
It's Hansenized. How much
April 15, 2008 - 07:31 ET by danboIt's Hansenized.
How much is the data being adjusted. (Though the term altered may be more appropriate.) "On average 20% of the historical record was modified 16 times in the last 2 1/2 years. The largest single jump was 0.27 C. This occurred between the Oct 13, 2006 and Jan 15, 2007 records when Aug 2006 changed from an anomoly of +0.43C to +0.70C, a change of nearly 68%."
Chart of years modified. Source
From. "Hansenize. Verb. To make a correction to historical records in such a way that the correction has the effect of increasing the error that the correction purports to correct."
Will the real historical record please stand up!
"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 Gig is Up
April 15, 2008 - 10:03 ET by dbo"The global temperature rose by 0.2 degrees C between the middle 1960's
and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4 degrees C in the past century."
And note 10 years really isn't a trend ...
Spin, Spin, Spin, Spin. Global tepmerature declined from 1940-1978 which probably explains why Hansen was on a team in 1971 predicting global cooling. Then there was modest warming from 1979-1988 when Hansen made his doomsday scenarios. The warming in the 9 years 1979-1988 was one half the amount of cooling which took place between 1998-2008. Admit it Giles, the gig is up. The whole AGW movement is leaking oil. Solar cycles 24 and 25 are going to be cooler, the PDO is changing and the only thing that is going to be under water in 30 years is Hansen's credibility. It's one thing to just to be wrong, but the it's a whole different kettle of fish to be caught in a scam. The higher the top the longer the drop. Jump ship now while you can still save face. All you are doing by propagating this myth is taking away from real enviromental concerns that are out there. It's one thing for Gore to be caught in a big lie, that's his job as a politician, but Hansen, Schmidt, and Mann are going to go down in history as the 21st centuries biggest pyramid scheme.
Try absurd
April 15, 2008 - 16:35 ET by CobraMan"The global temperature rose by 0.2 degrees C between the middle 1960's and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4 degrees C in the past century."
So, the measured global mean surface temperatures over the last century has apparently increased a half of a degree Celsius over the last 100 years and this would tend to indicate a general warming trend? How can anyone make such an absurd claim?
How is this claim absurd, you may ask? Well that’s an easy question to answer. That .5 degree C difference easily falls within the margin of error between the rather inaccurate measurements made by primitive thermometers of 100 years ago and the more accurate measuring devices of today.
You may not realize this, but almost all the temperature measurements that were taken over the majority of that 100 year period, including those made in the 60’s, were based on readings obtained by glass encased ethanol thermometers, which were the most abundant means of measuring temperature at that time. These older measuring devices were not very accurate and the readings obtain by them varied greatly between each thermometer that was manufactured, and varied even more between the different thermometer manufactures of that time.
Most of that inherent variance was due to several factors; including the purity of the glass and ethanol, the methods of production, the variance of the compounds which comprises the glass and ethanol mixtures, and the quality control problems inherent in the glass forming process which can lead to variances in the internal diameter of each thermometer. Each of these factors contributes to how accurately temperature is measured by these types of thermometers. A variance in any one of those factors leads directly to a variance between the indicated temperature and the actual temperature. Then there’s the rather inaccurate means of marking temperature gradients for the thermometers that was used at that time. A small variance in measurement of each gradient mark can lead to a large difference between the indicated temperature and the actual temperature.
Since we’re making a conclusion derived by results of calculations which are based on data which was collected through knowingly inaccurate measuring devices and whose margin of inaccuracy is impossible to determine and account for with any degree of precision, do you think that it may be possible that the results of those calculations are actually wrong?
I do. I think that it’s very possible that those older readings were highly inaccurate, that the results of the comparative calculations are inherently flawed because of this, and that any conclusion based on the results are, therefore, also inherently flawed. Since the results are flawed, it is reasonable to conclude that any and all claims based on those results are similarly flawed. Making unverifiable claims based on flawed data and inaccurate calculations is absurd, would you agree?
Graph - a great tee, with al gore on the back..
April 14, 2008 - 20:00 ET by Gary HallNoel, that graph would make for a great printed tee-shirt. Now, we just add that picture of Al Gore - blowing fire - on the back, and we're in business. (:~> gary
Gary
April 14, 2008 - 20:09 ET by Noel SheppardGary,
Yes, yes, yes!!! I LIKE it! ns
You missed your que, NS
April 14, 2008 - 20:17 ET by Gary HallWith the tee being titled: "Global Realists" on the front, and "[Shrill] Global Alarmists" on the back. (;~>
Climate Change Q... I
April 14, 2008 - 20:49 ET by Clear thinkerClimate Change Q...
I have to admit that some of the science and data used in the global warming arguments has a tendency to go over my head, so the following question may seem dumb and simplistic to you folks, but to me it's not. Here goes....
We know for a fact that a lot of weather recording stations have their recording equipment in areas or close to other heat reflecting/producing equipment that can easily throw off the temperature readings. Sooooo, if we know ahead of time that the collecting of data is collecting bad data, how in the hell can we even begin to argue data points, graphs, etc? Seems to me that all of this arguing is moot until we get accurate readings. Am I wrong?
"Abstain from McCain"
Goracle
April 14, 2008 - 21:30 ET by allahallahoxenfreeWhen will this manmade CO2 lunacy end? How many more people in this world need to go hungry due to the idiotic use of biofuels? Whose idea was this? Tie energy supply to something as variable as the weather? GREAT IDEA. Jackasses who advocate corn ethanol subsidies should have to spend a week in a Port Au Prince ghetto with no money and try to find some food. The answer is DRILL MORE OIL. We SHOULD be drilling in ANWR. We SHOULD be drilling more in the Gulf. We should be wringing the estimated 2 TRILLION barrels of oil in the shales of the US and Canadian Rockies. Ethanol is a ruse on humanity. It DOES NOT even reduce CO2 emissions not that it even matters. We should be doing this to create more jobs here, keep the money at home and stop funding the very asshats who keep trying to blow us up! We should be taking advantage of this energy while we develop truly renewable forms that will help the whole world in the future whether it be fusion, hydrgen or whatever. We should also be fasttracking refineries and nuclear power plants that recycle the previously spent fuel. Europe does this safely, why can't we? We SHOULD be planting more food to sell to the rest of the world which is not as blessed with such fertile land.
The way I see it, the main problem is an self serving Congress with a criminally complicit useful idiot media being duped by so called environmentalists who are thinly disguised neo communists. WE NEED TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS, be it 18 years or 24 years. Anything is better than Kennedy siiting on his pompous ass for 40 years sucking money from us while actively harming this country with idiotic policies. we need to start a grass roots level movement on this for a public referendum because these selfish pukes are not going to do it themselves.
Phew, thats been building up for a while.
If it ends, it will be
April 15, 2008 - 10:32 ET by dscottIf it ends, it will be quietly just like the Ice Age scare of the 70s. You have listed all the logical responses of what normal people who have nothing to profit from an agenda would do. The problem is there are multiple agendas. I suspect very strongly that Al Gore pushed the whole thing to take the stigma away from nuclear power in the first place (Gore was a primary supporter of nuke power, then he quietly distanced himself). His plan A flopped so he's going with plan B to make a profit off the alternative energy.
Let's add to that the agenda of Europe and Japan to get away from the Arabs supplying their energy, they didn't have the guts to come out and say they were going to become energy independent lest they raise the wrath of their oil suppliers who would potentially retaliate by either jacking up the prices to take as much money from them as possible or alternately, drop the price of oil so that it would never be economically possible to use alternate energy. The Europeans and Japanese wanted out of suppling money to terrorist funding using oil money. The Arabs weren't stupid, they saw right through the Kyoto nonsense and kept the price of oil low throughout the Clinton Admin in the hopes that the disinsentive use alternate energy would cause everyone to give up. Clinton didn't sign the Kyoto treaty because he knew under stable oil prices there was no economic justification for the US to hike it's own energy prices to achieve energy independence and he knew the environmental lobby would fight him tooth and nail if he were to advocate nuclear which was the logical choice using the breeder reactor as France does. Well, for a while it worked until the Iranians got greedy, now the plan is to suck as much money as possible out of the West before the gravey train is over or enough financial pain has been meeted out so the West cries uncle.
Of course the Europeans, being the gutless wonders they are, came up with the carbon credit scam to offset the disruption to the third world this whole change would create. Carbon credits are supposed to be used to fund energy projects in the third world. They counted on the US joining the scam in order to fund the bulk of the energy projects, and it never happened. You see the Europeans and Japanese knowing their demographic decline was coming were counting on 2012 to save them from doing anything thus dumping the whole load on the US. Please note that the 1990 and 2012 dates coincidentally match the projected population curves of the Europeans and Japanese.
It was a scam from beginning to end, and the US tax payer was the mark to pick up the tab.
Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008 Long Live the Empire! Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.
Hey Goracle, great rant. I
April 14, 2008 - 22:17 ET by Lancasters Saved UsHey Goracle, great rant. I pasted it and sent to my buddy in Qatar (school teacher) Said I wished I'd wrote it.
In other news....
April 14, 2008 - 23:16 ET by Giles Winterbourne"Global temperatures are rising. Observations collected over the last century suggest that the average land surface temperature has risen 0.45-0.6°C (0.8-1.0°F) in the last century. The surface of the ocean
has also been warming at a similar rate." Data Sources: Phil Jones, University of East Anglia (UK) and David Parker, United Kingdom Meteorological Office (surface data); John Christy, University of Alabama and Roy Spencer, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (satellite data).
"The monthly fluctuations of global or near-global temperature, as well as the trend over recent
decades can be seen in Figure 2 for the GISS surface temperature analysis as well as the lower mean
tropospheric data of UAH (University of Alabama at Huntsville)2 and RSS (Remote Sensing Systems).
The reason to show these is to expose the recent nonsense that has appeared in the blogosphere, to the
effect that recent cooling has wiped out global warming of the past century, and the Earth may be headed
into an ice age. On the contrary, these misleaders have foolishly (or devilishly) fixated on a natural
fluctuation that will soon disappear."
"President Bush is poised to change course and announce as early as this
week that he wants Congress to pass a bill to combat global warming,
and will lay out principles for what that should include."
Giles, I want to mark my calendar.
April 15, 2008 - 07:04 ET by KarmaThe reason to show these is to expose the recent nonsense that has appeared in the blogosphere, to the effect that recent cooling has wiped out global warming of the past century, and the Earth may be headed into an ice age. On the contrary, these misleaders have foolishly (or devilishly) fixated on a natural fluctuation that will soon disappear."
To mark my calendar, I'll need a more specific time frame, generated by their computer model of course. Will this "fluctuation" end in a week?...a month?...a year?...a decade?...a century?...
Why didn't they tell us about this fluctuation in advance? When is the next "fluctuation" due to arrive? These are things I need to know to schedule my future and to decide whether to pack sweaters or swimsuits. Please answer ASAP; my life is in turmoil.
Distortion again. You
April 15, 2008 - 07:08 ET by danboDistortion again. You avoided a few statements in your link. "About two-thirds of this warming took place between 1900 and 1940." There was a warming from about 1910's till the late 30's. (Prior to that was a cool trend.) This is an interensting trend. Seems our use of fossil fuels was stagnant due to something you don't know about. The depression. You can't blame that rise on increasing fuel usage.
Then a cooling followed from the 50's to late 70's.. Then a warming from the late 70's and we may be out of that phase.
Giles did you notice this nonsense chart on your link. Near the bottom. Here. Looks like satellite and surface temps don't match.
Then Giles again gives us that wonderful link at Col Ed.
Which shows the world is warmer than the mean temps of from 1951- 80. That known cool period.
The next AGW magic that will be used to scare people. A chart showing how much warmer it is now than during the plistocene.
Has your post been sufficiently Hansenized?
How many ways can we distort?
"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, if you read the
April 15, 2008 - 09:11 ET by bassndudeDanbo, if you read the bottom of the Col. Edu. they so much as admit adjusting the numbers so that it is more agreeable with the wished for results. Also, the charts start with the year 1980, doing away with the "ice age" they were saying was comming. So the variations in the temp cycles are done away with.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
And then you compare it to
April 15, 2008 - 10:12 ET by danboAnd then you compare it to the Ice Age 50's-70's. And suprise. It's warmer.
"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
Global Temperatures are Falling
April 15, 2008 - 08:44 ET by PopularTech2006 - Russian Scientist Issues Global Cooling Warning (Russian News and Information Agency)
2006 - Short-Term Ocean Cooling Suggests Global Warming 'Speed Bump' (Science Daily)
2006 - The Coldest Year In The Last Five Years (The Reference Frame)
2007 - Is 'global cooling' the real threat? (The Washington Times)
2007 - Year of Global Cooling (The Washington Times)
2007 - Coolest Winter Since 2001 For U.S., Globe, According To NOAA Data (Science Daily)
2008 - Solar Activity Diminishes; Researchers Predict Another Ice Age (DailyTech)
2008 - Forget global warming: Welcome to the new Ice Age (National Post, Canada)
2008 - Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling (DailyTech)
2008 - The Oceans Have Stopped Warming! (Canada Free Press)
2008 - Global temperatures 'to decrease' (BBC)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Giles, you are a
April 15, 2008 - 09:08 ET by NL207Giles, you are a hoot!
your references:
1. Climate Realists agreee that it has gotten warmer over the last century. They differ with the alarmists over the extent of human contribution and the net potential of future increases in CO2 to contribute to global warming. The empirical science supports this view. The models support the alarmists. My money is on the empirical science, and hence, the realists.
2. Again you reference the same GISS dasta as you did in an earlier post. The reference is Dr. James E. Hansen and his disciples at NASA. In your previous post you included a reference showing that NASA/GISS is the only track of 4 plotted that shows temperatures over the last decade have remained within the envelope of the IPCC predictions. The rest all say IPCC is in error. This implies the models used by both Hansen and the IPCC are in error. It also suggests the most recent data being published by GISS is discrepant from everyone else including the respected Hadley Center in the UK. Why do you suppose this is?
3. Since when is President Bush a scientist? You don't agree with him about anything else and have generally regarded him as a dolt in the rare posts where you've mentioned him in the past.
The Climate Alarmists are beginning to lose the Scientific debate and in some very significant ways. I think their errors are blatantly obvious. Everytime I try to discuss these problems in an intelligent way with kool-aid drinkers like you, all I get are a flurry of links back to NASA/GISS, Columbia University, realclimate.org and Dr. J. E. Hansen. These are all the same few people, Hansen and his team at NASA ..... and they are wrong.
I will even tell you how they are wrong: (1) They have ignored the role that water vapor transport in the atmosphere plays in heat transfer. This is called convection, a heat transfer mechanism that is orders of magnitude more efficient than radiation. (2) They have failed to correctly account for the role of clouds in controlling albedo. (3) They initially and incorrectly ignored variability in solar output, an error they have since addressed, but I believe inadequately.
The alarmists postulated that the Beer-Lambert law did not apply because of 'positive feedbacks' and built this into their models. The latest satellite data say they goofed, agreeing with what the empirical paleoclimate data says.
My money says you will debate none of this because you lack the critical thinking skills to do so, and simply publish another flurry of links to those erroneous scientists at realclimate.org.
NL207 "Dr.
April 15, 2008 - 09:36 ET by contraryNL207
"Dr. Winterbourne" aside, your post is very interesting, and motivates me to explore this topic more. However, I am baffled by the political machine that is Global Warming that dictates many discussions, much to the detriment of finding the answers to these very important questions.
Thanks for your contributions.
"Republicans always get a huge pass on the racist issue. Huck is just another example. Provided they don't start up with the N word, they seem able to pander directly to the racist vote."
-- Chuck Davis, intellectual heavyweight, bigot
you are right, the science is lost in the politics
April 15, 2008 - 11:43 ET by Giles WinterbourneCommon Arguments from Fossil-Fuel Industry Organizations
and Skeptic/Denier Sites Used To Deceive The Public About Climate
Change - Debunked.
copied with permission
Same old Giles. Same old
April 15, 2008 - 11:51 ET by Jack BauerSame old Giles. Same old shite.
How's your crappy "book" coming along Giles?
The hockey stick has been effectively proven to be a huge fraud, meant for the guillable and witless. So of course you keep posting it.
You keep posting links to the same old Warm Earthers and same old Climate Hoaxers. What a boring klown.
Carbon Fiber HS
April 16, 2008 - 10:17 ET by Giles WinterbourneMight want to note that 4th IPCC report not only continues to use the Mann, et al study, but overlays it with several other studies using additional data and other methods of processing. It isn't 'the Hockey Stick' so much as a whole bunch of tested and retested hockey sticks. Perhaps you could take one and go test it on the ice - see if you can break one.
Also, focusing on 'the HS debate' worked slightly as a delayer/denier ploy as there was so much press about early questions. However, there has been another whole level of scrutiny and a level of repeated studies vindicating the accuracy of the original Mann, et al study. That is one reason 'the HS', as an argument in the delayer/denier lexicon, has lost favor.
"As is typical of the scientific process, independent teams of researchers have worked to reproduce the results of the "hockey stick" by using their own approaches and even by using slightly different data. These studies sometimes produce slightly higher temperature fluctuations in the past compared with the initial study. But despite their differences, they still yield the same essential conclusion: the past 10- to 20-year period was likely the warmest of the past millennium."
Focusing on the HS debate actually weakens the delayer/denier argument. Attempting to disprove AGW with discrediting the science behind one small group of studies belies the fact that there are ~500 pages of references to studies over a wide range of topics involving climate change. The denier/delayer proponents don't have a similar body of evidence to show proof of cause.
It's nice to know the IPCC
April 16, 2008 - 10:54 ET by dscottIt's nice to know the IPCC is consistent with it's belief system, by continuing to use the flawed Mann graphic they demonstrate that science has nothing to do with AGW. Sorry GW, but when the Medieval Optimum (M.O.)and Little Ice Age is (L.I.A.)not shown in proper proportion on the Mann graphic which encompasses their time period, this demonstrates blind faith not science.
The ocean level was 18 inches higher during the M.O. than today, so clearly today's temperatures are not as warm as the M.O. The ocean level was approx 18 inches lower during the L.I.A., so clearly that time period was significantly colder than today. The Mann hockey stick defies reason and to believe in it requires blind faith.
Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008 Long Live the Empire! Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.
Giles Winterbourne DO NOT "PM " ME EVER, AGAIN !
April 16, 2008 - 10:45 ET by upcountrywaterYour sniveling condecending oratory, is borish rude and ARROGANT.
Your sites are blathering opinions from smear mongers.
ZERO science none zip nadda.
Let me know when it's 115 F in Omaha, any time THIS year, other than that, troll else where.
<gaia/love>SAVVVE The Whales N' Earth; conserve N' recycle !
IranianUranium<sleep>New/Infrastructure/repair?/ROFLMAO
The Hockey Stick has been thoroughly discredited
April 16, 2008 - 15:49 ET by PopularTechGiles please stop defending the worthless Hockeystick graph. Your desperation and obvious computer illiteracy is really pathetic to watch as you try to defend something that is indefensible.
What is the ‘Hockey Stick’ Debate About? (PDF) (Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Environmental Economist)
Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years
(Climate Research, Vol. 23, 89–110, January 2003)
- Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas
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, November 2003)
- 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
Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, February 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
"Their method, when tested on persistent red noise, nearly always produces a hockey stick shape..."
- Reply to comment by Huybers on "Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance"
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, October 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, October 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data
(Nature 433, 613-617, February 2005)
- Anders Moberg, Dmitry M. Sonechkin, Karin Holmgren, Nina M. Datsenko and Wibjörn Karlén
Comment on "The Spatial Extent of 20th-Century Warmth in the Context of the Past 1200 Years"
(Science, Vol. 316. no. 5833, p. 1844, June 2007)
- Gerd Bürger
A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1049-1058, December 2007)
- C. Loehle
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Some simple questions for
April 15, 2008 - 12:45 ET by NL207Some simple questions for enquiring minds:
1. Which of your reference says the observed global mean temperature since 1995 has tracked near or above the mean predictions published by the IPCC?
2. Which of your references shows that recent perturbatons in the global climate which might be in part attributable to human activity are significant in comparison to the climate variations observed in the geologic record of the past 1,000,000 years?
3. Which of your references shows that the current mean near surface temmperature of this planet is outside the range of variation seen the previous 7 intergalcial warm periods, and if so, by how much?
4. Which of your references shows the present mean near surface temperature is outside the range already demonstrated by the present interglacial warm period.
Giles you forgot the Truth...
April 15, 2008 - 12:24 ET by PopularTechThe Case for Skepticism on Global Warming (Michael Crichton, A.B. Anthropology, M.D. Harvard)
Climate chaos? Don't believe it (Christopher Monckton, The Daily Telegraph, UK)
Climate of Fear (Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT)
CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time (PDF) (Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D. Ph.D. D.Sc.)
Global Warming Myths (Friends of Science)
If "global warming" is real, what could be causing it? (Junk Science)
(AGW): Some pro and con comments (John K. Sutherland, Ph.D. Geology, University of Manchester)
The Global Warming Myth? (John Stossel, 20/20)
The Global Warming Folly (Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.O., D.Sc.)
The Great Global Warming Hoax? (James A. Peden, B.S. Physics and Mathematics, M.S. Experimental Physics)
The Myth of Dangerous Human Caused Climate Change (Robert (Bob) M. Carter, B.Sc. Geology, Ph.D. Paleontology)
Top 10 'Global-Warming' Myths (Human Events)
Wrong Problem, Wrong Solution (Christopher Monckton, The Daily Telegraph, UK)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Some other resources
April 15, 2008 - 14:38 ET by Giles WinterbourneNope, not forgotten; just keep them in their appropriate place.
Some other resources - and resources for resources -
of Global Environmental Change
Yes Giles Plenty of Resources...
April 15, 2008 - 15:08 ET by PopularTechGiles there are plenty of Resources...
Climate Audit (Stephen McIntyre, B.Sc. Mathematics, Canada)
Environmental Capital (The Wall Street Journal)
ICECAP (International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, USA)
Junk Science (Steve Milloy, B.A. Natural Sciences, M.S. Health Sciences, USA)
The Reference Frame (Luboš Motl, Ph.D. Theoretical Physicist, Czech Republic)
Watts Up With That? (Anthony Watts, Meteorologist, USA)
- SurfaceStations.org
World Climate Report (Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology, USA)
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)
Greenie Watch (John J. Ray, Ph.D. Psychology, Mensa Member, Australia)
Johnston's Archive - Environmental Topics (Wm. Robert Johnston, B.A. Astronomy, M.S. Physics, USA)
Number Watch (John Brignell, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus Electronics & Computer Science, UK)
Prometheus - The Science Policy Blog (Roger A. Pielke (Jr.), Ph.D. Political Science, USA)
Ross McKitrick (Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Economics, Canada)
Science & Environmental Policy Project (S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Physics, USA)
ScienceBits (Nir J. Shaviv, Ph.D. Astrophysicist, Israel)
Science is Broken (Gary Novak, M.S. Microbiology, USA)
The Global Warming Challenge (J. Scott Armstrong, B.A. Applied Science, B.S. Industrial Engineering, Ph.D. MIT, USA)
The Politics and Environment Blog (Jennifer Marohasy, Ph.D. Biology, Australia)
William M. Briggs (William M. Briggs, B.S. Meteorology and Math, M.S. Atmospheric Science, Ph.D. Statistics, USA)
Climate Change Fraud (USA)
Climate Skeptic (USA)
CO2 Science (Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, USA)
EnvironmentNC (John Locke Foundation, USA)
Facts on Energy (Institute for Energy Research, USA)
Friends of Science (Canada)
Global Warming.org (The Cooler Heads Coalition, USA)
Global Warming and the Climate (Norway)
Global Warming Debunking News and Views (Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, USA)
- Global Warming Petition Project
Global Warming Heartland (The Heartland Institute, USA)
Global Warming Hyperbole (USA)
Global Warming Hysteria (UK)
Global Warming Information Center (National Center for Public Policy Research, USA)
Global Warming Skeptics (USA)
Models, Methods, Software
Not by Fire but by Ice (USA)
PERC - Property and Environment Research Center (USA)
Planet Gore (National Review Online, USA)
Ponder the Maunder (USA)
US Senate Environment & Public Works Committee (USA)
Science & Public Policy Institute (USA)
Spiked - Environment (UK)
Still Waiting for Greenhouse (Australia)
TCS Daily - Energy and Environment (USA)
TCS Daily - Science Roundtable (USA)
The Association of British Drivers - Environment (UK)
- Global Warming Links
The Global Warming Hoax (USA)
The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (New Zealand)
Warwick Hughes - Free Lance Science Research (Australia)
- Errors in IPCC Climate Science Blog
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
You didn't really address
April 15, 2008 - 23:31 ET by contraryYou didn't really address the very poignant questions NL207 asked. The couple of links I looked at on your list showed what appeared to be upward trends in temperature, but I do not have a frame of reference. The link to "how to talk to global warming skeltics" is an excellent example of the rhetoric that does not belong in this debate. Thank you for showing us that.
"Republicans always get a huge pass on the racist issue. Huck is just another example. Provided they don't start up with the N word, they seem able to pander directly to the racist vote."
-- Chuck Davis, intellectual heavyweight, bigot
One would think that the
April 17, 2008 - 12:09 ET by NL207One would think that the fact the predictions and models made by these climate alarmists have been consistently incorrect would be sufficient to be invalidate their arguments.
If the above weren't enough, the facts remain that even if man can be blamed for 100% of the recent climate changes, which science has already demonstrated he cannot, the present temperature of the earth is not outside the range of recent normal, variation. The implication of this statement should be obvious: Despite everything man has done to date, he has had no significant effect on the climate.
The Coup de Grace comes in the most recent data. The ultimate basis of the Alarmist case rests on the notion there are net positive feedback mechanisms in the greenhouse equation. The latest data from NASA's AQUA satellite suggest the net feedback caused by increasing CO2 concentration is near zero or actually negative. This implies that CO2 has no other net components than itself and by itself, obeys the Beer-Lambert Law. Beer's law applied to the exponential atmosphere yields a functional form k1(1-k2*e**-f(CO2)). This function says that as CO2 increases, the effects of each incremental increase on radiative absorption decreases exponentially. In laymen's terms, this means if increasing CO2 by 105 ppm caused about 0.45 degree K warming, the amount of the last cernturies' warming thought to be CO2 related, then the next increment of 105 ppm might produce on the order of 0.225 K warming. IT ISN"T A PROBLEM!, at least not a warming problem.
Isn't it also correct that
April 17, 2008 - 13:46 ET by dscottIsn't it also correct that just as there is radiational heating, there is also radiational cooling as with any true greenhouse effect? So let's say for the sake of argument CO2 does absorb more energy, at night time it must follow the same physical laws and radiate out MORE energy because it is at a higher energy state.
I raise this since in a greenhouse while it's true that the temperature inside will rise above ambient due to lack of convection (closed space), at night time the greenhouse will drop BELOW ambient due to radiation from lack of convection due to black body radiation. The negative feedback exists on a daily basis.
Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008 Long Live the Empire! Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.
It is actually a misnomer
April 18, 2008 - 19:29 ET by NL207It is actually a misnomer to refer to what CO2 and much more importantly, H2O, do to block radiative cooling of the earth.
There are only three heat transfer mechanisms in nature: Convection, Conduction and radiation. Convection transports heat by transporting matter containing heat. Conduction operates by transfering heat energy from matter to other matter that comes into contact with it. Radiation transports heat by matter releasing heat energy in the form of electromagnetic waves.
In terms of energy transport capability, the most efficient is Convectin by orders of magnitude. The next is Conduction, and finally, Radiation.
A greenhouse does a little of all three. It blocks heat loss by enclosing an air mass [convection]. Its panes are made from a material which is an inferior conductor, glass. And last, light enters a greenhouse as visible wavelengths, but glass reflects much of the IR band rasdiated by objects within the greenhouse.
The earth's atmosphere does not enclose the air near the surface, so convection is still operating. The earths atmosphere is in contact with its surface, allowing air molecules to exchange heat with the surface (conduction). The earth's atmosphere contains traces of gases that will absorb parts of the IR band while passing visible light. And we call this part the "greenhouse effect".
As I have mentioned before, the Climate Alarmnist community has ignored or downplayed the importance of precipitation and clouds in the global warming equation, preferring to argue that the weakest of the three heat transfer mechanisms trumps the strongest. I think this foolish. As a prominent meteorologist once told me some years ago, we do not even know how much precipitation falls on earth every year or where. How can we know what effect precipitation has on global temperatures? Vertical transport of evaporated water through the troposphere into the stratosphere where it condenses or even freezes releasing its stored heat has an enormous potential to move heat energy from the surface to a point where the effects of greenhouse gases are greatly reduced by reduced atmospheric density. How the AGW hacks can simply ignore this mystifies me.
work on a science site?
April 20, 2008 - 16:25 ET by Giles WinterbourneSo, how does that explanation work on a science site?
Hey Noel, I don't know if
April 15, 2008 - 01:24 ET by bigtimerHey Noel, I don't know if it was this blog or another you put on here somewhere, but you sure got mentioned on Rush today...I got to hear enough from Rush where I was situated at the time where I heard him say from NewsBusters Noel Sheppard and the boys or crew and such....it tickled me...
I'll have to catch up in the morning ...
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
Can anyboy say "AstroTurf"?
April 15, 2008 - 12:23 ET by BlindSightGreat coup, Noel!
I'm so impressed, especially since you've got a "fellow" "Nobel Prize-Winning Peacekeeper" in the group - Svend Erik Hendriksen who gets your main mention!
But can you tell us a little bit more about Sven? Does he have any special expertise in paleoclimate matters, or even in the relationship between modern CO2 emissions and climate - other than his, experience as a soldier, his training in art, or his work for the Danish government as a "weather observer"?
Is this the same Sven:
- who modestly (and accurately) described himself last August as just "an ordinary man, weather observer at the Danish Meteorological Institute, DMI. No one would listen to what I have to say about global climate change."? http://www.canadafre...
- who purports no expertise when he hangs out at climate readerboards like at Climate Audit, asking questions like this?
- who has an expertise in "Hidden Miniatures and Faces
in Renaissance and Impressionist Paintings", and engages in similar "art research" by looking for hidden messages in the work of his fellow Nobel Laureate, Al Gore? http://www.artist-pe...
http://www.wetcanvas...
- and who, as a "Prize winner," was one of the "half a million young men and women from fifty-eight countries" who did unarmed or lightly armed volunteer duty for the UN Peacekeeping Forces? http://nobelprize.or...
Wow - very impressive stuff! I sure hope you're wrong, and that the media gives this Prize winner the full and rapt attention he deserves!
Of course, Sven shouldn't be the only one in the limelight - he should share some of the glory with his co-signers - a Mensa chemist with a sophisticated personal webpage on climate hysteria, a "human ecologist" who is an expert on the human settlement of Australia, and an independent, maverick weatherman who refuses to take bets on the climate? http://www.ilovemyca... http://julesandjames....
All of these are people whose voices are just crying out to be heard on climate science. I'm glad they're standing up to all of the hysterical climate scientists who actually study the climate and whose work is summariezed in the IPCC reports - and I'm so grateful for you, Noel, and others like you who in the face of an oppressive MSM (and political, scientific, business, investor, economist and religious communities) are working so hard to get the truth out in front of us.
Sincerely,
B.S.
Pres. Bush: Our guiding principle is clear. We must lead the world to produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions and we must do it in a way that does not undermine economic growth or prevent nations from delivering greater prosperity for their people.
Thousands of Skeptical Scientists
April 15, 2008 - 12:33 ET by PopularTechThe IPCC is a minority of scientists as there are actually thousands of skeptical scientists...
NO 'Consensus' on "Man-Made" Global Warming (Popular Technology)
19,000 Scientists declare that "man-made" global warming is a lie with no scientific basis whatsoever (OISM)
- Art Robinson Responds to Petition Slander (OISM)
4000 Scientists sign 'The Heidelberg Appeal' (Science & Environmental Policy Project)
500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares (The Heartland Institute)
400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007 (US Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works)
170 Scientists, Economists and Theologians sign An Open Letter to the Signers of 'Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action' (Cownwall Alliance)
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)
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)
A. Alan Moghissi, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry, Technical University of Karlsruhe, Germany
Aksel Wiin-Nielsen, Professor of Geophysical Science, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Albrecht Glatzle, Ph.D. Agricultural Biology, University of Hohenheim, Germany
Alfred (Al) 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
Benjamin D. Pearson, B.S. Physics, University of Rochester, 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, M.Sc., Ph.D. Geology, Helsinki University, Finland
Brian Pratt, Ph.D. Professor of Geology, Sedimentology, University of Saskatchewan, Canada
Bruce N. Ames, Ph.D. BioChemistry, California Institute of Technology, USA
Bruno Wiskel, B.Sc. Geology, University of Albert, Canada
Bryan Leyland, M.Sc. Electrical and Mechanical Engineering, New Zealand
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. Professor of Applied Mathematics, University of Western Ontario, Canada
Christopher Landsea, Ph.D. Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, USA
Claude Allegre, Ph.D. Physics, University of Paris, France
Cliff Ollier, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Geology, University of Western Australia, Australia
Clinton H. Sheehan, Ph.D. Physics, University of Western Ontario, Canada
Craig D. Idso, M.S. Agronomy, Ph.D. Geography, Arizona State University, USA
Craig Loehle, Ph.D. Mathematical Ecology, Colorado State University, USA
Dan Carruthers, M.Sc. Wildlife Biology Consultant, Specializing in Animal Ecology in Arctic and Subarctic Regions, Canada
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 Kear, Ph.D. Geology, New Zealand
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
Dick Thoenes, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Chemical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands
Don J. Easterbrook, Ph.D. Geology, University of Washington, USA
Donald G. Baker, Ph.D. Soils, Geology, University of Minnesota, USA
Donn Dears, B.S. Engineering, U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, 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
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, Ph.D. Geology, New Zealand
Glen E. Shaw, Atmospheric Scientist, Professor of Physics, University of Alaska, USA
Gordon E. Swaters, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics and Physical Oceanography, University of British Columbia, Canada
Gordon J. Fulks, Ph.D. Physics, University of Chicago, USA
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
H. Michael (Mike) Mogil, M.S. Meteorology, Florida State University, 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
Hartwig Volz, Geophysicist, RWE Research Lab, Germany
Hendrik Tennekes, Former Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, The Netherlands
Henrik Svensmark, Director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research, 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, Ph.D. Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Canada
Ian R. Plimer, Ph.D. Professor of 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 A. Peden, B.S. Physics and Mathematics, M.S. Experimental Physics, University of Pittsburgh, USA
James (Jim) Goodridge, Retired California State Climatologist, USA
James J. O’Brien, Ph.D. Meteorology, Texas A&M University, USA
James R. Stalker, Ph.D. Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama, USA
Ján Veizer, Professor Emeritus of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Canada
Jay H. Lehr, Ph.D. Groundwater Hydrology, University of Arizona, USA
Jens Olaf Pepke Pedersen, Senior Scientist, Center for Sun-Climate Research, Danish National Space Center, Denmark
Jennifer Marohasy, Ph.D. Biology, University of Queensland, Australia
Joel M. Kauffman, Ph.D. Organic Chemistry, MIT, USA
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 E. Oliphant, B.A. Mathematics and Physics, M.S. Meteorology Penn State, USA
John K. Sutherland, Ph.D. Geology, University of Manchester, UK
John R. Christy, B.A. Mathematics, M.S., 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, 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
Lee Raymond, Ph.D. Chemical Engineering, University of Minnesota, USA
Len Walker, Ph.D. Soil Mechanics, Cambridge University, Australia
Louis Hissink, M.Sc. Geology, Macquarie University, Australia
Luboš Motl, Ph.D. Theoretical Physics, Rutgers, USA
Madhav Khandekar, B.Sc. Mathematics and Physics, M.Sc. Statistics, Ph.D.
Martin Livermore, B.S. Chemistry, University of Oxford, UK
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 E Adams, Ph.D. Meteorology, Lyndon State College, USA
Michael J. Economides, Ph.D. Professor of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, University of Houston, USA
Michael J. Oard, B.S., M.S. Atmospheric Science, University of Washington, 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
Nathan Paldor, Ph.D. Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography, Hebrew University, Israel
Noah E. Robinson, Ph.D. Chemistry, California Institute of Technology, USA
Neil Frank, Ph.D. Meteorology, Florida State University, USA
Nigel Marsh, Senior Scientist, Center for Sun-Climate Research, Danish National Space Center, Denmark
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. Atmospheric Physics, Leningrad Hydrometeorological Institute, 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, Greenpeace co-founder, 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 of Biogeography, University of London, UK
Piers Corbyn, B.Sc. Physics, M.Sc. Astrophysics, Queen Mary College, UK
R.G. Roper, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, USA
R. Timothy (Tim) Patterson, B.Sc. Biology, 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
Raphael A.J. Wust, M.Sc., Ph.D. Lecturer, School of Earth Sciences, James Cook University, Australia
Ralf D. Tscheuschner, Ph.D. Physics, University of Hamburg, Germany
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
Rob Scagel, M.Sc., Forest Microclimate Specialist, Canada
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 G. Williscroft, B.Sc. Marine & Atmospheric Physics, M.Sc., Ph.D. Engineering, California Coast University, 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
Robin Vaughan, Ph.D. Physics, Nottingham University, UK
Roger A. Pielke (Sr.), Ph.D. Meteorology, Penn State, USA
Roger Bate, M.Sc. Environmental and Resource Management, Ph.D. Economics, University of Cambridge, UK
Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin, USA
S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Physics, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, 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
Stewart W. Franks, Ph.D. Environmental Science, Lancaster University, U.K.
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
Ulrich Berner, Geologist, Federal Institute for Geosciences, Germany
Vern Harnapp, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Geography, University of Akron, USA
Vincent Gray, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry, Cambridge University, UK
Vitaliy Rusov, Ph.D. Physics and Mathematics, Professor of Physics, Odessa Polytechnic University, Ukraine
Yuri A. Izrael, D.Sc. Physics and Mathematics, Vice Chairman, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Russia
W. Dennis Clark, Ph.D. Botany, Sacramento State College, USA
Walter Starck, Ph.D. Marine Science, University of Miami, USA
Warwick Hughes, B.S. Geology, Auckland University, Australia
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
Willem de Lange, Ph.D. Senior Lecturer, Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Waikato University, New Zealand
William B. Hubbard, Ph.D. Professor of Planetary Atmospheres, University of Arizona, USA
William (Bill) Bauman, B.S., Meteorology, M.S., Ph.D. Atmospheric Sciences, North Carolina State University, USA
William Cotton, M.S. Atmospheric Science, Ph.D. Meteorology, Pennsylvania State University, USA
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 M. Briggs, B.S. Meteorology and Math, M.S. Atmospheric Science, Ph.D. Statistics, Cornell University, USA
William (Bill) M. Gray, M.S. Meteorology, Ph.D. Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, USA
Willie Soon, Ph.D. Astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, USA
Wolfgang Thüne, Ph.D. Geography, University of Wuerzburg, Germany
Zachary W. Robinson, B.S. Chemistry, Oregon State University, USA
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
Arthur T. Safford III, Retired Meteorologist USAF, 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
Jeff Halblaub, B.S. Atmospheric Science, Ohio State University, Meteorologist, USA
Jerry Lettre, Senior Meteorologist, WSI, USA
Jim Clarke, B.S. Meteorology, St. Louis University, Meteorologist WZVN-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
Joseph E. Luisi, Former Chief Meteorologist Delta Airlines, 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
Keith Eichner, Meteorologist WIVB-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
Paul Cousins, B.S. Meteorology and Geophysics, AMS and NWA Certified, Founder AtmosForecast, USA
Peter McGurk, Senior Meteorologist, WSI, USA
Randy Baker, B.S. Atmospheric Science, University of Kansas, Senior Meteorologist UPS Airlines, 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
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, B.Sc., M.Sc., Retired Head of the Australian National Climate Centre, 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
Alan Moran, Ph.D. Economics, Director of the IPA's Deregulation Unit, Australia
Alex Robson, Ph.D. Economics, University of California, Irvine, USA
Alister McFarquhar, Ph.D. Economics, Downing College, UK
Andrei 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 K. Benjamin, Ph.D. Economics, University of California at Los Angeles, USA
Daniel R. Simmons, B.A. Economics, Utah State University, USA
Dennis T. Avery, M.S. Agricultural Economics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA
Don Aitkin, Ph.D. Political Science, Australian National University, Australia
Frank Milne, Ph.D. Professor of Economics, Queen's University, Canada
James Inhofe, B.A. Economics, University of Tulsa, USA
Jerry Taylor, B.A. Political Science, University of Iowa, USA
John J. Ray, Ph.D. Psychology, Macquarie University, Mensa, Sydney, Australia
Julian Morris M.A. Economics, M.Sc. Environment and Resource Economics, M.Phil. Land Economics, Cambridge University, UK
Kendra Okonski, B.A. Economics, Hillsdale College, USA
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
Nigel Lawson, Baron Lawson of Blaby, B.A. Economics, University of Oxford, UK
Randy T. Simmons, Ph.D. Political Science, University of Oregon, USA
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
Roy E. Cordato, M.A. Ph.D. Economics, George Mason University, USA
Stephan Wilksch, Dr-Ing Professor of Economic Science, University of Technolgy and Economics Berlin, Germany
Thomas A. Birkland, Ph.D. Political Science, University of Washington, USA
Thomas Gale Moore, M.A., Ph.D. Economics, University of Chicago, USA
Vaclav Klaus, app. Ph.D. Economics, University of Economics, Prague, Czech Republic
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)
Frederick Seitz, Ph.D. Physics, Princeton University, USA (Died: March 2, 2008)
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 L. Daly, B.Sc.Econ Economics, Aberystwyth University, UK (Died: January 29, 2004)
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)
Robert Jastrow, Ph.D. Theoretical Physics, Columbia University, USA (Died: February 8, 2008)
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)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Make sure to add the Nobel prize winner
April 17, 2008 - 00:43 ET by BlindSightand the two others to your list, PT.
Even if the "Nobel Prize-Winner" is just an artist and a weather observer, since Noel, Marc Morano and others obviously think he's very credible on scientific matters, surely he deserves a prominent mention by you as well. Right?
Pres. Bush: Our guiding principle is clear. We must lead the world to produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions and we must do it in a way that does not undermine economic growth or prevent nations from delivering greater prosperity for their people.
Real Scientists
April 17, 2008 - 02:36 ET by PopularTechI will add any skeptical scientist with scientific qualifications. Piers Corbin was already listed
Piers Corbyn, B.Sc. Physics, M.Sc. Astrophysics, Queen Mary College, UK
Don Parkes, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Geography, University of Newcastle, Australia
Hans Schreuder, Analytical Chemist, UK
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Art historians are "Social Scientists", plus he's
April 17, 2008 - 06:16 ET by BlindSighta weather observer AND a "Nobel Prize-winner". And he comments on Climate Audit! What more do ya want?
You mean you're not gonna add Hendriksen? Despite the fact that Noel leads with him (instead of Corbyn the meteorogist, prominent, Parkes the human ecologist or Schreuder, the Mentat)?
Are you suggesting Hendriksen's views aren't important enough for him to be added to YOUR list?
If I were Noel, I'd be very offended. But I suppose Noel can stand up for himself.
Pres. Bush: Our guiding principle is clear. We must lead the world to produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions and we must do it in a way that does not undermine economic growth or prevent nations from delivering greater prosperity for their people.
If we fully implement our new strong laws, adhere to the principles that I've outlined, and adopt appropriate incentives, we will put America on an ambitious new track for greenhouse gas reductions.
Art is definitely not a Social Science
April 17, 2008 - 20:44 ET by PopularTechIt is not clear if Historians are. I need to find out more about Hendriksen but since you obviously did not get it, anyone who received the Nobel Prize is as qualified as Gore to talk about Climatology by the "Gore standard".
Noel is not offended at all, actually he is probably amused you don't get the obvious.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
"AstroTurf". That wasn't
April 15, 2008 - 12:33 ET by Karma"AstroTurf".
That wasn't so hard.
Next question please.
Climate Science-by-Letter is Not Science
April 16, 2008 - 12:28 ET by Giles WinterbourneClimate Science-by-Letter is Not Science
"First of all, we have the usual denier modus operandi known as "science by letter or petition" versus "science by peer review." The individuals who signed the letter did not present a peer-reviewed scientific study for consideration; it's more of a pub conversation over a few web links than "science".
Secondly - and most importantly - it is becoming patently clear that Mr. Sheppard cannot use Google. Let's take a trip on the "Internets" and see exactly who the letter's signatories are."
Giles
April 16, 2008 - 12:37 ET by Noel SheppardGiles,
When you cut-and-paste from another website, it is appropriate to inform readers where you got the information from.
For those interested, before you bother clicking on any of the embedded links, be advised that this nonsense was copied -- without attribution, no less!!! -- from DeSmogBlog, whose main authors are regularly discredited at AGW websites around the Internet.
In fact, this site and its contributors provide a constant source of laughter for scientists across the globe.
As such, Giles, thanks for the giggle on a Wednesday. Keep up the good work!!! :-) ns
I use the status bar to
April 16, 2008 - 14:28 ET by Giles WinterbourneI use the status bar to make sure of linkage, so sorry if the first link wasn't obvious.
"...DeSmogBlog, whose main authors are regularly discredited at AGW websites..." - with no examples? And perhaps you meant GW skeptic's websites?
Ross Gelbspan - "In
1995, he co-authored an article on climate change and the spread of
infectious disease which appeared in the Outlook Section of The Washington Post. His first major article on climate change, which appeared on the cover of the December, 1995 issue of Harper's Magazine, was a finalist for a National Magazine Award." The Heat is On "...received very positive reviews in the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, the science journal, Nature and elsewhere. It was excerpted in The Washington Post, the San Jose Mercury and other outlets. bio @ The Heat is OnLine
Bill Mckibben - "I don't have much patience for the argument that no one should tell me
what to do ever. In a democracy we work on figuring out what kind of
society we want to build." interview @ Salon Bib @ NYTRB
"Among other accolades, in 2005 Chris was named one of Wired magazine's ten "sexiest geeks." In addition, The Republican War on Science was named a finalist for the 2005 Los Angeles Times book prize in the category of "Science and Technology," and Chris's 2005 Mother Jones feature story about ExxonMobil, conservative think tanks, and climate change was nominated for a National Magazine Award in the "public interest" category (as part of a cover package on global warming)." bio @ The Intersection
Giles
April 16, 2008 - 15:01 ET by Noel SheppardGiles,
How the heck would it have been obvious that the first link went to DSB when you never once cited the source of the quote?
What a joke!
Just do us all a favor in the future and properly attribute what you're cutting-and-pasting from so that we needn't bother reading it or wasting time clicking on links that lead to such disreputable websites. Thank you. ns
Noel on the bright side...
April 16, 2008 - 15:38 ET by PopularTechOn the bright side they now consider you a serious threat since they have labeled you are "serial denier". The reason was you totally destroyed and exposed them in the BBC piece.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
PT
April 16, 2008 - 16:07 ET by Noel SheppardPT,
Yeah. Now I'm a serial denier. Amazing, isn't it? The science and the facts are all on OUR side, and these whackos call US deniers.
You'll get a kick out of this: when I was in DC last week, I met with some of the REAL scientist "deniers" I frequently write about and am in regular contact with. DeSmogBlog came up, and these folks couldn't stop laughing.
Of course, as these were all Ph.D.s, I'm sure the DSBers would discredit everything they said. :-) ns
It is all they can do
April 16, 2008 - 18:29 ET by PopularTechThey have to spread propaganda since it is all they can do to keep the public from actually looking at the science. Once people are informed the hysteria goes away and that is bad for their business and their cause.
The scientists speaking out against the hysteria simply want a rational scientific approach to the issue, their credentials are being attacked by these smear sites because the people runnig those sites are deathly afraid that what they are saying may be taken seriously as it should. The more people are aware of all the real scientists standing up to the alarmism the more others will come out to support them.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
But letters from "Nobel Prize recipients" IS science, Giles
April 17, 2008 - 01:34 ET by BlindSightJust because the guy is just a weather observer who dabbles in art history doesn't mean he doesn't know science, and the fact that he was just one of half a million UN peace keepers recognized by the Nobel committee doesn't mean he deserves any less recognition than his "fellow" winner, the Goreacle.
So stop posting nonsense, Giles. Noel was absolutely right to give this important letter by clear scientific experts such prominent mention - and to expect that the snivelling bootlickers in the MSM will ignore it.
Please ignore this disgraceful statement by our President:
Pres. Bush Our guiding principle is clear. We must lead the world to produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions and we must do it in a way that does not undermine economic growth or prevent nations from delivering greater prosperity for their people.
Pretend they are not Scientists...
April 17, 2008 - 02:44 ET by PopularTechPiers Corbyn, B.Sc. Physics, M.Sc. Astrophysics, Queen Mary College, UK
Don Parkes, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Geography, University of Newcastle, Australia
Hans Schreuder, Analytical Chemist, UK
Blindsight you are at the wrong place if you think Bush's opinion on scientific matters means anything. To highlight....
"...and we must do it in a way that does not undermine economic
growth or prevent nations from delivering greater prosperity for their
people."
That means do nothing but invest in technology! Definitely not ratify Kyoto, introduce Cap and Trade or Carbon Taxes. Looks like you lose again.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Have I disagreed with you?
April 17, 2008 - 05:54 ET by BlindSightI think I just also said it's "science" whenever an art historian signs a letter, especially if he's also one of a half-million other "Nobel Prizewinners".
I also agree with you that the views of a "human ecology" expert on climate science are extremely important and deserve prominent mention by the media.
In fact, I thanked Noel for bring this very important information to the attention of NB readers, because it helps to improve our understanding and the bad MSM ideologically - not to mention the scientific journals - suppresses "inconvenient" views like this.
I also rather clearly implied that Bush is wrong.
So why are arguing you with me?
What we really need to do is to attack the bunk that Pres. Bush is now spewing:
Pres. Bush:
I hope you're with me in urging Noel to bravely take on not just the IPCC and MSM, but also Pres. Bush, who right now seems to present a larger threat. Maybe Noel can start by forwarding this important letter - signed by important scientists and a Nobel Prize-winner/art historian! - to Pres. Bush?
Larger threat?
April 17, 2008 - 08:08 ET by KarmaBlindSight,
I am not a fan of his and the President may be wrong in his stated beliefs about AGW but, in the context of this speech, how do you see him as a larger threat than the IPCC and MSM?
Trying to hard
April 17, 2008 - 20:56 ET by PopularTechIt is science when scientists sign a letter, yes you are correct. These are confirmed scientists:
- Piers Corbyn, B.Sc. Physics, M.Sc. Astrophysics, Queen Mary College, UK
- Don Parkes, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Geography, University of Newcastle, Australia
- Hans Schreuder, Analytical Chemist, UK
Now to get noticed they need someone who won the Nobel Prize and they got that so now they meet the "Gore standard".
YES BUSH IS WRONG TO ACKNOWLEDGE AGW IN ANY WAY
He is also wrong to keep spending like a drunkin sailor
He is also wrong to give billions to Africa or any other country for that matter that has nothing to do with our security.
But he did say...
"...and we must do it in a way that does not undermine economic growth or prevent nations from delivering greater prosperity for their people."
It is REALLY pathetic that you think Bush's position on this means anything to a real conservative. Then again confusing a partisan Republican and a true Conservative is a mistake many liberals make.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
True, but it's a mistake I haven't made.
April 17, 2008 - 21:50 ET by BlindSightAnd confusing a true conservative with a liberal is a mistake many partisan Republicans make. Go back and look at my description.
I'm just pointing to the larger threat - our own Republican party. As far as I know, Gore is not president and the IPCC doesn't tell us what to do.
What do our human ecologist and Mensa chemist know about climate science? But if this isn't about science, but about adding to lists of people who seem credentialled in order to win a political/PR contest, by all means - and for such reason, you should absolutely add Hendriksen to your list too. Hopefully no one will notice that he has no scientific credentials and wasn't awarded a Nobel prize personally like Gore, but was just one of a half-million UN peace keepers to be recognized.
Our guiding principle is clear. We must lead the world to produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions and we must do it in a way that does not undermine economic growth or prevent nations from delivering greater prosperity for their people.
Blindsight, then you have other problems
April 17, 2008 - 23:28 ET by PopularTechMany scientists in the field of Geography (human ecology) study the climate. If you cannot figure out what a chemist would know about CO2 well then there is not much help for you.
This is about science, thus the scientists but the Nobel Prize portion was a direct jab at Gore. Unfortunately today the political side is more important than the science and it takes political posturing to get any science heard. I find it ironic you call yourself a conservative then spend all this time defending Gore?
I only add scientists to my list that I have been able to confirm their credentials. I have no done this with Hendricksen - thus he is not on the list though I thought I made this clear the first time you asked the question.
You don't seem to get much of what is posted here.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
We're working to implement
April 18, 2008 - 10:02 ET by dscottWe're working to implement a new international agreement that will accelerate cuts in potent HCFC emissions.
Hello! He is talking about R22 and 134a, the major refrigerants used for air conditioning and refrigeration. You can kiss your ACs goodbye when they break down unless you go thermal electric or use amonia refrigerant. Just fabulous, not only do we have to contend with high fuel prices, now the cost of AC will rise dramatically. I vote we remove all politicians in November 2008, vote NO to every last one of them! It's time for a house cleaning of everyone who believes in AGW. Enough is enough!!!!!
Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008 Long Live the Empire! Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.
Sorry GW, but peer review
April 16, 2008 - 12:41 ET by dscottSorry GW, but peer review is not what the average person is led to believe. Peer review is nothing more than a group of consensus seekers closing the gate on any papers that do not conform to the consensus, it has little to do with seeking new knowledge or exploration of it. Peer review as practiced is nothing more than circular reasoning which as you should know is a logical fallacy. It is time for science to clean up it's act otherwise they will lose all credibility with the public.
That's why science by letters or petition has become necessary, to sidestep the committee of consensus who seek to silence all but those who agree with the dogmatic PC orthodoxy of whatever is popular at the moment. You GW, represent the establishment. The Establishment seeks to stifle change. Down with the Establishment! It's time for Change!
Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008 Long Live the Empire! Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.
been on both sides of the peer review process
April 16, 2008 - 13:39 ET by Giles WinterbourneHaving been on both sides of the peer review process, it is pretty easy to state that this view is held more by the "...52% said that peer review was an obstacle presumably because it prevents them publishing poor papers!" than by "...almost 70% of authors were "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with the current system of peer review,"(Rowland) .
"It is widely agreed that this improving function by referees is of
value in maintaining the overall quality of the scholarly literature; as many as 80% of
published papers receive some revision (Lock, 1985)." The Peer Review Process Fytton Rowland, Department of Information Science
"Our statistics confirm that collaborative peer review facilitates and enhances quality assurance." Systems: An open, two-stage peer-review journal Koop & Pöschl Nature's peer review debate Nature
'You GW, represent the establishment.' Jeeesh, last week I was being labeled a socialist -
LOL, LOL how does it feel
April 16, 2008 - 15:24 ET by dscottLOL, LOL how does it feel to be in our shoes for a change? LOL
GW, defender of the Faith, grand inquistor of AGW, arguing with the heretics trying to turn them from their apostasy by preaching orthodox dogma.
Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008 Long Live the Empire! Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.
Al Gore Debunked by Peer Review
April 16, 2008 - 15:43 ET by PopularTechGiles looks like Al Gore just got debunked by Peer Review:
An Inconvenient Truth : a focus on its portrayal of the hydrologic cycle
(GeoJournal, Volume 70, Number 1, September, 2007)
- David R. Legates
An Inconvenient Truth : blurring the lines between science and science fiction
(GeoJournal, Volume 70, Number 1, September 2007)
- Roy W. Spencer
We were already well aware of the Errors...
Al Gore's climate change film 'is propaganda' (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
UK Court finds 9 Inaccuracies in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth (The New Party, UK)
- Al Gore's 'nine Inconvenient Untruths' (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
- Al Gore told there are nine inconvenient truths in his film (The Times, UK)
- An Inconvenient Lie (WorldNetDaily)
- Gore caught lying (WorldNetDaily)
- Gore’s Nine Lies (FrontPage Magazine)
- Judge attacks nine errors in Al Gore's 'alarmist' climate change film (Daily Mail, UK)
Schools must warn of Gore climate film bias (Daily Mail, UK)
- British Schools Ordered to Offer 'Balance' When Showing Al Gore's Global Warming Film (FOXNews)
35 Inconvenient Truths (Science and Public Policy Institute)
25 Inconvenient Truths for Al Gore (The National Review Online)
23 Scientific Errors (Science and Public Policy Institute)
20 More inaccuracies (PDF) (UKPRwire)
16 Errors in Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth (Science and Public Policy Institute)
6 Inconvenient Truths Indeed (Robert C. Balling, Ph.D. Geography)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Gore's Law
April 16, 2008 - 17:19 ET by Giles Winterbourne"As an online climate change debate grows longer, the probability that denier arguments will descend into attacks on Al Gore approaches one."
"Gore's Law " [Weblog entry] Long Ago and Not True Anyway. 29 March 2008. http://laanta.blogspot.com/2008/03/gores-law.html . 16 April 2008.
Giles this is how you do an Al Gore Attack...
April 16, 2008 - 18:12 ET by PopularTechMy Law = "The more Al Gore spreads propaganda, the more he will be exposed for the liar, hyprocrite and propagandist that he is"
Al Gore only has a B.A. in Government (no science degree)
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)
- From Al to Zinc: Mine Story Shows How a Fatherly Favor Haunts Gore (The Wall Street Journal)
Al Gore's Inconvenient Stock Portfolio Exposed (PRNewswire)
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)
Gore makes sustainable investment his business (The Age, Australia)
Gore to Rake in IPO Millions (NewsMax)
Gore Warns on 'Subprime Carbon' Industry (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 (6500+ Signatures)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Since the original topic
April 16, 2008 - 19:46 ET by Giles WinterbourneSince the original topic had, at best, a tenuous connection to Al Gore, the law seems to apply twice now. Maybe a sign of GDS.
"As an online climate change debate grows longer, the probability that
denier arguments will descend into attacks on Al Gore approaches one."
"Gore's Law " [Weblog entry] Long Ago and Not True Anyway. 29 March 2008. http://laanta.blogspot.com/2008/03/gores-law.html . 16 April 2008.
More on Al Gore the Propagandist
April 16, 2008 - 19:55 ET by PopularTechYou are right Giles I forgot some more stuff on Gore:
Al Gore 'Debates' Global Warming (Video) (9min)
Scare Tactics in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth (Video) (8min)
Marlo Lewis Critiques Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" (Video) (1hr 2min)
Al Gore’s Science Fiction: A Skeptic’s Guide to An Inconvenient Truth (PDF) (Mario Lewis Jr. Ph.D. Government)
A Skeptic’s Primer on Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth (PDF) (Mario Lewis Jr. Ph.D. Government)
Some Convenient Distortions (PDF) (Mario Lewis Jr. Ph.D. Government)
Giles your useless Gore's law is really going to stop me from hammering him for creating this hysteria, not.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Maybe a sign of GDS.
April 16, 2008 - 20:45 ET by Giles WinterbourneMaybe a sign of GDS.
"As an online climate change debate grows longer, the probability that denier arguments will descend into attacks on Al Gore approaches one."
"Gore's Law " [Weblog entry] Long Ago and Not True Anyway. 29 March 2008. http://laanta.blogspot.com/2008/03/gores-law.html . 16 April 2008.
Of course, you might want to also whack on Hansen for his 1988 testimony for the US Senate committee on Energy and Natural Resources and subsequent paper, "Global Climate Changes as Forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies Three-Dimensional Model".
Hansen, J., et al. Global Climate Changes as Forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies Three-Dimensional Model Journal of Geophysical Research. August 20 1988.http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf
Maybe a sign of Al Gore's lies?
April 16, 2008 - 21:11 ET by PopularTechYes Giles I know I forgot these:
Al Gore Is a Greenhouse Gasbag (Robert Giegengack, Ph.D. Geology)
An Inconvient Truth Review (Black & White, Birmingham's City Paper)
Arctic Climate Expert: Gore's Film Is 'Science Fiction' (Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Ph.D. Founding Director International Arctic Research Center)
Climate Change Hysteria and Al Gore’s “Chicken Little” Scare Tactics (Frontiers of Freedom Institute)
CNN Meteorologist: 'Definitely Some Inaccuracies' in Gore Film (Business and Media Institute)
- CNN Meteorologist Applauds Criticism of 'Inconvenient Truth' (Video) (1min)
From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype (The New York Times)
Gore's Film Violates Oscar Academy Standards (CNSNews)
Inconvenient Truths (Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology)
Inconvenient truths (David Deming, B.S. Geology, Ph.D. Geophysics)
Questions for Al Gore (Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin)
So how did An Inconvenient Truth become required classroom viewing? (National Post, Canada)
Hansen has been thoroughly discredited:
Evaluating Jim Hansen’s 1988 Climate Forecast (Roger A. Pielke (Jr.), Ph.D. Political Science)
- Temperature Trends 1990-2007: Hansen, IPCC, Obs (Roger A. Pielke (Jr.), Ph.D. Political Science)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Only two for Dr. Hansen and
April 16, 2008 - 21:58 ET by Giles WinterbourneOnly two for Dr. Hansen and neither one peer-reviewed? That would hardly be ' thoroughly discredited'.
Giles discredits RealClimate.org in one post
April 16, 2008 - 22:24 ET by PopularTechThank you Giles as we can now discredit every "rebuttal" post on RealClimate.org because they are not Peer-Reviewed. Giles is the gift that keeps on giving.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Only Giles can link to 3 useless sites in one post
April 16, 2008 - 15:34 ET by PopularTechGiles, you are a desperate pathetic man. You can do nothing but try to smear people and link to smear sites and useless irrelevant resources like Wikipedia:
DeSmogBlog
$$$ Funded by John Lefebvre (Former President of Netseller Group)
- Who is James Hoggan? (Financial Post, Canada)
"So who is James Hoggan? He's a public relations man, based in Vancouver. His firm, James Hoggan and Associates, is positioned as a feel-good local operation with clients in all the "right" public and private sectors. He also sits on the board of the David Suzuki Foundation.
One of his side efforts is a blog operated out of Hoggan and Associates. Funded by retired Internet bubble king John Lefebvre, the blog has one full-time and three part-time staff. They spend their time tracking down and maliciously attacking all who have doubts about climate change and painting them as corporate pawns.
There has been no mention on the blog, nor on The Fifth Estate, of James Hoggan's client list. They include or have included the National Hydrogen Association, Fuel Cells Canada, hydrogen producer QuestAir, Naikun Wind Energy and Ballard Fuel Cells. Mr. Hoggan, in other words, benefits from regulatory policy based on climate change science.
But it is as a climate commentator that Mr. Hoggan gets carried away. On The Denial Machine, Mr. Hoggan is allowed to go on at some length about how climate skeptics are not true scientists, are not qualified, or have no expertise.
That takes some gall. Here's a totally unqualified small-town PR guy making disparaging comments about scientists he says are unqualified while he lectures the rest of us on the science. "If you look in the scientific literature, there is no debate," he tells Mr. McKeown. It doesn't seem to bother Mr. McKeown that Mr. Hoggan has no expertise. It is also a little rich to have a
member of the Suzuki Foundation board pronounce other scientists unfit and unqualified for climate assessments, while geneticist David Suzuki roams the world issuing barrages of climate change warnings at every opportunity."
Sourcewatch
$$$ Funded by The Center for Media and Democracy
- Sourcewatch (Discover the Networks)
"SourceWatch seeks to expose what it calls the "propaganda activities of public relations firms" and the activities of organizations working "on behalf of corporations, governments and special interests." These "exposes," which tend to be critical of their subjects, deal predominantly with conservative entities... [...]
As with the online reference Wikipedia, the contents of SourceWatch are written and edited by ordinary Web users.
...The perspectives are mostly leftist; the entries rely heavily on leftist and far-leftist sources." Says SourceWatch: "You don't need any special credentials to participate -- we shun credentialism along with other propaganda techniques." While stating that it seeks to maintain fairness in the profiles and articles appearing on its website, SourceWatch does acknowledge that "ignoring systemic bias and claiming objectivity is itself one of many well-known propaganda techniques." [...]
Wikipedia
The Faith-Based Encyclopedia (Robert McHenry, Former Editor in Chief, the Encyclopedia Britannica)
A false Wikipedia 'biography' (USA Today)
A History Department Bans Citing Wikipedia as a Research Source (The New York Times)
Wikipedia "broken beyond repair", co-founder says (The Inquirer)
Wikipedia founder admits to serious quality problems (The Register)
Wikipedia - I have the power (Penny Arcade)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Interestingly, I haven't
April 16, 2008 - 21:15 ET by Giles WinterbourneInterestingly, I haven't cited SourceWatch or Wikipedia in this thread.
So, maybe it is a case of GWDS...
But, looking at the NYT link A History Department Bans Citing Wikipedia as a Research Source (The New York Times)
"Jimmy Wales, the co-founder of Wikipedia and chairman emeritus of
its foundation, said of the Middlebury policy, “I don’t consider it as
a negative thing at all.”
He continued: “Basically, they are
recommending exactly what we suggested — students shouldn’t be citing
encyclopedias. I would hope they wouldn’t be citing Encyclopaedia
Britannica, either."
And from InsideHigherEd: "“College students shouldn’t be citing encyclopedias in their papers,”
he said. “That’s not what college is about. They either should be using
primary sources or serious secondary sources.”" "A Stand Against Wikipedia" Inside HigherEd http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/01/26/wiki
Giles why are you lying?
April 16, 2008 - 21:26 ET by PopularTech"science by letter or petition" - sourcewatch
"science by peer review" - wikipedia
Oh wait did the smear site desmogblog do it and you are using it as evidence of what? Your blatant bias and deliberate attempts to smear?
Citing a useless site like Wikipedia and a reputable one like Britanicca are two different things.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
You beat me to the
April 16, 2008 - 21:39 ET by contraryYou beat me to the obvious. The question becomes does Dr. Winterbourne know what he's linking to, or is he suffering from a medical condition that affects his memory.
This is all really pointless, however, as it does not address the important questions we need answered. Instead we have another example of a thread that is derailed by those who wish to stroke their own ego instead of deal with the problem at hand.
"Republicans always get a huge pass on the racist issue. Huck is just another example. Provided they don't start up with the N word, they seem able to pander directly to the racist vote."
-- Chuck Davis, intellectual heavyweight, bigot
Since the topic of the
April 16, 2008 - 22:12 ET by Giles WinterbourneSince the topic of the thread was a letter sent to IPCC rather than actual research and discussion, I linked to an article about 'science by letter', why skeptics are utilizing that method to disseminate their POV.
FYI: spelled Encyclopaedia Britannica (that is a link to britannica.com)
More nonsense
April 16, 2008 - 22:19 ET by PopularTechThe question is why do you keep linking to far-left smear sites?
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
centrist / populist.
April 16, 2008 - 22:52 ET by Giles WinterbourneGee, I don't know. Maybe because they tend to be better researched and hold a thought longer before leaping into insults.
From my perspective, my links are centrist / populist. Of course here I've been labeled from liberal to socialist; and varying degrees of stupid.
Long before leading to insults?
April 16, 2008 - 23:16 ET by PopularTechHow far into an article do you consider "long" before they call Noel a "serial denier".
Better researched? That must be a joke.
Many of your links are far-left liberal and I would love to see where they claim they are centrist / populist.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
One reason why this letter didn't make MSM
April 16, 2008 - 20:12 ET by Giles Winterbourne"Such is the stuff of dreams for climate- change deniers. They rarely
lock horns in strictly academic bullrings; their mission instead is to
create uncertainty in the minds of the general public, and to do that,
they need the media."
"Giving climate deniers 50% of the say is not balance. It’s simply
playing into the hands of businesspeople trying to protect their
interests.
At the expense of yours."
Hansford, Dave. "Some like it hot: Climate-change deniers create an illusion of dissent". New Zealand Listener 22 March 2008. http://www.listener.co.nz/issue/3541/columnists/10716/some_like_it_hot.html
Giles the Desperate Propagandist
April 16, 2008 - 21:16 ET by PopularTechGlobal Warming Ad Hominem Attacks Show Alarmist Believers' Desperation (The Heartland Institute)
Global Warming Denial = Holocaust Denial? (FrontPage Magazine)
Global Warming Smear Targets (David R. Legates, The Marshall Institute)
Hooey Denier Deniers (RealClearPolitics)
Ignorance Is Strength, Dissent Is Treason (The National Review)
Newsweek: Alarmed by Deniers (The American Spectator)
- Greenhouse Simplicities (Newsweek)
Newsweek: Global-Warming Skeptics Are Like Moon-Landing Deniers (Business and Media Institute)
Nuremberg-Style Trials Proposed For Global Warming Skeptics (US Senate Environment & Public Works Committee)
Public 'in denial' about climate change (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
Scientists threatened for 'climate denial' (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
The Skeptical Scientists want to debate! And when they do they win...
Global Warming Debate - 'Global Warming Is Not a Crisis' (Video) (1hr 16min)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Popular Tech Thank you for links, to bad Giles NEVER READS EM!
April 16, 2008 - 21:57 ET by upcountrywateri tried to read some of his links, bulk and oratory no Science.
<gaia/love>SAVVVE The Whales N' Earth; conserve N' recycle !
IranianUranium<sleep>New/Infrastructure/repair?/ROFLMAO
UpC
April 16, 2008 - 22:00 ET by BlondeNo worries.
PopT doesnt read at all...or if he does, without reading comprehension.
So, don't fret. It's all good. You don't need to read PopT's (old, and out of date links)...nor those of his opponents'. Save your eyes for something that matters.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
PT does just fine
April 16, 2008 - 22:03 ET by bigtimerPT does just fine B.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
The Funnies - Recycling is still a Scam
April 16, 2008 - 22:13 ET by PopularTechBelieve it or not I have read every link I posted (over the last few years) though I have surely not memorized them. Recycling is still a scam. Government Mandated Recycling that is.
Bullshit! - Recycling (Video) (29min)
Recycling is Garbage (The New York Times)
- Every community recycling program in America today costs more than the revenue it generates (Source)
- The market for most products manufactured from recycled materials is largely supported by government subsidies or government programs requiring recycled content in certain products (Source)
- The value of recycled materials on the open market has declined dramatically in recent years, and in many cases there is no market at all (Source)
- Manufacturing paper, glass, and plastic from recycled materials uses appreciably more energy and water and produces as much or more air pollution as manufacturing from raw materials (Source)
- We are not running out of or will we ever run out of any of the resources we recycle (Source)
- We are not cutting down “endangered forests” today to make paper. We plant far more trees than we harvest each year. Wood is in ample supply (Source)
- U.S. Forest land area increased from 747 million acres in 1997 to 749 in 2002 (U.S. Forest Service)
- Since the 1950s, timber growth has consistently exceeded harvest (U.S. Forest Service)
- We are not running out of landfill space. All the garbage we will generate in the next 10 centuries will require less than 35 square miles to a height of only 300 feet (Source)
- Landfills are no longer a threat to the environment or public health. State-of-the-art landfills, with redundant clay and plastic liners and leachate collection systems, have now replaced all of our previously
unsafe dumps (Source)
- Landfills can be excellent neighbors, contributing wonderful parklands and golf courses to our communities (Source)
It's OK to Throw it Away: Tell Your Kids (Roy E. Cordato, Ph.D. Economic)
Mandatory Recycling Wastes Resources, Harms Environment (The Heartland Institute)
Our Widespread Faith In Recycling Is Misplaced (Cato Institute)
Recycling is a waste of time (The Times, UK)
Recycling is Not the Answer (Cato Institute)
Recycling: It's a bad idea in New York (The Heartland Institute)
Recycling 'Like Throwing Money Away' (The Heartland Institute)
Recycling: Your Time Can Be Better Spent! (Jay Lehr, Ph.D. Ground Water Hydrology)
The Big City; Rethinking The Rites Of Recycling (The New York Times)
The Recycling Myth (The Ludwig von Mises Institute)
UF Study Points To Garbage, Recycling Trucks As Source Of Litter (Science Daily)
Wasting Resources to Reduce Waste: Recycling in New Jersey (Cato Institute)
Landfills Are Safe (Jay Lehr, Ph.D. Ground Water Hydrology)
Landfills - Developing Golf Courses on Landfills, Strip-Mines and Other Unusual Locations (The National Golf Foundation)
Landfills - Golf course opens on decontaminated Jersey landfill (ESPN)
Landfills - Florida Landfill Golf Courses
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
The Funnies, Part Deux
April 16, 2008 - 22:20 ET by BlondePopTech is still a reading deficient a**hat.
The last go round, PopT asserted I stated something about the cost of opening a landfill in Florida....WRONG.
I made a statement about the cost of disposing of garbage here. Furthermore, I commented on the costs of opening a landfill. Not referring to a specific locale.
But PopT, the reading retard, spun it to his own view...that "Blonde referred to opening a landfill in South Florida". If the reading deficient fool can't even get that right....well, you know. I love being misquoted by morons.
Keep it up, PopT. It's not quite amusing.
I really don't care to rehash all of the reading deficiency on PopT's part....but it's rather more than a little obvious that it bothered him.
Hence....the PopT anti-recyling list.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
No B you are trying to
April 16, 2008 - 22:30 ET by bigtimerNo B you are trying to start a fight with PT...upc was responding to him, you jumped right in ready for the tough gal routine...give it a rest...I followed your thread for four damned days...give us all a rest or take it to the Woodshed...please.
btw...PT tried every way but sideways to get you to answer about how the govt. mandated recycling BS would be better than the free market...and how much money your place of work made...you know the profit.
All he was saying is the free market vs. govt. boondoggling is always better unless you could prove different.
Simple as that.
Geesh....
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
Simple as this, BT
April 16, 2008 - 22:33 ET by BlondeThis is my issue, I really must kindly ask you to butt your butt out. What are you, now, the Board Police?
Furthermore, PopT misstated innumerable statements of mine....changed up the question about ten times....
So, if you don't like it, BT, don't read it.
But don't you dare try to tell me where, when, or how to post.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Contined Clarification
April 16, 2008 - 22:38 ET by PopularTechI am well aware that my position of government mandated recycling vs free market recycling may not have been clear but once I clarified it you still insisted on arguing something I am not. BT summarized exactly what I was talking about.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Popster
April 16, 2008 - 22:43 ET by BlondeKindly tell me, where, once....I advocated for "government mandated recycling".
You can't....because I didn't....advocate for it.
I merely stated I made $$$ at it. Too bad that chaps your a***....but that is the fact of the matter.
So....keep it up. You are arguing a non-point.
Kinda cute....but stupid.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Is single stream recycling part of the free market?
April 16, 2008 - 22:57 ET by PopularTech"But recycling is NOT a waste of time...particularly if you have single stream recycling" - Blonde
Since recycling materials like paper, plastic (part of a single stream recycling program) are not cost effective I would take that as a no. A free market recycling program would only recycle something that would be cheaper than manufacturing from raw materials. It would also pay the customer providing the materials for recycling.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
PopT
April 16, 2008 - 23:05 ET by BlondeSingle stream is where you throw all of your recyclables in one place.
No worries...just plop them there.
Garbage in one place, recyclables in another. It's easy for the consumer.
That was my point.
It's very, very expensive on the commodity side to sort it all out and get it where it needs to go. But it's much easier for the consumer. And it's aimed at the homeowner. A business has some co-mingled (an industry term) kind of stuff....but mostly it's the big retailers that can reduce their waste streams by recycling....cardboard. By using a big compactor.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Excuse me B...you butted in
April 16, 2008 - 22:40 ET by bigtimerExcuse me B...you butted in here with the other posters, it isn't just your issue, much as you'd like to think it is...I suffered through four days of your protestations, accusations and BS towards PT without saying a word, making everyone think nobody agreed with PT, I didn't say a word because of our differences in the past, you don't own the board gal...we can all comment here...and by the way you never did answer PT...which would of been nice instead of maybe saying you didn't know or could be wrong for once in your life.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
Pardon me, BT, Miss Board Cop
April 16, 2008 - 22:45 ET by BlondeI could hardly care less about your "suffering".
If you don't like my posts...don't read them.
And I could hardly care less if your reading comprehension is less than Michelle Obama's. But keep it up....it's soooooo flattering.
May I spell it out for you?
I never stated that "government mandated recycling" was anything at all. PopT tried to push that position on me, that I was "for" it.
So, my reading deficient friend....try again.
I merely stated that recycling was a good thing...people who recycle feel good....recycled material is reused, profitably.
Keep it up, though....it's about as trollish as anything Leon has to say.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
B...all you have ever cared
April 16, 2008 - 22:51 ET by bigtimerB...all you have ever cared about here is if you are a tough gal...
You are not...but you play one on NBs.
Put down your drink.
Go to bed, you have some minions to bitch about tomorrow and don't forget to recycle.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
BT
April 16, 2008 - 23:08 ET by BlondeWith all due respect,
Bugger off.
When I want your advice, I'll ask for it.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
"Never murder your opponent
April 16, 2008 - 23:10 ET by bigtimer"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
Two can play this game, BT
April 16, 2008 - 23:24 ET by BlondeTry it again.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
I apologize for whatever
April 16, 2008 - 22:46 ET by PopularTechIf I misread your statements I apologize but my argument if you reread everything and realize I was talking only about Government Mandated Recycling (even though it may not have been spelled out - though my links make the case) it makes more sense and thus the miscommunication.
If you make money from free market recycling then I am happy for you and encourage you to do so. I was NEVER arguing against free market recycling. Also I have no idea what you do for a living thus if you spell it out and clarify it, it would help for those of us who are not mind readers.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
PopTech
April 16, 2008 - 23:01 ET by BlondeFair enough.
I reread the thread...and realized we were at cross purposes from the get-go.
Perhaps we can have another discussion later....I really don't care (please, please don't let my employer be here) about it on a personal level.
FYI....recycling is mandated on a residential level...which another poster alluded to here. It's not very expensive (about $2 a month)....but it IS mandatory...which I totally disagree with.
Commercial recycling, however, is a totally different story, and if you will forgive me, DIVERTS those items from the general waste stream. Specifically, I'm talking about clean cardboard. Less expensive for the business owner. A commodity for the hauler (well, not so much, but cheaper to dispose of than garbage...the recycler makes the $$).
Okay, nuff said.
I'm glad we've kissed and made up. I don't like arguing, for the sake of arguing.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
bt,
April 16, 2008 - 23:35 ET by gfrrmansorry, but,
"All he was saying is the free market vs. govt. boondoggling is always better unless you could prove different. "...is not what he ever said at all until he was having his a## handed to him, and then he moved the goalposts. Although I DO agree with the statement it is totally not what he began with.
"Eventually, Socialists run out of other peoples' money...." MARGARET THATCHER
gf...You weren't there
April 16, 2008 - 23:41 ET by bigtimergf...
You weren't there from the begininng and you didn't know what you were talking about either...but you didn't mind jumping right in with your BS.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
typical, bt
April 16, 2008 - 23:52 ET by gfrrmanI guess I was sitting on the moon while I was reading the posts. Just because I don't respond during a discussion IMMEDIATELY, that constitutes, to YOU that I wasn't there. Nice, but WEAK,VERY WEAK reply. Now show me where, immediately, PopT brought up "gov't vs. private" in the post....(theme to Jeopardy plays while crickets chirp).....
"Eventually, Socialists run out of other peoples' money...." MARGARET THATCHER
I asked you to provde the
April 16, 2008 - 23:56 ET by bigtimerI asked you to provde the links in my post first gf...you made excuses...do what I requested first...don't try the typical lefist spin with me.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
bt/Pee-Wee Herman
April 17, 2008 - 00:03 ET by gfrrman"I know you are but what am I". God, dealing with a third grader....
"Eventually, Socialists run out of other peoples' money...." MARGARET THATCHER
"Never murder your opponent
April 17, 2008 - 00:05 ET by bigtimer"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
Oh I'm Sorry
April 16, 2008 - 22:40 ET by PopularTechThe cost of opening a landfill due to excessive government regulations and taxes still has nothing to do with the available land area for landfills nor is it an argument that government mandated recycling is cost effective, it is not.
This is my argument and if it was not clear I hope it is now.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Keep it up
April 16, 2008 - 22:41 ET by BlondeThe cost of opening a landfill absolutely has everything to do with governmental regulations and taxes. The cost of the land, while in some areas is substantial, is the least little bit of the equation.
You were the one who stated it was easy....nothing to it.
Furthermore, I never said word one about opening a landfill in South Florida...you inferred that from other things I said. But it's okay....I know you are a tad reading deficient.
I challenged you to open a landfill....if it's so easy (and it is so VERY profitable)...why don't you try it? Hmmmm?
Keep throwing everything away....it's all cool.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
B...go back and read
April 16, 2008 - 22:47 ET by bigtimerB...go back and read through the four days of your tough talk blathering ...talk about reading deficiencies...
Btw...I noticed how you changed your original post to me too.
So cool.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
BT
April 16, 2008 - 22:53 ET by BlondeNo need to do that.
I remember exactly what I posted about recycling, and the industry, the first time.
P.S. Edit is a good thing...I just had more to say to you and your nit-picky jibe. I think you know how to cope. But maybe not.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
"Never murder your opponent
April 16, 2008 - 22:55 ET by bigtimer"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
Wow, how eloquent.
April 16, 2008 - 23:17 ET by BlondeDavid Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Blonde
April 16, 2008 - 23:29 ET by gfrrmanI've watch this thread since the git go and noticed how PopT has moved the goal posts repeatedly. You do as usual and stick to your principles...I'm with ya on this one.
"Eventually, Socialists run out of other peoples' money...." MARGARET THATCHER
gf... I too was there
April 16, 2008 - 23:34 ET by bigtimergf...
I too was there from the beginning and PT never moved any goal posts, but you jumped in quite awhile down the road....
where did PT move the goal post instead of B avoiding the simple answer he was asking for...which wasn't in any mean way to begin with...eh?
Links?
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
bt,
April 16, 2008 - 23:41 ET by gfrrmanLINKS?? Stinkin' links?? Kindly pull up in the discussion where PopT opened with "gov't vs. private."...go ahead...zzzzzzzzzz YOU provide said link! Links.......FROTFLMAO. Geez
"Eventually, Socialists run out of other peoples' money...." MARGARET THATCHER
gf... LOL...that's just
April 16, 2008 - 23:45 ET by bigtimergf...
LOL...that's just what I thought you'd say.
Proof is always in the pudding.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
bt's proof
April 16, 2008 - 23:55 ET by gfrrmanis NOWHERE to be found. Now, again, where in the post does PopT immediately bring up gov't vs. private.....????
"Eventually, Socialists run out of other peoples' money...." MARGARET THATCHER
Grfman's delusions
April 17, 2008 - 00:32 ET by PopularTechI don't bring it up word for word immediately because I had no idea my overwhelmingly support for free market solutions here would be ignored and my stance distorted. When it could of been cleared up in one post! Simply ask do you mean "free-market recycling"?
Gfrrman I ask you again to provide proof where I have ever been against free-market recycling?
Government Mandated Recycling is what all my links are talking about yet no one read any of them, typical.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Popt
April 17, 2008 - 00:56 ET by gfrrmanthe question was gov't mandated vs. private enterprise. Not questioning your "free-market recycling" idea. It's that "gray area" in your first sentence"word for word" that you claim. John Kerry and the libs would be down right proud. It took you almost 3hrs to get to that point on 4/11/08. Check the tape. Blonde started in at 19:35 and by the time you mentioned gov't mandate" it was 22:35. Oh , damn!!
"Eventually, Socialists run out of other peoples' money...." MARGARET THATCHER
LOL gf...this one is for
April 17, 2008 - 01:01 ET by bigtimerLOL gf...this one is for you....just once since you've been here it would be nice if you knew what your were talking about.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
Unfortunately, bt
April 17, 2008 - 01:06 ET by gfrrmanyou've been exposed. Check the time, posts AND content. You can't back up your crap. I did the work looking it up, so stick the knife in your back Mr. suicide. Gotta suck for you!!! LMFAO
"Eventually, Socialists run out of other peoples' money...." MARGARET THATCHER
gf... I'm a gal you
April 17, 2008 - 01:15 ET by bigtimergf...
I'm a gal you simpleton....you have been here long enough to know that with other posts I have made in the past to you.
You really are pathetic...you did not.... nor do you still follow what PT was simply asking of B.
I am done with this.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
bt
April 17, 2008 - 01:26 ET by gfrrmanyou asked for the link and I gave it to you and now you don't even want to own up to to checking it out. Proof vs. fraud. Where's your proof. I supplied it and you "can't handle the truth". Btw, I've been away from Nb for a while tending to my residence being burnt to the ground, so don't expect me to remember everyone here on this blog. At least I looked up the info concerning this disagreement...which you won't recognize. So go stick your head in the sand.
"Eventually, Socialists run out of other peoples' money...." MARGARET THATCHER
Well gf...I've had my house
April 17, 2008 - 01:31 ET by bigtimerWell gf...I've had my house burn to the ground too...we recover and I wish you the best.
As far as sticking my head in the sand....
Go away little boy...you bother me.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
bt
April 17, 2008 - 01:38 ET by gfrrmanstill don't want to check out that time-line, huh? Coward little simpleton. I'm old enough to be your grandfather, whippersnapper. Was that a gnat that flew by?...no just bt. Now THAT'S annoying!!!
"Eventually, Socialists run out of other peoples' money...." MARGARET THATCHER
Listen gramps...grow
April 17, 2008 - 01:42 ET by bigtimerListen gramps...grow up...yeah you and aa were something to be proud to have supporting oneself.
I'm still chucklin' 'bout that.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
bt
April 17, 2008 - 02:09 ET by gfrrmanthe more you talk, the more you reveal about your immaturity. If I was 12 I too would probably rail on someone that has more intellect, wisdom and balls, but seeing that you have none, it really has to be pathetic to get up in the morning and realize all you have is a sticky purple Barney. Talk about a LOT of growing up to do. Why not be proud you are pre-pubescent? Still haven't checked the time-line, huh? That's 4/11/08 @ 19:35. Truth to power, BOY!!
"Eventually, Socialists run out of other peoples' money...." MARGARET THATCHER
"Never murder your opponent
April 17, 2008 - 02:13 ET by bigtimer"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
bt
April 17, 2008 - 02:54 ET by gfrrmantimeline, posts....sooooo tiring and pathetic on your part. You keep stabbing yourself in the back!!! LMAO!!
"Eventually, Socialists run out of other peoples' money...." MARGARET THATCHER
gfrrman You really need a clue
April 17, 2008 - 01:16 ET by PopularTechBlonde and I already admitted we were talking about different things yet you keep going on and on and on and on about something that is already resolved. But keep thinking I am liberal as that makes you look real smart.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Mr. know-it-all
April 17, 2008 - 01:34 ET by gfrrmanmaybe your reading and comprehension skills need a refresher course. Bt challenged me to back up where you and Blonde diverted to the argument of private vs. "gov't mandated". I provided it and apparently he decided to hide his head in the sand about it. Your initial argument WAS NOT about this and you changed the argument which I agree happened. You both had hissy fits and on and on. End of story......liberal(just kidding). Now....enough..Ok?
"Eventually, Socialists run out of other peoples' money...." MARGARET THATCHER
gfrrman comprehend this...
April 17, 2008 - 02:56 ET by PopularTechMY ARGUMENT WAS ALWAYS ABOUT GOVERNMENT MANDATED RECYCLING, though I initially failed to spell it out!
I NEVER DIVERTED OR CHANGED THE ARGUMENT! I CLARIFIED IT!!!! DO YOU COMPREHEND THIS?
I was stating "Recycling" as in Government Mandated and she was arguing "Recycling" as in Free Market.
THERE WAS NEVER AN ARGUMENT BETWEEN GOVERNMENT MANDATED RECYCLING vs. FREE MARKET RECYCLING!
It was two people using the same word for two different meanings. By her definition reselling things on ebay is "Recycling".
BT has been trying in a futile attempt to get you to comprehend this.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Popt
April 17, 2008 - 03:18 ET by gfrrmanit's that gray area in which you spelled it out. Nice spin. You never came with that argument until you came up with that argument. Which is just as argumentative. Never mess with a Philosophy major!! I got the idea when you FINALLY stated it 3 FREAKIN' hrs into your discussion. Geez! "though I never intitally failed to spell it out" just TOTALLY busts your a##. Just damn. "I clarified it", when you changed the argument so get over it...you got caught and NOW you own up to it...almost 5 days later? Good grief Charlie Brown. Bt hasn't a clue, SHE won't even look at the timeline of the discussion. The bottom line? You started talking about oranges while she was talking apples and then you started talking about pears. Doesn't matter, 'cause none of this is condusive about whether the US "wastes" more than everyone in the world. Whether we do or not is irrelevant. People will still waste, no matter where the population. Agreed? Or do we just agree to disagree?
"Eventually, Socialists run out of other peoples' money...." MARGARET THATCHER
gfrrman owns up to being a serial liar
April 17, 2008 - 21:03 ET by PopularTechI am not sure how sad you life is that you have nothing better to do then to state lies over and over again. The only one spinning is you in your delusional mental state. I am happy you owned up to being serial liar as you could never win a debate without fabricating lies about the other side. The fact that Blonde and me agreed we were talking about two different things obviously means nothing to your delusional mind. Keep lying, keep making things up but please get back on your medication.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
I am well aware of this!
April 17, 2008 - 01:06 ET by PopularTechI am well aware I need to spell it out now! It is clear as a crystal ball! Again I had no idea my overwhelming support for free market solutions would be ignored so my stance on recycling could be distorted.
Keep comparing me to John Kerry and Liberals it only makes you look like more of an idiot. It is like you are stuck on clueless. Oh was that an insult? Yep too bad it doesn't change or ever did my position on recycling, government mandated that is.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Hi bt
April 17, 2008 - 00:21 ET by shawn228I want to be clear that I am neutral and I am not taking your side over blondes or vice versa.
I do however stand by my comments on what I said to blonde the other day. I thought her take down of Pop Tech was a masterpiece.
The reason is because he will flood a thread with link after link and will use those same links until he is blue in the face. It might be good enough to win 10 freestinker comprehensive list awards, but it is a dirty tactic. If he does not get his opponent to give up using this tactic, he will just keep insulting until he gets his way. Sort of like his profanity laced rant. I really enjoyed blonde giving him a taste of his own medicine and putting him in his place.
shawn... It is in the eye
April 17, 2008 - 00:26 ET by bigtimershawn...
It is in the eye of the beholder who put who in what place when it comes to B and PT....
Just like tonight....
Think about it.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
Who is in the dummy's corner, now, BT?
April 17, 2008 - 00:31 ET by BlondeHmmmm?
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
You."Never murder your
April 17, 2008 - 00:35 ET by bigtimerB...
You.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
Hmmmm
April 17, 2008 - 00:36 ET by BlondeDavid Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
bt,
April 17, 2008 - 00:59 ET by gfrrmanI refer you to my comment to Popt at 1:55 4/17/08. Now you do the math. Case closed
"Eventually, Socialists run out of other peoples' money...." MARGARET THATCHER
gf... Yeah... well read
April 17, 2008 - 01:05 ET by bigtimergf...
Yeah... well read my response already posted above big boy.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
fair enough bt
April 17, 2008 - 01:03 ET by shawn228Your right, everyone has their own pov.
Good night.
Shawn228's Delusions
April 17, 2008 - 00:37 ET by PopularTechFirst of all she never "took me down". She was arguing about something opposite to what I was.
I use source links to support my position. There is nothing dirty about doing your homework, maybe you should try it sometime.
My fucking profanity laced rant was because she would not answer some questions as I was trying to understand her position better - sorry if you did not like it but I could really give a shit.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
PopTech
April 17, 2008 - 00:58 ET by shawn228If I saw just that one thread I could probably see your point. The thing is I admit, I am biased. I saw all your earlier threads and constant links about Huckabee. Then you moved on to McCain. Thread after thread after thread you just kept bringing up the same links over and over. I don't see the flaming likes against McCain anymore. Why is that?
I thought it was rather tedious and I watch how you insult people when you do not get your own way. It is like a petulant child shouting until he is blue in the face.Well at least blonde got you to apologize, which is something I thought i would never see
Helping keep your energy bills down
April 17, 2008 - 01:12 ET by PopularTechI feel real bad about the Huckster, not. McCain there was not enough time. Now it is irrelevant as far as the campaign, I am simply trying to prevent your energy bills from going up! Don't thank me now or later.
Yes I insult people when they deserve it but I always argue my point unless you failed to read anything I post.
Beware of Cap and Trade Climate Bills (The Heritage Foundation)
Cap and Trade - Cap-and-Trade Could Cost Average Family $10,800 in Lost Income (US Newswire)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Spoken just like
April 17, 2008 - 01:16 ET by gfrrmana true 13 year old. The profanity is not attractive at all and makes you look like the fool that you are. You make some good points sometimes, but when the profanity comes out, it defeats anything positive thereafter.
"Eventually, Socialists run out of other peoples' money...." MARGARET THATCHER
No I am really John Kerry
April 17, 2008 - 01:19 ET by PopularTechI am also a liberal who reads the DailyKos and yeah....
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Thanks, gfrr,
April 16, 2008 - 23:35 ET by BlondeBut I think PopT & I have come to somewhat of a landing on this one.
It's unfortunate when we conserves argue...but you know what? It's a good thing. We argue fairly, for the most part, without emotions and widgy stuff (did I just say that??? LOL).
It's all good.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
I will
April 16, 2008 - 23:09 ET by PopularTechPlease show me were I stated it was easy? That was you replying to me saying we have effectively "unlimited landfill space".
Even with the current costs of opening a landfill it is still cheaper to use them than to recycle. Yes the Government can increase landfill costs until this is not the case that does not make recycling more cost effective in a free market.
Yes, yes you only talked about dumping trash at landfill(s) in south Florida and made generalized statements about the costs of opening a landfill. I stand CORRECTED!
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
No Pop
April 16, 2008 - 23:16 ET by BlondeI don't recall you saying it was "easy"...so I'm not going to chase that link tonite.
Landfills are supremely expensive to open. The reason I didn't respond to your questions in that regard was somewhat personal....I can't quite afford to "out" myself here. But if you'd look it up on the internet, you'd find out how totally profitable landfills are. And, if it were easy to do, everyone would be doing it....like that.
I never said I disagreed about using the 'fil as opposed to recycling, did I? But it is good business to promote recycling. And it is actually becoming profitable to do so in this regulatory environment (remember.....I don't pass the regulations...I just function in the environment).
It is what it is....but seriously, it makes sense to try to recycle what we can profitably.
And here's a little something. Hurricane Andrew (in 1992) reduced the useful life of landfills by 12 years! I don't remember how many millions of cubic yards of stuff that generated...alot...but that many years off the life of a landfill is HUGE!
Okay....now that we're all kissed and made up...I'm out in a few. Good night.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
I have yet to see a cost
April 17, 2008 - 01:00 ET by PopularTechI have yet to see a cost analysis of opening a landfill. But this was never my argument. As even with the current costs it is still cheaper to dump trash then it is to recycle.
I don't have a problem with anybody making money recycling in a free market, I do have a problem with government regulations making it profitable when it should not be. I know you do not wish to give out any personal info but I was hoping you could explain how government regulations was making this profitable for you.
I'll give you an example, if the Government taxes Gasoline at $6 a gallon and now Ethanol is technically "cheaper", is Ethanol really a more cost effective fuel than Gasoline? That is my point about Government Mandated Recycling. But with recycling it is still more cost effective to use landfills.
Hurricane Andrew or not there is still plenty of available space for landfills and a natural disaster to me is not a reason to try to recycle items that are not worth recycling. In a free market whatever is worth recycling will be WITHOUT government regulation.
"Recycling" (as in government mandated) has largely become an emotional issue where people "feel" like they are doing something good.
Good Night to you Blonde.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Metaphysical curiosity, Noel
April 17, 2008 - 06:39 ET by BlindSightGiven that you reprinted this letter by permission of the authors, I wonder if you can clarify whether or not the letter was actually circulated directly to any of the MSM and, if so, which ones. That information would help us all know which ones to write letters to.
Since it so quickly made the rounds of other sites that stand firm against the "climate change" hysteria, it is indeed noticeable that there doesn't seem to be any MSM mention.
But if it wasn't sent to any of the MSM at all, that might also help to explain your "a metaphysical certitude media will ignore this Prize winner", on top of their sheer prejudice against such notable scientists and personages in favor of gushing over the shameful Gore and the IPCC.
Sorry to burden you with a question, but because of your great resources in this area I imagine that you have this at your fingertips, or that one of the authors can quickly respond.
Pres. Bush: Our guiding principle is clear. We must lead the world to produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions and we must do it in a way that does not undermine economic growth or prevent nations from delivering greater prosperity for their people.
Hmm ... so the MSM didn't get the letter directly?
April 17, 2008 - 22:24 ET by BlindSightIf so, kudos to you, Marc Morano and others.
What a great way to make sure they don't make news out of it, while giving us skeptics something to spread around among us rational folks and to complain about the biased media over!
All's fair in that war, so I don't particularly care whether any of the signers other that Corbyn have any real credibility on climate science, or that Hendriksen shared his "Peace Prize award" with a half-million million others. After all, as Pop Tech points out, in winning a PR war it's appearances that count (Hendriksen = Gore on the Nobel front), and us skeptics already have the science locked down cold anyway.
Regards.
Pres. Bush: Our guiding principle is clear. We must lead the world to produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions and we must do it in a way that does not undermine economic growth or prevent nations from delivering greater prosperity for their people.
BlindSight's alleged "Conservative Credentials"
April 17, 2008 - 23:41 ET by PopularTechI am having a really hard time figuring out how you call yourself a conservative. But then again you make it blatantly obvious you "care" about the environment as if conservatives do not. Why the need to point that out? Interesting. I had no idea "caring" about the environment was a liberal position or could it be that maybe conservatives are simply logical, rational or realistic about the environment? And maybe "caring" is an emotional position?
Three of the signers have legitimate scientific credentials and thus qualified to make a scientific statement. But like I said before they need to meet the "Gore standard" and thus needed a Nobel Prize winner.
Yes us skeptics do have the science locked down cold on reality, empirical evidence and the scientific method.
I find it hard to take you seriously as a conservative as you are intentionally trying to use President Bush's position to influence a debate where you are complaining about the lack of climate science credentials? Irony or is something else going on? People can make up their own minds.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource