| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
09 Sep 2007 08:22:16 PM |
| Object: |
Retreat of the warmists begins to accelerate |
Retreat of the warmists begins to accelerate
Just as we begin to see the colossal price we are being asked to pay
for measures to combat climate change, ever more of the evidence
adduced to support the global warming scare crumbles away.
A key article of faith for the "warmists" is a supposed increase in
the incidence of extreme weather events, such as droughts. As Al Gore
claimed to a US Senate committee in March, "droughts are becoming
longer and more intense".
But US researchers, led by Gemma Narisma, have now shown that, far
from becoming more frequent in recent decades, serious droughts have
in fact become rarer than they were a century ago.
In a paper (reported on the website CO2Science.org) they identified
the 30 most "severe and persistent" drought episodes of the 20th
century.
Seven of these occurred before 1920, seven between 1921 and 1940 and
eight between 1941 and 1960, dropping to five between 1961 and 1980.
The last two decades of the century, when the world was supposedly
hotting up more than ever, saw just three. The worst drought affecting
the developed world was the US Dust Bowl disaster of the mid-1930s.
This corresponds with the recently revised figures for US surface
temperatures published by Gore's leading scientific ally, James Hansen
of Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS).
Last month, when Steve McIntyre, an expert statistical analyst,
spotted a fundamental flaw in the method Hansen had used to calculate
his figures, GISS was forced to publish a new graph, showing that the
hottest year of the 20th century was not 1998, as generally accepted,
but 1934. Of the 10 hottest years since 1880, four were in the 1930s,
only three in the past decade.
This in turn followed the latest satellite figures from the US
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration showing how
global temperatures in recent years have flattened out at about 0.2
degrees below their 1998 level, and that this summer's figures have
been lower than they were in 1983, despite a continuing rise in CO2.
It is clear that 2007 is proving quite a turning point in the climate
change debate.
Only last year one of the fathers of warmist alarmism, Professor James
Lovelock, predicted that, by the end of this century, climate change
would have been responsible for billions of deaths, and that the only
habitable places left on Earth would be the polar regions.
Last week, however, significantly retreating from his apocalyptic
view, he told the World Nuclear Association that, even though
temperatures might rise by a further five degrees, nature and humanity
would learn to adjust. The Earth was in "no danger".
Yet it is at this very time that, to combat the supposed threat, our
political leaders are upping the ante in all directions.
At the recent UN conference in Vienna to discuss "Kyoto Two", the EU
stood conspicuously alone with its plan to cut carbon emissions by up
to 40 per cent, and its ruling that by 2020, 20 per cent of our energy
must be generated from renewables, such as windpower and biofuels.
British civil servants have advised ministers that these targets are
wholly unreachable.
Already, not least in response to the new pressure on farmland to grow
biofuels, wheat prices have soared to record levels and world grain
stocks are plummeting, pushing the price of a loaf of bread for the
first time over =A31.
The Taxpayers Alliance last week calculated that "green taxes" now
cost us =A321.9 billion a year, equivalent to nearly =A31,000 for every
home in the country.
Yet scarcely a single politician in Europe dares question this
collective flight from reality.
China, now building a new coal-fired power station every four days,
last year added 102 gigawatts of new generating capacity, 25 per cent
more than the entire capacity of the UK. As ever more pointed question
marks rise up over the global warming thesis, who is to say it is the
Chinese who are mad?
.
|
|
| User: "HangEveryRepubliKKKan" |
|
| Title: Re: Retreat of the warmists begins to accelerate |
02 Oct 2007 02:22:54 PM |
|
|
<d.086@hotmail.com> wrote
Retreat of the warmists begins to accelerate
Agency warns Australia on gas emissions By MERAIAH FOLEY, AP
Tue Oct 2, 4:27 PM ET
SYDNEY, Australia - Parts of Australia could be 9 degrees Fahrenheit hotter
and 80 percent drier by 2070 if global greenhouse gas emissions are not
radically reduced, government data said Tuesday.
The report by the Bureau of Meteorology and the government's main research
body, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization,
predicts lower rainfall, longer droughts and more searing hot days for
Australia, known by locals as "the sunburned country."
Penny Whetton, a climate scientist with the CSIRO, said Australia is already
locked in to a 1.8-degree increase in average temperatures by 2030 due to
past carbon dioxide emissions, and that the figure could rise as high as 9
degrees by 2070 if global emissions are not dramatically reduced.
Rainfall across Australia, already the world's driest inhabited continent,
could fall by up to 30 percent by 2070, with longer periods of drought
broken by short bursts of more intense downpours, Whetton said.
Under the most extreme scenario, Australia's northern city of Darwin could
face as many as 230 days above 95 degrees each year, compared with just 11
under present average temperatures.
Southwestern Australia, one of the country's premier wine-growing regions
and an agricultural breadbasket, will be hotter and drier in coming decades,
with periods of drought increasing by up to 80 percent by 2070.
....
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "kT" |
|
| Title: Re: Retreat of the warmists begins to accelerate |
09 Sep 2007 10:26:16 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Christopher John Penrice Booker (born October 7, 1937) is an English
journalist and editor, educated at Shrewsbury School. He was a founding
editor of Private Eye at the height of the British Satire Boom, but he
was forced out in the magazine's early days by Richard Ingrams. He has,
however, remained a regular contributor and joke writer on the magazine
since its inception. In the late 1960s he wrote The Neophiliacs, a
critical review of the media response to the cultural changes of the
period 1954-1964, and one of the first books on the decade to take a
'disabused' line.
More recently he published The Seven Basic Plots of Literature: Why We
Tell Stories, to mixed reviews.[1]
He is the co-author, with Richard North, of The Great Deception, a book
criticising the European Union. He has pursued a journalistic career,
particularly with anti-EU commentary, as a columnist, notably in The
Sunday Telegraph.
All British fascist get science from senile old fuddy duddy op-eds.
--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roger Coppock" |
|
| Title: Re: Retreat of the warmists begins to accelerate |
10 Sep 2007 03:17:54 AM |
|
|
On Sep 9, 6:22 pm, wrote:
Retreat of the warmists begins to accelerate
Just as we begin to see the colossal price we are being asked to pay
for measures to combat climate change, ever more of the evidence
adduced to support the global warming scare crumbles away.
Here's another, quite similar, post:
1. 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank Sep 9, 3:43 pm
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2007 15:43:15 -0700
Local: Sun, Sep 9 2007 3:43 pm
Subject: 100 years and counting . . . .
I was poking around at the Project Gutenberg archives today when I
came across this book from *** 1904 *** titled "At the Deathbed of
Darwinism":
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/21019/21019-h/21019-h.htm
Sound at all familiar to anybody?
Yessiree, Darwinism is about to collapse, any day now. Just you wait
and see.
(snicker) (giggle) BWA HA HA HA
HA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Green Turtle Super" |
|
| Title: Re: Retreat of the warmists begins to accelerate |
10 Sep 2007 09:09:01 AM |
|
|
"Roger Coppock" <rcoppock@adnc.com> wrote in message
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/21019/21019-h/21019-h.htm
Sound at all familiar to anybody?
Yessiree, Darwinism is about to collapse, any day now. Just you wait
and see.
Actually, it is being challenged. And, there is grand canyon of difference
between natural selection, and that of evolution.
Remember, it was about 2000+ years that MOST philosophers and scientists
believed in the steady state universe.
By the 1920's with a understanding of energy, the use of telescopes etc, the
scientific community was ROCKED, and the steady state belief of the universe
had to be changed. After all, if the sun is burning up energy, then the sun
COULD NOT have always existed for eternity, since it has a limited life
span.
Thus, the SUN has to have a "cause" for it to exist. It likely important to
note that the Christian concept of God is eternal, and thus does NOT need a
cause, nor have one. In other words, the view of the universe used to be one
without a cause, yet science shows that the universe could not always
existed without a cause.
So, a considerable number of scientists did die kicking and screaming to
their graves with the belief of the steady state universe. With a
understating of energy, and things like fusion etc, it quite easy to see the
steady state scientist were wrong.
When the "consensus" of the steady universe was dropped, the new theory was
that of the big bang. Of course, there is LITTLE reason to stop the debate
at the big bang, we should likely look at what things were like a million
years BEFORE the big bang...after all, we can't just think that things were
created in an instant can we? (opps, that would support a Christian
view...would it not!!!).
With the discovery of DNA, ad continued improvements in science, the
Darwinian view of things is actually being challenged like never before. So,
in fact a retreat on evolution is occurring.
I can also say that the AGW debate has taken a horrifying turn for the worse
against the socialist governments that been pushing this
Even the recent apec summit had virtually MOST of the governments backing
down, and only giving public promises to work on pollution, but nothing
concrete in terms of AGW and co2. This is ASTOUNDING reversal of public
position for these governments. As I said, I correctly predicted this
unraveling of this issue months ago.
Don't count your chickens too much on the Darwin theory, as it shown to be
much in trouble also these days.
Like the AGW issue, the desperate attempt on the Darwin issue is to state
that no science is at play here on the Darwin issue. Like the steady state
scientists, they lost that battle.
There is a possibility with the internet that the same thing that happened
to AGW will occur to evolution. 5, or 6 years ago, the loss of the AGW issue
would not even a possible thought..and today, the AGW issue is now a mess,
and this is because of the internet, and the ability of correct minds and
reason to win over that of lies and deception.
Super Turtle
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd" |
|
| Title: Re: Retreat of the warmists begins to accelerate |
10 Sep 2007 03:23:03 PM |
|
|
On Sep 10, 10:09 am, "Green Turtle" <Super Tur...@greenpiece.com>
wrote:
"Roger Coppock" <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote in message
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/21019/21019-h/21019-h.htm
Sound at all familiar to anybody?
Yessiree, Darwinism is about to collapse, any day now. Just you wait
and see.
Actually, it is being challenged.
Uh, the Kansas school board doesn't count.
And, there is grand canyon of difference
between natural selection, and that of evolution.
Remember, it was about 2000+ years that MOST philosophers and scientists
believed in the steady state universe.
So? Most physicians believed evil spirits caused disease. Do you not
see a physician today?
By the 1920's with a understanding of energy, the use of telescopes etc, the
scientific community was ROCKED, and the steady state belief of the universe
had to be changed. After all, if the sun is burning up energy, then the sun
COULD NOT have always existed for eternity, since it has a limited life
span.
Thus, the SUN has to have a "cause" for it to exist. It likely important to
note that the Christian concept of God is eternal, and thus does NOT need a
cause, nor have one. In other words, the view of the universe used to be one
without a cause, yet science shows that the universe could not always
existed without a cause.
So, a considerable number of scientists did die kicking and screaming to
their graves with the belief of the steady state universe.
Including Einstein.
With a
understating of energy, and things like fusion etc, it quite easy to see the
steady state scientist were wrong.
Well, actually, with the cosmic microwave radiation.
When the "consensus" of the steady universe was dropped, the new theory was
that of the big bang. Of course, there is LITTLE reason to stop the debate
at the big bang, we should likely look at what things were like a million
years BEFORE the big bang...after all, we can't just think that things were
created in an instant can we? (opps, that would support a Christian
view...would it not!!!).
How about things with less than zero mass?
With the discovery of DNA, ad continued improvements in science, the
Darwinian view of things is actually being challenged like never before.
Not in science it isn't.
So,
in fact a retreat on evolution is occurring.
You're confusing school boards with science.
I can also say that the AGW debate has taken a horrifying turn for the worse
against the socialist governments that been pushing this
Yep, why only the National Academy of Sciences, Royal Society, NASA,
NOAA, WMO, EPA, all the scientists publishing in journals, all the
scientific agencies and bodies, and all the world's leaders believe in
it anymore!
Even the recent apec summit had virtually MOST of the governments backing
down, and only giving public promises to work on pollution, but nothing
concrete in terms of AGW and co2.
Name ONE which said AGW isn't happening.
This is ASTOUNDING reversal of public
position for these governments. As I said, I correctly predicted this
unraveling of this issue months ago.
Don't count your chickens too much on the Darwin theory, as it shown to be
much in trouble also these days.
Not in science.
Like the AGW issue, the desperate attempt on the Darwin issue is to state
that no science is at play here on the Darwin issue. Like the steady state
scientists, they lost that battle.
There is a possibility with the internet that the same thing that happened
to AGW will occur to evolution. 5, or 6 years ago,
Well, there will always be kooks on the internet, like the one
claiming a second sun wanders through our solar system and causes
warming, or the ones claiming the earth doesn't rotate. You seem to
give them credence.
the loss of the AGW issue
would not even a possible thought..and today, the AGW issue is now a mess,
and this is because of the internet, and the ability of correct minds and
reason to win over that of lies and deception.
Super Turtle
.
|
|
|
| User: "Green Turtle Super" |
|
| Title: Re: Retreat of the warmists begins to accelerate |
11 Sep 2007 07:02:59 AM |
|
|
"Lloyd" <lparker@emory.edu> wrote in message
Actually, it is being challenged.
Uh, the Kansas school board doesn't count.
No, we talking about far more scholarly approach here.
Try
Stanley L. Jaki
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/science_origin.html
And, there is grand canyon of difference
between natural selection, and that of evolution.
Remember, it was about 2000+ years that MOST philosophers and scientists
believed in the steady state universe.
So? Most physicians believed evil spirits caused disease. Do you not
see a physician today?
My point is that as the science gets better, it hurting the evolution cause.
It should go the other way as science improves...but, it is not!!!
So, a considerable number of scientists did die kicking and screaming to
their graves with the belief of the steady state universe.
Including Einstein.
Quite surprising since he did much to prove the e=mc^2. You would think that
someone who can figure out that things in the universe are being burned up
and used would be able to figure out that the universe thus needs a 'cause'.
Oh well, if Einstien could not figure this simple observation out, then most
people here can't figure this out either!
When the "consensus" of the steady universe was dropped, the new theory
was
that of the big bang. Of course, there is LITTLE reason to stop the
debate
at the big bang, we should likely look at what things were like a million
years BEFORE the big bang...after all, we can't just think that things
were
created in an instant can we? (opps, that would support a Christian
view...would it not!!!).
How about things with less than zero mass?
Ah, yes...we start letting the kooks out without the slightest bit of proof.
You can remove the tin foil from your walls now, as the government
satellites really can't control your mind. Less then zero mass? Well, lets
just say that a lot people obviously base their science on "faith" and not
much reason then! Perhaps you can watch cost to cost, and talk about zero
point energy also. (opps, sorry..science fiction area!!).
With the discovery of DNA, ad continued improvements in science, the
Darwinian view of things is actually being challenged like never before.
Not in science it isn't.
Oh, most assured it is challenging this. Mutations are damages, and
generally a REMOVAL of DNA.....not an addition. And, natural selection does
not create something new, but only functions on something that already
existed. DNA and philosophy IS in fact challenging this issue big time. As
useall, stick you head in the sand...
So,
in fact a retreat on evolution is occurring.
You're confusing school boards with science.
No, you being blind, and not keeping up with what occurring in science right
now at all.
Even the recent apec summit had virtually MOST of the governments backing
down, and only giving public promises to work on pollution, but nothing
concrete in terms of AGW and co2.
Name ONE which said AGW isn't happening.
I never tired to name one, but I did say that a STUNNING defeat has
occurred. Kyoto is all but dead as result of the apec announcements. It is
simply a reflection of the public debate, and that fact that the "fraud" has
run out of steam. If you don't see this as a significant turning point
history for AGW, then I can't help you. It is symbolic, just as the wall
coming down in Europe was. It does not mean that everyone changes over
night, but does mean that AGW has been stopped dead in it tracks.
Well, there will always be kooks on the internet, like the one
claiming a second sun wanders through our solar system and causes
warming, or the ones claiming the earth doesn't rotate. You seem to
give them credence.
No, I don't given them credence. In fact, what I am ware of is people like
you that are intellectually bankrupt, and the ONLY arguments you have is to
associate good reason with the kooks because that all you have left. One of
the AMAZING things of the internet is how this time horned tactic of
throwing in legitimate reason with that of kooks is also another chicken
that been roosted here. Like the lame Schobie trials, you ALWAYS seek to
gather opinions opposed to you that have ZERO credibility. Try some
legitimate reasoned opinions...and you instantly find your postions will get
roasted in no time flat.
The problem is if you make a honest effort, you see issues such as evolution
are in serious trouble today...
Super Turtle
.
|
|
|
| User: "HangEveryRepubliKKKan" |
|
| Title: Re: Retreat of the warmists begins to accelerate |
07 Oct 2007 07:30:52 PM |
|
|
"Green Turtle" <Super Turtle@greenpiece.com> wrote
No, we talking about far more scholarly approach here.
Try
Stanley L. Jaki
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/science_origin.html
From above "How is it that science became a self-sustaining enterprise only
in the Christian West? "
Yup, there is no science in Japan or China. None in India and none in the
middle east from whence science originated.
Dumb.. Dumb... Dumb....
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Cain" |
|
| Title: Re: Retreat of the warmists begins to accelerate |
10 Oct 2007 02:34:18 AM |
|
|
HangEveryRepubliKKKan wrote:
From above "How is it that science became a self-sustaining enterprise only
in the Christian West? "
The printing press.
Yup, there is no science in Japan or China. None in India and none in the
middle east from whence science originated.
The printing press was invented around 1450 A.D., had revolutionized science and
exploded general knowledge in the Christian west by about 1600 A.D. The first
press operation allowed in the islamic world started up in Iran in 1818 A.D.
Three hundred years was a long time to remain asleep while the science and
knowledge of the western world evolved with a much larger exponent than before
the press. The damage inflicted on Muslims by their reactionary "religious"
leaders might never be undone. The gap continues to grow due to a continuing
reliance on that kind of leadership.
Dumb.. Dumb... Dumb....
Really.
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "HangEveryRepubliKKKan" |
|
| Title: Re: Retreat of the warmists begins to accelerate |
10 Oct 2007 10:19:03 PM |
|
|
"Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote
The printing press.
How about the invention of zero. And the invention of Calculus.
Yup, there is no science in Japan or China. None in India and none in
the middle east from whence science originated.
"Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote
The damage inflicted on Muslims by their reactionary "religious" leaders
might never be undone.
Ah, so your intent is to keep the muslims ignorant.
Too late Bob. They are already vastly smarter than you. And a good number
of great scientists have been and are Muslim. And haven't you noticed how
dumb AmeriKKKans are becoming lately?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Cain" |
|
| Title: Re: Retreat of the warmists begins to accelerate |
14 Oct 2007 01:59:45 AM |
|
|
HangEveryRepubliKKKan wrote:
"Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote
The printing press.
How about the invention of zero. And the invention of Calculus.
Neither.
Yup, there is no science in Japan or China. None in India and none in
the middle east from whence science originated.
"Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote
The damage inflicted on Muslims by their reactionary "religious" leaders
might never be undone.
Ah, so your intent is to keep the muslims ignorant.
??? I've no idea how you deduced that little gem. I bemoan the fact that,
thanks to their clerics (whatever they are called in the various sects), they
have been so hobbled for so long by an unchanging and unchangeable world view
designed primarily to acquire and secure power over the ummah.
Too late Bob. They are already vastly smarter than you.
LOL! I believe that's called a glittering generalization.
And a good number
of great scientists have been and are Muslim. And haven't you noticed how
dumb AmeriKKKans are becoming lately?
Sure. I'm studying Arabic and also see some rather dumb young Arab muslims
taking it for probably the only A they can ever hope for. We Americans hardly
have a monopoly on stupidity or ignorance. FWIW, I only see one ethnic group
that I'm certain is crippled by intellectual disadvantage and doomed to the
underclass and it sure isn't the semitic line.
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstein
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd" |
|
| Title: Re: Retreat of the warmists begins to accelerate |
11 Sep 2007 02:15:28 PM |
|
|
On Sep 11, 8:02 am, "Green Turtle" <Super Tur...@greenpiece.com>
wrote:
"Lloyd" <lpar...@emory.edu> wrote in message
Actually, it is being challenged.
Uh, the Kansas school board doesn't count.
No, we talking about far more scholarly approach here.
Try
Stanley L. Jakihttp://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/science_origin.html
One person. Gee, all of science is about to crumble!
And, there is grand canyon of difference
between natural selection, and that of evolution.
Remember, it was about 2000+ years that MOST philosophers and scientists
believed in the steady state universe.
So? Most physicians believed evil spirits caused disease. Do you not
see a physician today?
My point is that as the science gets better, it hurting the evolution cause.\
My point is, if you believe this, you are stupid.
It should go the other way as science improves...but, it is not!!!
So, a considerable number of scientists did die kicking and screaming to
their graves with the belief of the steady state universe.
Including Einstein.
Quite surprising since he did much to prove the e=mc^2. You would think that
someone who can figure out that things in the universe are being burned up
and used would be able to figure out that the universe thus needs a 'cause'.
Oh well, if Einstien could not figure this simple observation out, then most
people here can't figure this out either!
When the "consensus" of the steady universe was dropped, the new theory
was
that of the big bang. Of course, there is LITTLE reason to stop the
debate
at the big bang, we should likely look at what things were like a million
years BEFORE the big bang...after all, we can't just think that things
were
created in an instant can we? (opps, that would support a Christian
view...would it not!!!).
How about things with less than zero mass?
Ah, yes...we start letting the kooks out without the slightest bit of proof.
You can remove the tin foil from your walls now, as the government
satellites really can't control your mind. Less then zero mass? Well, lets
just say that a lot people obviously base their science on "faith" and not
much reason then! Perhaps you can watch cost to cost, and talk about zero
point energy also. (opps, sorry..science fiction area!!).
With the discovery of DNA, ad continued improvements in science, the
Darwinian view of things is actually being challenged like never before.
Not in science it isn't.
Oh, most assured it is challenging this. Mutations are damages, and
generally a REMOVAL of DNA.....not an addition.
Well, a change.
And, natural selection does
not create something new, but only functions on something that already
existed.
Do you really think evolution means a reptile goes to bed and wakes up
a bird?
DNA and philosophy IS in fact challenging this issue big time. As
useall, stick you head in the sand...
So,
in fact a retreat on evolution is occurring.
You're confusing school boards with science.
No, you being blind, and not keeping up with what occurring in science right
now at all.
Even the recent apec summit had virtually MOST of the governments backing
down, and only giving public promises to work on pollution, but nothing
concrete in terms of AGW and co2.
Name ONE which said AGW isn't happening.
I never tired to name one, but I did say that a STUNNING defeat has
occurred.
Which proves your stupidity.
Kyoto is all but dead as result of the apec announcements.
It was a first step which expires soon anyway.
It is
simply a reflection of the public debate, and that fact that the "fraud" has
run out of steam.
Now you are a liar.
If you don't see this as a significant turning point
history for AGW, then I can't help you. It is symbolic, just as the wall
coming down in Europe was. It does not mean that everyone changes over
night, but does mean that AGW has been stopped dead in it tracks.
Yep, all that's left is IPCC, National Academy of Sciences, NASA,
NOAA, EPA, WMO, Royal Society, 98% of all scientists, all the world's
leaders, AAAS, AGU...
Well, there will always be kooks on the internet, like the one
claiming a second sun wanders through our solar system and causes
warming, or the ones claiming the earth doesn't rotate. You seem to
give them credence.
No, I don't given them credence. In fact, what I am ware of is people like
you that are intellectually bankrupt, and the ONLY arguments you have is to
associate good reason with the kooks because that all you have left. One of
the AMAZING things of the internet is how this time horned tactic of
throwing in legitimate reason with that of kooks is also another chicken
that been roosted here. Like the lame Schobie trials, you ALWAYS seek to
gather opinions opposed to you that have ZERO credibility. Try some
legitimate reasoned opinions...and you instantly find your postions will get
roasted in no time flat.
The problem is if you make a honest effort, you see issues such as evolution
are in serious trouble today...
Super Turtle
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Benj" |
|
| Title: Re: Retreat of the warmists begins to accelerate |
08 Oct 2007 02:17:00 AM |
|
|
Lloyd wrote:
So, a considerable number of scientists did die kicking and screaming to
their graves with the belief of the steady state universe.
Including Einstein.
With a
understating of energy, and things like fusion etc, it quite easy to see the
steady state scientist were wrong.
To shift the subject just a bit, I recall some Gigantic knock-down
drag-out arguments I had some years ago with a number of respected
scientists regarding what was then termed "the theory of uniformity"
This is the theory that ALL geological processes always take place at
the same uniform rate. It asserts that all geological changes in the
past are the SAME processes that are taking place right now and these
processes ALWAYS proceed at that same rate. I said this is a nonsense
theory. I was called stupid. I was called names. Luckily since I'm
not a geologist they couldn't drum me out of the profession, but
clearly the steady state universe in geology was dogma NEVER to be
questioned. Velikovsky was a "kook". Asteroids never hit the earth or
cause geological effects. Earthquakes on large scales never happen and
on and on.
But you bring up the "theory of uniformity" today and everyone acts
like they don't know what it is! You outline the theory and everyone
asserts that nobody believes such nonsense. Even the very guys I
argued with so loudly deny that they EVER held such view and can't
remember me ever pointing out anything to them. In short, it's cover
your ***** and no "outsider" is ever going to be allowed to take credit
for pointing out even the largest and most stupid of professional
errors in some other profession.
So today I'm here screaming that CO2 CANNOT cause enough heating to
the cause of global warming. All ready I see asses starting to be
covered by switching to other gasses. Yeah we sell "carbon credits"
but other gasses are really the most important blah, blah, blah!
Truth is that yes, there is climate change. Yes, Ice is melting. Yes,
ironically pan evaporation rates are gradually being reduced. (the
opposite effect to AGW) and yes, conferences and agreement of large
polluters to reduce emissions is a GOOD thing. How can dumping a bunch
of waste product crap in the air and sea be a GOOD thing? How can it
even be a thing we should let continue?
But the kick in the *****, is that the issue of pollution has become a
political football complete with propaganda in the major media and
bogus theories and junk science to back it up! Doesn't anybody get it
that pollution of our planet is a BAD thing? Nobody NEEDS to use lies
to make that point! And playing politics with these issues for
personal financial gain is the biggest sin of all!
The people need to stand up to all this political propaganda and call
it out for what it is. "carbon credits" and "greenhouse" gasses is
total BS and only wastes time and money that needs to be spend
cleaning up the REALLY nasty crap people have dumped. Systems like
Earth ecology are feedback system that have certain points of no
return where the systems become unstable. Take my word for it, you do
NOT want to trip one of these points because everybody has been
playing political games with AGW lies.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: While AGW advocates pine away on CO2 phobia the real polluters have a free ride |
08 Oct 2007 01:43:39 PM |
|
|
"Benj" <bjacoby@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:1191827820.524313.295770@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
. . . the issue of pollution has become a
political football complete with propaganda in the major media and
bogus theories and junk science to back it up! Doesn't anybody get it
that pollution of our planet is a BAD thing? Nobody NEEDS to use lies
to make that point! And playing politics with these issues for
personal financial gain is the biggest sin of all!
The people need to stand up to all this political propaganda and call
it out for what it is. "carbon credits" and "greenhouse" gasses is
total BS and only wastes time and money that needs to be spend
cleaning up the REALLY nasty crap people have dumped.
<snip>
Well stated.
.
|
|
|
| User: "columbiaaccidentinvestigation" |
|
| Title: Re: While AGW advocates pine away on CO2 phobia the real polluters have a free ride |
08 Oct 2007 01:53:13 PM |
|
|
On Oct 8, 11:43 am, <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"Benj" <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:1191827820.524313.295770@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
. . . the issue of pollution has become a
political football complete with propaganda in the major media and
bogus theories and junk science to back it up! Doesn't anybody get it
that pollution of our planet is a BAD thing? Nobody NEEDS to use lies
to make that point! And playing politics with these issues for
personal financial gain is the biggest sin of all!
The people need to stand up to all this political propaganda and call
it out for what it is. "carbon credits" and "greenhouse" gasses is
total BS and only wastes time and money that needs to be spend
cleaning up the REALLY nasty crap people have dumped.
<snip>
Well stated.
actually not really, but calling something b.s obviously makes it so,
and declaring something propaganda means you can make the declaration
that it is bs. so i quess you have your twisted pretzel logic nice and
tied...
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "hanson" |
|
| Title: Re: Retreat of the warmists begins to accelerate |
08 Oct 2007 12:54:35 PM |
|
|
ahahaha... Jacobi, you are pissing into the wind with any sci
argument when you talk to the global warmers. But your take
below is valid in that the little green idiots are playing games
and the green shits will NOT admit to that ALL their enviro-
whinerism is nothing but politics & their machination tos get their
lazy fingers onto the graft from the extortions of taxing the public
with permit charges, user fees, green surtaxes, carbon taxes,
energy surtaxes the latter of which cong. Dingle has introduced
last week... despite the fact that
---- any GW "problem" has been solved long time ago:
http://terpsboy.com/blogger6/globalpanties.jpg
---- but the green Bible's Theology is still force fed to the public:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/70ed6372eccc32ba
Thanks for the laughs.... ahahahanson
"Benj" <bjacoby@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:1191827820.524313.295770@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Lloyd wrote:
So, a considerable number of scientists did die kicking and screaming
to
their graves with the belief of the steady state universe.
Including Einstein.
With a
understating of energy, and things like fusion etc, it quite easy to
see the
steady state scientist were wrong.
To shift the subject just a bit, I recall some Gigantic knock-down
drag-out arguments I had some years ago with a number of respected
scientists regarding what was then termed "the theory of uniformity"
This is the theory that ALL geological processes always take place at
the same uniform rate. It asserts that all geological changes in the
past are the SAME processes that are taking place right now and these
processes ALWAYS proceed at that same rate. I said this is a nonsense
theory. I was called stupid. I was called names. Luckily since I'm
not a geologist they couldn't drum me out of the profession, but
clearly the steady state universe in geology was dogma NEVER to be
questioned. Velikovsky was a "kook". Asteroids never hit the earth or
cause geological effects. Earthquakes on large scales never happen and
on and on.
But you bring up the "theory of uniformity" today and everyone acts
like they don't know what it is! You outline the theory and everyone
asserts that nobody believes such nonsense. Even the very guys I
argued with so loudly deny that they EVER held such view and can't
remember me ever pointing out anything to them. In short, it's cover
your ***** and no "outsider" is ever going to be allowed to take credit
for pointing out even the largest and most stupid of professional
errors in some other profession.
So today I'm here screaming that CO2 CANNOT cause enough heating to
the cause of global warming. All ready I see asses starting to be
covered by switching to other gasses. Yeah we sell "carbon credits"
but other gasses are really the most important blah, blah, blah!
Truth is that yes, there is climate change. Yes, Ice is melting. Yes,
ironically pan evaporation rates are gradually being reduced. (the
opposite effect to AGW) and yes, conferences and agreement of large
polluters to reduce emissions is a GOOD thing. How can dumping a bunch
of waste product crap in the air and sea be a GOOD thing? How can it
even be a thing we should let continue?
But the kick in the *****, is that the issue of pollution has become a
political football complete with propaganda in the major media and
bogus theories and junk science to back it up! Doesn't anybody get it
that pollution of our planet is a BAD thing? Nobody NEEDS to use lies
to make that point! And playing politics with these issues for
personal financial gain is the biggest sin of all!
The people need to stand up to all this political propaganda and call
it out for what it is. "carbon credits" and "greenhouse" gasses is
total BS and only wastes time and money that needs to be spend
cleaning up the REALLY nasty crap people have dumped. Systems like
Earth ecology are feedback system that have certain points of no
return where the systems become unstable. Take my word for it, you do
NOT want to trip one of these points because everybody has been
playing political games with AGW lies.
.
|
|
|
| User: "HangEveryRepubliKKKan" |
|
| Title: Re: Retreat of the warmists begins to accelerate |
17 Oct 2007 03:21:45 PM |
|
|
NASA finds evidence of widespread Antarctic melting
Last Updated: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 | 10:04 AM ET
Rising temperatures two years ago led to widespread melting of snow cover in
west Antarctica, according to scientists examining the impact of global
warming on the icy continent.
The melting of snow cover in regions in January 2005 was the most
significant Antarctic melting seen since satellites began observing the
continent three decades ago, NASA said Tuesday.
NASA's QuikScat satellite detected extensive areas of snowmelt, shown in
yellow and red, in west Antarctica in January 2005.
(NASA/JPL) It was also the first major melting detected using NASA's
QuikScat satellite, which can measure both accumulated snowfall and
temperatures in various regions.
The team of scientists found evidence of melting in regions not normally
affected: up to 900 kilometres inland from the open ocean, farther than 85
degrees south (within 500 kilometres of the South Pole) and higher than
2,000 metres above sea level.
QuikScat found maximum air temperatures at the time of melting were
unusually high, reaching more than 5 C in one of the areas. These maximum
temperatures remained above the melting point for approximately a week.
The researchers were led by Son Nghiem of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory
and Konrad Steffen, the director of the Co-operative Institute for Research
in Environmental Sciences at the University of Colorado. They published
their results in a book, Dynamic Planet.
"Antarctica has shown little to no warming in the recent past, with the
exception of the Antarctic Peninsula, but now large regions are showing the
first signs of the impacts of warming as interpreted by this satellite
analysis," said Steffen in a statement.
"Increases in snowmelt, such as this in 2005, definitely could have an
impact on larger-scale melting of Antarctica's ice sheets if they were
severe or sustained over time."
The 2005 melt was extensive enough to create a layer of ice when the water
refroze, but was not long enough for the water to flow to the sea. Steffen
said if enough water from melted snow is created, it could slip through the
cracks of the continent's ice sheets and potentially affect their movement.
The Antarctic ice mass is the Earth's largest freshwater reserve, and
changes in its condition can have an impact on sea levels, ocean salinity
and water currents.
"We need to know what's coming in and going out of the ice sheets," said
Ngheim.
"QuikScat data, combined with data from NASA's IceSat and Gravity Recovery
and Climate Experiment satellites, along with aircraft and ground
measurements, all contribute to more accurate estimates of how the polar ice
sheets are changing."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Puppet_Sock" |
|
| Title: Re: Retreat of the warmists begins to accelerate |
11 Sep 2007 12:13:26 PM |
|
|
On Sep 10, 4:17 am, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
[snip]
Yessiree, Darwinism is about to collapse, any day now. Just you wait
and see.
So, if I find an obviously stupidly wrong book about a topic,
that topic is clearly entirely stupidly wrong.
(snicker) (giggle) BWA HA HA HA
HA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yes you are.
Socks
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Penrose" |
|
| Title: Re: Retreat of the warmists begins to accelerate |
10 Sep 2007 06:36:08 PM |
|
|
On Sep 9, 6:22 pm, wrote:
Retreat of the warmists begins to accelerate
'Warmist?' Is this tag soon to replace the foul epithet 'liberal'
next?
Problem is, the issue of climate change has become politicized to the
point where objective evidence is irrelevant. Believing or not
believing in climate change is a litmus test of political affiliation
and has nothing whatever to do with science.
While you're foaming at the mouth, check this one out:
http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/200508.php
(link good until 10/17)
Dangerous Bill
(who sees waves lapping at the driveway of his Arizona home.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Whata Fool" |
|
| Title: Re: Retreat of the warmists begins to accelerate |
10 Sep 2007 07:43:59 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 16:36:08 -0700, Bill Penrose <penrose@iit.edu>
wrote:
On Sep 9, 6:22 pm, wrote:
Retreat of the warmists begins to accelerate
'Warmist?' Is this tag soon to replace the foul epithet 'liberal'
next?
Of course not, liberal will still be the foul label of the left.
Problem is, the issue of climate change has become politicized to the
point where objective evidence is irrelevant. Believing or not
believing in climate change is a litmus test of political affiliation
and has nothing whatever to do with science.
I don't think so, while it may appear AGW is the major
agenda of the green-pink left, the people who question, and
are actually more interested in the science, probably are not
affiliated with any one political group.
While you're foaming at the mouth, check this one out:
http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/200508.php
(link good until 10/17)
Dangerous Bill
(who sees waves lapping at the driveway of his Arizona home.)
What? You are less than a foot above sea level?
Or is there flash flooding in the area?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Retreat of the warmists begins to accelerate |
10 Sep 2007 09:39:42 PM |
|
|
On Sep 10, 7:36 pm, Bill Penrose <penr...@iit.edu> wrote:
On Sep 9, 6:22 pm, wrote:
Retreat of the warmists begins to accelerate
'Warmist?' Is this tag soon to replace the foul epithet 'liberal'
next?
Yeah, it's right up there with tarring everyone who disagrees with AGW
a denialist, isn't it? Except that it actually describes your
position neutrally rather than likening you to a Holocaust denier.
.
|
|
|
| User: "HangEveryRepubliKKKan" |
|
| Title: Re: Retreat of the warmists begins to accelerate |
10 Oct 2007 03:13:25 AM |
|
|
<kwag7693@hotmail.com> wrote
Yeah, it's right up there with tarring everyone who disagrees with AGW
a denialist, isn't it?
So in your view, someone who agrees with the Consensus view of science is
as worthy of being "tarred" as someone who echo's the lies told by paid Coal
industry Propagandists....
No one is being tarred, except Kdthrge, who when he is working on those
sweltering roofs (tars himself daily).
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Penrose" |
|
| Title: Re: Retreat of the warmists begins to accelerate |
11 Sep 2007 02:29:17 AM |
|
|
On Sep 10, 6:39 pm, wrote:
Yeah, it's right up there with tarring everyone who disagrees with AGW
a denialist, isn't it? Except that it actually describes your
position neutrally rather than likening you to a Holocaust denier.
Not my position. In fact, given my family history, there's a good
chance I'll be dead in 10 years, so I have only a passing interest in
climate change itself. I'm more interested in the thought processes
that put ideology ahead of the most obvious evidence.
DB
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Puppet_Sock" |
|
| Title: Re: Retreat of the warmists begins to accelerate |
11 Sep 2007 12:21:21 PM |
|
|
On Sep 10, 7:36 pm, Bill Penrose <penr...@iit.edu> wrote:
[snip]
Problem is, the issue of climate change has become politicized to the
point where objective evidence is irrelevant.
This is only correct in so far as the political process at this
time is concerned. And it's a sad commentary.
Believing or not
believing in climate change is a litmus test of political affiliation
and has nothing whatever to do with science.
This is only true in one direction. Believers are nearly all lefties.
Those who are not attempting to use belief as their guide into
the future, but rather rational and careful understanding of the
facts, are fairly evenly distributed across most political lines.
Socks
.
|
|
|
| User: "HangEveryRepubliKKKan" |
|
| Title: Re: Retreat of the warmists begins to accelerate |
01 Oct 2007 11:17:09 AM |
|
|
"Puppet_Sock" <puppet_sock@hotmail.com> wrote
This is only true in one direction. Believers are nearly all lefties.
Bad week for Bush on climate, but what now?
by Ted Glick
October 1, 2007
He looked like the fool he is, the liar, deceiver, hypocrite and evil man
that he is. That's how TV coverage showed George Bush speaking at his sham
"major emitters" climate conference at the State Department on Thursday and
Friday. There he was, acting as if he had the credentials to lead the world
in the make-or-break battle to immediately slow and, over time, stop and
reverse global heating.
Comments by delegates from the 16 countries invited to this conference, as
reported in news stories, were mostly tepid, downright dismissive sometimes.
The climate movement had something to do with this. Interactions with some
of the non-U.S. delegates and pro-climate Congressional legislators
beforehand, press conferences and media work helped. Also critical was the
action by about 75 of us on Thursday morning. Just before the delegates
started arriving, we marched up to the main State Dept. entrance with a big
"Bush: Wrong Way on Global Warming" banner and scores of similar signs. We
stretched ourselves across the entrance and made it impossible for the
delegates to get in without sensing our strong feelings, seeing our signs
and hearing our non-stop chants. They felt our anger and disgust with this
latest effort by the Bushites to prevent forward movement on the climate
crisis.
And for two hours we didn't stop chanting, not once. "Bush is a criminal."
"No war, no warming." No more hot air, we need action." "Renewable energy
now." And more, on and on. Finally, the police moved in to arrest 50 of us.
This was an historic action for the climate movement in the USA. With its
nonviolent militancy and its numbers, it was an example of what we need to
keep doing, getting bigger and bigger. Greenpeace, as the major group, as
well as the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, U.S. Climate Emergency
Council and Oil Change International are to be commended for an excellent
initiative.
What now?
One thing, one very immediate thing, the Next Big Action, has got to be the
No War, No Warming October 22nd nonviolent civil disobedience action on
Capitol Hill. For both the climate movement and the peace and justice
movement, this is a logical next step following a busy month of September.
Congress needs to know not just that people are outraged, but that we are
organizing ourselves to nonviolently disrupt their maddening
business-as-usual-Pentagon/coal/oil/corporate-influenced
business-as-usual!!!
And beyond that are the UFPJ Oct. 27 regional mass peace/justice
demonstrations, the Step It Up local actions on Nov. 3rd, the big Power
Shift conference of thousands of young people Nov. 2-5 and actions on
December 8th, the third International Day of Climate Action. All are
important.
But for both the anti-war movement and the climate movement there's a big
tactical question we are facing due to the failure of the Democratic-led
Congress to so far do anything of real substance-anything!-to either get
U.S. troops out of Iraq or to start the urgently-needed shift from an
economy dependent on fossil fuels to one all about conservation, efficiency
and renewable energy.
Some in both movements look at this situation and think that what we
therefore need to do is to focus on electing more Democrats next November,
and particularly to elect a Democrat to the White House.
Others may want that to happen but think we should remain issue-oriented and
activist, bringing political pressure to bear on candidates running for
office from whatever party to get them to take strong and solid positions on
our issues. They've pretty much given up on the possibility that we can get
much of anything passed of substance in 2008 because of Bush's veto pen.
And then there are others who certainly want the Republicans out of the
White House and as many progressive Democrats and independents as possible
in Congress come January, 2009, but who believe that either the war crisis
or the climate crisis, or both, are so urgent that we have to be very wary
of getting caught up in the whole electoral scene. They-we actually, because
I'm in this group-believe that, indeed, to the extent to which we keep up
the "street heat," keep out there agitating and demonstrating and sitting in
and fasting and taking action on these critical issues, to that extent will
we be most effective both short- and long-term. And we just might be
surprised by what happens in 2008.
I think it's going to be hard to budge Bush on the war. All signs point to a
rigid, unbending determination to keep as many troops in Iraq as possible
until Bush's successor arrives in the hope that it will be difficult for
that successor-if he/she wanted to-to fundamentally change the oil
imperialistic policy. It may be, however, that polling which shows the
Republicans being wiped out because of their support for Bush/Cheney's war
could lead to pressure to force Bush to make some adjustments.
For the climate movement, however, I think it is more possible that we could
get some positive developments legislatively in 2008 from Congress that Bush
would have a hard time refusing to sign in a Presidential election year.
This could come to pass if the activist groups in particular within in the
climate movement do not dissipate most of their energy into electoral
campaign-related work but, instead, keep focused on bringing maximum
pressure on Congress to take strong action now.
It's unlikely that what this Congress would pass will be the kind of
hard-hitting legislation we need, but given the support among many moderate
Republicans as well as politically conservative evangelicals for action on
the climate crisis, for "creation care," I can see Bush being forced by
political realities to "take one for the team" and sign a piece of
legislation that really does begin to move us in the right direction. He
doesn't have the we-can't-let-our-troops-die-in-vain card or the
we-have-to-provide-support-for-our-boys card to play when it comes to the
climate crisis.
Then next year a better Congress and better President can strengthen federal
legislation as the climate movement keeps up the pressure for legislation
that is actually based upon what science is telling us is needed-legislation
that puts in place the basis for a deep, thorough-going, jobs-creating,
peace-encouraging, poverty-reducing clean energy revolution. We can't settle
for anything less, and we need the tactics that match that need!
In the words of martyred German minister Dietrich Bonhoeffer, executed for
his anti-Hitler activities in 1945, "real generosity towards the future lies
in giving all to the present."
---
Ted Glick is currently on the 27th day of a Climate Emergency Fast
(www.climateemergency.org) and is a key organizer of the No War, No Warming
October 22nd action on Capitol Hill. He can be reached at indpol@igc.org.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "columbiaaccidentinvestigation" |
|
| Title: Re: Retreat of the warmists begins to accelerate |
11 Sep 2007 12:30:44 PM |
|
|
On Sep 11, 10:21 am, Puppet_Sock <puppet_s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
This is only true in one direction. Believers are nearly all lefties.
Those who are not attempting to use belief as their guide into
the future, but rather rational and careful understanding of the
facts, are fairly evenly distributed across most political lines.
Socks
You might want to go to the website for us-cap, as the members of this
group state "the scientific understanding of climate change is now
sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt actions.", and I
think you might want to read the list of corporations backing such a
statement because it is not possible to clearly assign political
affiliation to such a group or it's members, as you have attempted to
do so.
United States Climate Action Partnership
http://www.us-cap.org/USCAPCallForAction.pdf
"We Know Enough to
Act on Climate Change
In June 2005, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences joined with the
scientific academies of ten other countries in stating that "the
scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear
to justify nations taking prompt actions." Each year we delay action
to control emissions increases the risk of unavoidable consequences
that could necessitate even steeper reductions in the future, at
potentially greater economic cost and social disruption.
Action sooner rather than later preserves valuable response options,
narrows the uncertainties associated with changes to the climate, and
should lower the costs of mitigation and adaptation. For these
reasons, we, the members of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership
(USCAP) have joined together to recommend the prompt enactment of
national legislation in the United States to slow, stop and reverse
the growth of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions over the shortest period
of time reasonably achievable.
.... Encourage Early Action
Prior to the effective date of mandatory emission limits, every
reasonable effort should be made to reduce emissions. Those companies
that take early action should be given appropriate credit or otherwise
be rewarded for their early reductions in GHG emissions."
US CAP members
Alcan Inc.
Alcoa
American International
Group, Inc. (AIG)
Boston Scientific Corporation
BP America Inc.
Caterpillar Inc.
ConocoPhillips
The Chrysler Group
Deere & Company
The Dow Chemical Company
Duke Energy
DuPont
Environmental Defense
FPL Group, Inc.
Ford Motor Company
General Electric
General Motors Corp.
Johnson & Johnson
Marsh, Inc.
National Wildlife Federation
Natural Resources
Defense Council
NRG Energy, Inc.
The Nature Conservancy
PepsiCo
Pew Center on Global
Climate Change
PG&E Corporation
PNM Resources
Shell
Siemens Corporation
World Resources Institute
Xerox Corporation"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Puppet_Sock" |
|
| Title: Re: Retreat of the warmists begins to accelerate |
12 Sep 2007 02:17:06 PM |
|
|
On Sep 11, 1:30 pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
<columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 11, 10:21 am, Puppet_Sock <puppet_s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
This is only true in one direction. Believers are nearly all lefties.
Those who are not attempting to use belief as their guide into
the future, but rather rational and careful understanding of the
facts, are fairly evenly distributed across most political lines.
Socks
You might want to go to the website for us-cap, as the members of this
group state "the scientific understanding of climate change is now
sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt actions.", and I
think you might want to read the list of corporations backing such a
statement because it is not possible to clearly assign political
affiliation to such a group or it's members, as you have attempted to
do so.
[screed snipped]
And that followed by an *alphabetical* listing of members. Well, sure,
if
you want to hide such entities as the Pew group and WRI in the
middle of all those companies, in an *alphabetical* listing. Now try
listing it by who writes their news release copy.
For many years, the Foundation tended to fund local Philadelphia
charities and conservative causes. However, under the leadership
of Thomas Langfitt, President from 1987 to 1994, and his successor
Rebecca Rimel, Pew has shifted its resources dramatically to the left.
Arguing that the "political ghosts" of the Pews were gone, Ms. Rimel
has sought to "reinfuse the idealism of the Sixties into our work."
That's what is running your little "us-cap" thing. Plus like-minded
people who have managed to get in as minor board members on
some companies. Whinging lefties who who mope and pine for
the "idealism" of the sixties. You think anybody but a leftist would
give money to any group that included Pew? Sure you do.
Thanks for making my point for me.
Socks
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tunderbar" |
|
| Title: Re: Retreat of the warmists begins to accelerate |
10 Sep 2007 09:18:54 AM |
|
|
On Sep 9, 8:22 pm, wrote:
Retreat of the warmists begins to accelerate
Just as we begin to see the colossal price we are being asked to pay
for measures to combat climate change, ever more of the evidence
adduced to support the global warming scare crumbles away.
A key article of faith for the "warmists" is a supposed increase in
the incidence of extreme weather events, such as droughts. As Al Gore
claimed to a US Senate committee in March, "droughts are becoming
longer and more intense".
But US researchers, led by Gemma Narisma, have now shown that, far
from becoming more frequent in recent decades, serious droughts have
in fact become rarer than they were a century ago.
In a paper (reported on the website CO2Science.org) they identified
the 30 most "severe and persistent" drought episodes of the 20th
century.
Seven of these occurred before 1920, seven between 1921 and 1940 and
eight between 1941 and 1960, dropping to five between 1961 and 1980.
The last two decades of the century, when the world was supposedly
hotting up more than ever, saw just three. The worst drought affecting
the developed world was the US Dust Bowl disaster of the mid-1930s.
This corresponds with the recently revised figures for US surface
temperatures published by Gore's leading scientific ally, James Hansen
of Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS).
Last month, when Steve McIntyre, an expert statistical analyst,
spotted a fundamental flaw in the method Hansen had used to calculate
his figures, GISS was forced to publish a new graph, showing that the
hottest year of the 20th century was not 1998, as generally accepted,
but 1934. Of the 10 hottest years since 1880, four were in the 1930s,
only three in the past decade.
This in turn followed the latest satellite figures from the US
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration showing how
global temperatures in recent years have flattened out at about 0.2
degrees below their 1998 level, and that this summer's figures have
been lower than they were in 1983, despite a continuing rise in CO2.
It is clear that 2007 is proving quite a turning point in the climate
change debate.
Only last year one of the fathers of warmist alarmism, Professor James
Lovelock, predicted that, by the end of this century, climate change
would have been responsible for billions of deaths, and that the only
habitable places left on Earth would be the polar regions.
Last week, however, significantly retreating from his apocalyptic
view, he told the World Nuclear Association that, even though
temperatures might rise by a further five degrees, nature and humanity
would learn to adjust. The Earth was in "no danger".
Yet it is at this very time that, to combat the supposed threat, our
political leaders are upping the ante in all directions.
At the recent UN conference in Vienna to discuss "Kyoto Two", the EU
stood conspicuously alone with its plan to cut carbon emissions by up
to 40 per cent, and its ruling that by 2020, 20 per cent of our energy
must be generated from renewables, such as windpower and biofuels.
British civil servants have advised ministers that these targets are
wholly unreachable.
Already, not least in response to the new pressure on farmland to grow
biofuels, wheat prices have soared to record levels and world grain
stocks are plummeting, pushing the price of a loaf of bread for the
first time over =A31.
The Taxpayers Alliance last week calculated that "green taxes" now
cost us =A321.9 billion a year, equivalent to nearly =A31,000 for every
home in the country.
Yet scarcely a single politician in Europe dares question this
collective flight from reality.
China, now building a new coal-fired power station every four days,
last year added 102 gigawatts of new generating capacity, 25 per cent
more than the entire capacity of the UK. As ever more pointed question
marks rise up over the global warming thesis, who is to say it is the
Chinese who are mad?
Glbal warming is be working for the advocates:
"The Taxpayers Alliance last week calculated that "green taxes" now
cost us =A321.9 billion a year, equivalent to nearly =A31,000 for every
home in the country."
And that is only in the UK.
Wonder how I can get a cut of that? Maybe I should make a shrill
alarmist movie? Or become a climate modeller? Or set up a foundation
like David Suzuki? Or become a United Nations enviro-activist-
politician? Or start a company to trade in carbon credits. So many
ways to make money off of this. Where do I even begin?
.
|
|
|
| User: "HangEveryRepubliKKKan" |
|
| Title: Re: Retreat of the warmists begins to accelerate |
19 Oct 2007 11:14:02 PM |
|
|
"Tunderbar" <tdcomeau@gmail.com> wrote
"The Taxpayers Alliance last week calculated that "green taxes" now
cost us £21.9 billion a year, equivalent to nearly £1,000 for every
home in the country."
And how much benefit do you extract from the environment without paying
for the gang rape?
Ahahahahahahahahahaha....
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ouroboros_Rex" |
|
| Title: Re: Retreat of the warmists begins to accelerate |
10 Sep 2007 12:27:41 PM |
|
|
"Tunderbar" <tdcomeau@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1189433934.638634.260100@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 9, 8:22 pm, wrote:
Retreat of the warmists begins to accelerate
Just as we begin to see the colossal price we are being asked to pay
for measures to combat climate change, ever more of the evidence
adduced to support the global warming scare crumbles away.
A key article of faith for the "warmists" is a supposed increase in
the incidence of extreme weather events, such as droughts. As Al Gore
claimed to a US Senate committee in March, "droughts are becoming
longer and more intense".
But US researchers, led by Gemma Narisma, have now shown that, far
from becoming more frequent in recent decades, serious droughts have
in fact become rarer than they were a century ago.
In a paper (reported on the website CO2Science.org) they identified
the 30 most "severe and persistent" drought episodes of the 20th
century.
Seven of these occurred before 1920, seven between 1921 and 1940 and
eight between 1941 and 1960, dropping to five between 1961 and 1980.
The last two decades of the century, when the world was supposedly
hotting up more than ever, saw just three. The worst drought affecting
the developed world was the US Dust Bowl disaster of the mid-1930s.
This corresponds with the recently revised figures for US surface
temperatures published by Gore's leading scientific ally, James Hansen
of Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS).
Last month, when Steve McIntyre, an expert statistical analyst,
spotted a fundamental flaw in the method Hansen had used to calculate
his figures, GISS was forced to publish a new graph, showing that the
hottest year of the 20th century was not 1998, as generally accepted,
but 1934. Of the 10 hottest years since 1880, four were in the 1930s,
only three in the past decade.
This in turn followed the latest satellite figures from the US
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration showing how
global temperatures in recent years have flattened out at about 0.2
degrees below their 1998 level, and that this summer's figures have
been lower than they were in 1983, despite a continuing rise in CO2.
It is clear that 2007 is proving quite a turning point in the climate
change debate.
Only last year one of the fathers of warmist alarmism, Professor James
Lovelock, predicted that, by the end of this century, climate change
would have been responsible for billions of deaths, and that the only
habitable places left on Earth would be the polar regions.
Last week, however, significantly retreating from his apocalyptic
view, he told the World Nuclear Association that, even though
temperatures might rise by a further five degrees, nature and humanity
would learn to adjust. The Earth was in "no danger".
Yet it is at this very time that, to combat the supposed threat, our
political leaders are upping the ante in all directions.
At the recent UN conference in Vienna to discuss "Kyoto Two", the EU
stood conspicuously alone with its plan to cut carbon emissions by up
to 40 per cent, and its ruling that by 2020, 20 per cent of our energy
must be generated from renewables, such as windpower and biofuels.
British civil servants have advised ministers that these targets are
wholly unreachable.
Already, not least in response to the new pressure on farmland to grow
biofuels, wheat prices have soared to record levels and world grain
stocks are plummeting, pushing the price of a loaf of bread for the
first time over £1.
The Taxpayers Alliance last week calculated that "green taxes" now
cost us £21.9 billion a year, equivalent to nearly £1,000 for every
home in the country.
Yet scarcely a single politician in Europe dares question this
collective flight from reality.
China, now building a new coal-fired power station every four days,
last year added 102 gigawatts of new generating capacity, 25 per cent
more than the entire capacity of the UK. As ever more pointed question
marks rise up over the global warming thesis, who is to say it is the
Chinese who are mad?
Glbal warming is be working for the advocates:
"The Taxpayers Alliance
rofl
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tunderbar" |
|
| Title: Re: Retreat of the warmists begins to accelerate |
10 Sep 2007 12:48:31 PM |
|
|
On Sep 10, 12:27 pm, "Ouroboros_Rex" <i...@casual.com> wrote:
"Tunderbar" <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1189433934.638634.260100@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 9, 8:22 pm, wrote:
Retreat of the warmists begins to accelerate
Just as we begin to see the colossal price we are being asked to pay
for measures to combat climate change, ever more of the evidence
adduced to support the global warming scare crumbles away.
A key article of faith for the "warmists" is a supposed increase in
the incidence of extreme weather events, such as droughts. As Al Gore
claimed to a US Senate committee in March, "droughts are becoming
longer and more intense".
But US researchers, led by Gemma Narisma, have now shown that, far
from becoming more frequent in recent decades, serious droughts have
in fact become rarer than they were a century ago.
In a paper (reported on the website CO2Science.org) they identified
the 30 most "severe and persistent" drought episodes of the 20th
century.
Seven of these occurred before 1920, seven between 1921 and 1940 and
eight between 1941 and 1960, dropping to five between 1961 and 1980.
The last two decades of the century, when the world was supposedly
hotting up more than ever, saw just three. The worst drought affecting
the developed world was the US Dust Bowl disaster of the mid-1930s.
This corresponds with the recently revised figures for US surface
temperatures published by Gore's leading scientific ally, James Hansen
of Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS).
Last month, when Steve McIntyre, an expert statistical analyst,
spotted a fundamental flaw in the method Hansen had used to calculate
his figures, GISS was forced to publish a new graph, showing that the
hottest year of the 20th century was not 1998, as generally accepted,
but 1934. Of the 10 hottest years since 1880, four were in the 1930s,
only three in the past decade.
This in turn followed the latest satellite figures from the US
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration showing how
global temperatures in recent years have flattened out at about 0.2
degrees below their 1998 level, and that this summer's figures have
been lower than they were in 1983, despite a continuing rise in CO2.
It is clear that 2007 is proving quite a turning point in the climate
change debate.
Only last year one of the fathers of warmist alarmism, Professor James
Lovelock, predicted that, by the end of this century, climate change
would have been responsible for billions of deaths, and that the only
habitable places left on Earth would be the polar regions.
Last week, however, significantly retreating from his apocalyptic
view, he told the World Nuclear Association that, even though
temperatures might rise by a further five degrees, nature and humanity
would learn to adjust. The Earth was in "no danger".
Yet it is at this very time that, to combat the supposed threat, our
political leaders are upping the ante in all directions.
At the recent UN conference in Vienna to discuss "Kyoto Two", the EU
stood conspicuously alone with its plan to cut carbon emissions by up
to 40 per cent, and its ruling that by 2020, 20 per cent of our energy
must be generated from renewables, such as windpower and biofuels.
British civil servants have advised ministers that these targets are
wholly unreachable.
Already, not least in response to the new pressure on farmland to grow
biofuels, wheat prices have soared to record levels and world grain
stocks are plummeting, pushing the price of a loaf of bread for the
first time over =A31.
The Taxpayers Alliance last week calculated that "green taxes" now
cost us =A321.9 billion a year, equivalent to nearly =A31,000 for every
home in the country.
Yet scarcely a single politician in Europe dares question this
collective flight from reality.
China, now building a new coal-fired power | | | |
