Death of the New Religion

[Snipe]

From The Telegraph in London:

2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/3982101/2008-was-the-year-man-made-global-warming-was-disproved.html)


Easily one of the most important stories of 2008 has been all the evidence suggesting that this may be looked back on as the year when there was a turning point in the great worldwide panic over man-made global warming. Just when politicians in Europe and America have been adopting the most costly and damaging measures politicians have ever proposed, to combat this supposed menace, the tide has turned in three significant respects.

First, all over the world, temperatures have been dropping in a way wholly unpredicted by all those computer models which have been used as the main drivers of the scare. Last winter, as temperatures plummeted, many parts of the world had snowfalls on a scale not seen for decades. This winter, with the whole of Canada and half the US under snow, looks likely to be even worse. After several years flatlining, global temperatures have dropped sharply enough to cancel out much of their net rise in the 20th century.

Ever shriller and more frantic has become the insistence of the warmists, cheered on by their army of media groupies such as the BBC, that the last 10 years have been the "hottest in history" and that the North Pole would soon be ice-free – as the poles remain defiantly icebound and those polar bears fail to drown. All those hysterical predictions that we are seeing more droughts and hurricanes than ever before have infuriatingly failed to materialise.

Even the more cautious scientific acolytes of the official orthodoxy now admit that, thanks to "natural factors" such as ocean currents, temperatures have failed to rise as predicted (although they plaintively assure us that this cooling effect is merely "masking the underlying warming trend", and that the temperature rise will resume worse than ever by the middle of the next decade).

Secondly, 2008 was the year when any pretence that there was a "scientific consensus" in favour of man-made global warming collapsed. At long last, as in the Manhattan Declaration last March, hundreds of proper scientists, including many of the world's most eminent climate experts, have been rallying to pour scorn on that "consensus" which was only a politically engineered artefact, based on ever more blatantly manipulated data and computer models programmed to produce no more than convenient fictions.



From Frank Tipler, a mathematical physicist at Tulane University: (link (http://www.urgentagenda.com/PERMALINKS%20IV/DECEMBER%2008/22.P.WARMING.html))


Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is a scam, with no basis in science.

A few comments on my own particular view of global warming:
...

(2) It is obvious that anthropogenic global warming is not science at all, because a scientific theory makes non-obvious predictions which are then compared with observations that the average person can check for himself. As we both know from our own observations, AGW theory has spectacularly failed to do this. The theory has predicted steadily increasing global temperatures, and this has been refuted by experience. NOW the global warmers claim that the Earth will enter a cooling period. In other words, whether the ice caps melt, or expand --- whatever happens --- the AGW theorists claim it confirms their theory. A perfect example of a pseudo-science like astrology.

(3) In contrast, the alternative theory, that the increase and decrease of the Earth's average temperature in the near term follows the sunspot number, agrees (roughly) with observation. And the observations were predicted before they occurred. This is good science.

(4) I emphasized in point (2) that the average person has to be able to check the observations. I emphasize this because I no longer trust "scientists" to report observations correctly. I think the data is adjusted to confirm, as far as possible, AGW. We've seen many recent cases where the data was cooked in climate studies. In one case, Hanson and company claimed that October 2008 was the warmest October on record. Watts looked at the data, and discovered that Hanson and company had used September's temperatures for Russia rather than October's. I'm not surprised to learn that September is hotter than October in the Northern hemisphere.
....

(7) I agree with Dick Lindzen that the AGW nonsense is generated by government funding of science. If a guy agrees with AGW, then he can get a government contract. If he is a skeptic, then no contract. There is a professor at Tulane, with a Ph.D in paleoclimatology, who is as skeptical as I am about AGW, but he'd never be considered for tenure at Tulane because of his professional opinion. No government contracts, no tenure.
...

Science is an economic good like everything else, and it is very bad for production of high quality goods for the government to control the means of production. Why can't Newt Gingrich understand this? Milton Friedman understood it, and advocated cutting off government funding for science.

From Dr. Tim Ball, an environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg...

Completely inadequate IPCC models produce the ultimate deception about man made global warming (http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/7116)


E. R. Beadle said, “Half the work done in the world is to make things appear what they are not.” The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) does this with purpose and great effect. They built the difference between appearance and reality into their process. Unlike procedure used elsewhere, they produce and release a summary report independently and before the actual technical report is completed. This way the summary gets maximum media attention and becomes the public understanding of what the scientists said. Climate science is made to appear what it is not. Indeed, it is not even what is in their Scientific Report.

The pattern of falsifying appearances began early. Although he works at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), Stephen Schneider was heavily employed in the work of the IPCC as this biography notes.

....

Schneider, among others, created the appearance that the Summary was representative of the Science Report. However, he provides an early insight into the thinking when speaking about global warming to Discovery magazine (October 1989) he said scientists need, “to get some broader based support, to capture the public’s imagination…that, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts we may have…each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective, and being honest.” The last sentence is deeply disturbing--there is no decision required.

Being effective vs being honest? That is a scientist? Sounds more like a Marxist. The end justifies the means. These people aren't about the truth, they are about advancing an agenda.

The earth has been cooling for a decade and 2008 was the coldest year in the last 10.

A lot of old school progressives and marxists hate capitalism and they hate corporations. I think when the Berlin Wall fell and the Soviet Union collapsed a lot of them have converted into enviromentalists. They are just using the new religion as the ends that justify their means. The endgame is still the same. They want power and control over people.

Given the scaricity of goods and resources that lay ahead for the American people I wonder how many Americans are for green energy if it comes with a huge price tag. I am all for clean and efficient renewable resources in theory. Who can be against that? But what if it doubles my energy bills? What if it substantially decreases my standard of living? Life is about trade-offs.

A second grader will tell you the optimal amount of pollution is zero. Anyone older than that that realizes we live in a world of trade offs and that the optimal amount of pollution is not zero. Under zero polution nobody would drive cars. Trucks would not deliver goods and you could not flick on the light switch.

We need to get the government (and politics) out of the science industry. We need to cut all government funding into science. All government funding does is misallocate resources and much of the spending crowds out legitimate scientific research from the private sector.

We may be about to embark on the biggest government spending spree in the history of our country and much of it could be spent on the basis of bad science. The new religion can’t die fast enough.

[Fireball]

I do believe that we need to take more measure to be green, and I do believe that what pollution we have caused so far could at some point result in global warming.

That all being said, I don't believe in the apocalyptic view that Mr. Gore would have most of of believe. We're not there yet, but we could be if we don't turn things around.

[xudash]

I do believe that we need to take more measure to be green, and I do believe that what pollution we have caused so far could at some point result in global warming.

That all being said, I don't believe in the apocalyptic view that Mr. Gore would have most of of believe. We're not there yet, but we could be if we don't turn things around.

Well stated.

Common sense: do the right thing, but stop the chicken little stuff about all this.

[GuyFawkes38]

I do believe that we need to take more measure to be green, and I do believe that what pollution we have caused so far could at some point result in global warming.

I have no idea why this occurs, but the brokest, most corrupt states and municipalities embark on the most ambitious green regulations (Michigan, California, Detroit, Chicago, etc...).

The green regulations are more than laughable (yes, I don't really think Chicago should mandate that all city buildings have grass growing on their roofs or give credits to scooter users).

Government taking the lead on combating global warming is a scam.

Fireball, I think it's nice that you think we need to be more green, but do you really trust politicians?

[XU 87]

I'm sure that the media will be doing an in depth investigation about the allegation that the anti-global warming scientists are refused govt. funding.

[Mrs. Garrett]

I have no idea why this occurs, but the brokest, most corrupt states and municipalities embark on the most ambitious green regulations (Michigan, California, Detroit, Chicago, etc...).

The green regulations are more than laughable (yes, I don't really think Chicago should mandate that all city buildings have grass growing on their roofs or give credits to scooter users).

Government taking the lead on combating global warming is a scam.

Fireball, I think it's nice that you think we need to be more green, but do you really trust politicians?

A few years ago Chicago started their recycling program. All these ultra-liberal, save the earth types ran out to pay extra to have their recycling picked up from their blue bins. It was later discovered the garbage companies were dumping the recycling with the regular garbage. AH-HA!

[The Artist]

A few years ago Chicago started their recycling program. All these ultra-liberal, save the earth types ran out to pay extra to have their recycling picked up from their blue bins. It was later discovered the garbage companies were dumping the recycling with the regular garbage. AH-HA!

That's not limited the just Chicago. Also, some cities' recycling systems are actually more harmful to the environment than not recycling.

[Emp]

I'm glad to see Snipe recycling the stories from the same crackpot editorials. We went through this last summer. The "scientific" basis for these stories was simply not there, as an actual reading of the cited sources disclosed.

I await all of Canada and half the US under snow all winter. Especially after 75 in Cincinnati on Saturday.

Who actually bothers to find and read Frank Tipler? Or is it all cut and paste? Wallpaper on top of wallpaper. Yawn.

[XU 87]

I await all of Canada and half the US under snow all winter. Especially after 75 in Cincinnati on Saturday.



If global warming with will give Cincinnati 70 degree temperature in the winter, then I'm all for global warming.

But unfortunately, yesterday was very cold and today is in the 20's. So it looks like we're going to have another record year of cold weather. In light of such, I'm concerned about the second coming of the ice age. Should you recall, back in the 70's, the media was very concerned about a second ice age.

Strange how things change.

[UCGRAD4X]

government taking the lead on anything short of national defense is dubious - and even that should be carefully scrutinized

[Snipe]

I'm glad to see Snipe recycling the stories from the same crackpot editorials. We went through this last summer. The "scientific" basis for these stories was simply not there, as an actual reading of the cited sources disclosed.

I await all of Canada and half the US under snow all winter. Especially after 75 in Cincinnati on Saturday.

Who actually bothers to find and read Frank Tipler? Or is it all cut and paste? Wallpaper on top of wallpaper. Yawn.


From the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works:


Prominent Scientist Fired By Gore Says Warming Alarm ‘Mistaken’ (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=5ef55aa3-802a-23ad-4ce4-89c4f49995d2)

11 More Scientists Join Senate Report of More Than 650 Dissenters

‘The current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken’

Link to Full Printable PDF Report of More Than 650 Dissenting Scientists (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9)

WASHINGTON, DC – Award winning Princeton University Physicist Dr. Will Happer, who was reportedly fired by former Vice President Al Gore in 1993 for failing to adhere to Gore’s scientific views, has now declared man-made global warming fears “mistaken.”

“I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken,” Happer, who has published over 200 scientific papers, told EPW on December 22, 2008. Happer made his remarks while requesting to join the 2008 U.S. Senate Minority Report from Environment and Public Works Ranking Member James Inhofe (R-OK) of over 650 (and growing) dissenting international scientists disputing anthropogenic climate fears.

[Note: Joining Happer as new additions to the Senate report, are at least 10 more scientists, including meteorologists from Germany, Netherlands and CNN, as well as a professors from MIT and University of Arizona. See below for full quotes and bios of the new skeptical scientists added to the groundbreaking report, which includes many current and former UN IPCC scientists.]

“I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism. I did not need the job that badly,” Happer said this week. Happer is a Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy from 1990 to 1993, has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences.

Senator Inhofe said that the continued outpouring of prominent scientists like Happer -- who are willing to publicly dissent from climate fears -- are yet another strike to the UN, Gore and the media’s claims about global warming. “The endless claims of a 'consensus' about man-made global warming grow less-and-less credible every day," Inhofe said.

Happer, who served as the Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy in 1993, says he was fired by Gore in 1993 for not going along with Gore’s scientific views on ozone and climate issues. “I was told that science was not going to intrude on policy," Happer explained in 1993.

“I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect, for example, absorption and emission of visible and infrared radiation, and fluid flow,” Happer said this week. “Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth's climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past,” he added.

“Over the past 500 million years since the Cambrian, when fossils of multicellular life first became abundant, the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have been much higher than current levels, about 3 times higher on average. Life on earth flourished with these higher levels of carbon dioxide,” he explained. “Computer models used to generate frightening scenarios from increasing levels of carbon dioxide have scant credibility,” Happer added.

Hey Emp, why is the earth getting cooler? Why is 2008 the coldest year this century? Why didn't the alarmist climate models predict this? What has happened to the New Religion? I thought "The Debate is Over".

[Snipe]

government taking the lead on anything short of national defense is dubious - and even that should be carefully scrutinized

Amen to that.

[XU 87]

According to an AP article from a few weeks ago, the fact that it is getting colder is further evidence that the world is getting warmer.

[bourbonman]

Hasn't the world been getting warmer since the last Ice Age? Yes. And has all that been caused by Man? No.

I am in charge of a brand which has its cornerstone built on sustainability. I drive some execs here up a wall when I don't buy into the "man-made" global warming issue. They ask how I then can support a sustainable positioning for a brand. Simply put, it's the right thing to do. No need to waste when you can reuse. No need to use chemicals or synthetic materials when you can do it through natural means. On top of that it's more often than not cheaper and quicker.

Simply put, I believe that while the earth has been getting warmer (a simple statement of fact) and man may contribute to it, I don't believe man is the sole factor. The earth has gotten hot and cold for millions of years, and it will continue. But even if we're not causing it ourselves, it doesn't mean we shouldn't act in a responsible way in terms of doing things the right way.

[Snipe]

Cooling on Global Warming (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122937766062908297.html)
Germany and the rest of Europe are getting more rational on climate change


The reasons for the changing political atmosphere in Europe are manifold. First, the global economic crisis has demoted green policies nearer to the bottom of the political agenda. Saving the economy and creating jobs take priority now.

Second, disillusionment with the failed Kyoto Protocol has turned utopian thinking into sobriety. After all, most of the Kyoto signatories failed to reduce their CO2 emissions during the last 10 years. There are also growing doubts about the long-term viability of the EU's Emissions Trading Scheme. The price of carbon credits has collapsed as a result of the financial crisis. The drop in demand and the recession are likely to depress carbon prices for years to come. As a result, the effectiveness of the extremely volatile scheme is increasingly questioned.

Third, a number of countries have experienced a political backlash over their renewable energy schemes. Tens of billions of euros of taxpayers' money have been pumped into projects that depend on endless government handouts. Each of the 35,000 solar jobs in Germany, for instance, is subsidized to the tune of €130,000. According to estimates by the Rhine-Westphalia Institute for Economic Research, green subsidies will cost German electricity consumers nearly €27 billion in the next two years.

Perhaps even more important is the growing realization that the warming trend of the late 20th century has, for the last 10 years or so, essentially come to a temporary halt. The data collected by international meteorological offices confirm this. This most peculiar fact is rarely mentioned in policy debates, but it certainly provides decision makers with a vital respite to reconsider their climate policy options.

Who wants solar energy? It comes from our sun! It is free and renewable! I think we all want solar energy.

But it isn't free. Germany is paying 130,000 Euros for each of the 35,000 solar jobs in their country. That is over $182,000 a year in our currency per job. When we leave the pie in the sky world and enter the world of trade offs solar energy doesn't sound so attractive. You have to wonder how many green jobs our country can afford to create given the scarce resources in times of budget crisis. Should we trim funding for schools or social security to create these jobs? Life is about trade offs and the money must come from somewhere. The government cure is often worse than the disease.

We all want clean air and clean water. I love the environment. I also love the high standard of living that we enjoy in this country.

[XUglow]

I'm glad to see Snipe recycling the stories from the same crackpot editorials. We went through this last summer. The "scientific" basis for these stories was simply not there, as an actual reading of the cited sources disclosed.

I await all of Canada and half the US under snow all winter. Especially after 75 in Cincinnati on Saturday.

Who actually bothers to find and read Frank Tipler? Or is it all cut and paste? Wallpaper on top of wallpaper. Yawn.

Is skiinfo.com too right wing for you? You can read all about the record snowfalls in nearly all locations.

Silverton Mountain, CO has received nearly five metres (more than 196 inches) of new snow so far this season. All roads to and from the Town of Silverton were closed due to avalanche hazard. The snowfall breaks the December snow record set just the previous year.

Of course, there is always The Weather Channel information. (weather.com)

With a new storm approaching, chances are good Spokane will set an all-time record for snowfall in a single month.

Spokane's Top 5 Snowiest Months on Record
1. January 1950: 56.9 inches
2. December 2008: 54.5 inches
3. January 1969: 48.7 inches
4. January 1954: 46.5 inches
5. December 1996: 42.7 inches

Also, the bigger the winter storm, the lower the pressure. When pressure is really low, it pulls weather from high pressure areas towards it. The warmer temps are the result of strong storms pulling Gulf of Mexico warmth farther north than usual.

I hate seeing the environment turned into a political football. People on both sides are guilty of bad science. The earth's temperature was going up. Green house gases is one theory for the rise. Another theory is that too few data points are taken. It is warmer in cities than it is in the near-by countryside. An airport weather station may have been in the country 40 years ago whereas the city has grown around it the past 40 years. If so, then a data point was messed up by local and not global influences. Carbon dioxide continues to rise. The earth's temperature is falling though. A lack of sunspot activity is considered the main reason for the temperature drop. What happens when sunspot activity goes back up? Who knows?

[Snipe]

Scientists abandon global warming 'lie' (http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=83323)
650 to dissent at U.N. climate change conference

Here are some excerpts from the experts:



"I am a skeptic ... . Global warming has become a new religion." -- Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.


"Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly ... . As a scientist I remain skeptical." -- Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called "among the most pre-eminent scientists of the last 100 years."


Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history ... . When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists." -- U.N. IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning Ph.D. environmental physical chemist.


"The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn't listen to others. It doesn't have open minds ... . I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists." -- Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the U.N.-supported International Year of the Planet.


"The models and forecasts of the U.N. IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity." -- Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.


"It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming." -- U.S. Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.


"Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapor and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will." -- Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, New Zealand.


"After reading [U.N. IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet." -- Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an associate editor of Monthly Weather Review.


"For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" -- Geologist Dr. David Gee, the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer-reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.


"Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp ... . Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact." -- Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch U.N. IPCC committee.


"Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined." -- Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh, Pa.


"Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense ... . The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning." -- Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.


"CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another ... . Every scientist knows this, but it doesn't pay to say so ... . Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver's seat and developing nations walking barefoot." -- Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.


"The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds." -- Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.

[UCGRAD4X]

Kudos [and reps] for doing some research on this.

The new 'Bailout Boom' will rise as the tempeature and enthusiasm for AGW falls. It will become the new reason for government to get into everybody's business...literally!

[Fireball]

Fireball, I think it's nice that you think we need to be more green, but do you really trust politicians?

Nope.

Do I trust top executives of major corporations either?

Nope.

Basically we're screwed either way. Neither party will do the right thing for the right reasons. I just hope they some how end up doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. I think that's about as much as we CAN hope for.

[Snipe]

Nope.

Do I trust top executives of major corporations either?

Nope.

Basically we're screwed either way. Neither party will do the right thing for the right reasons. I just hope they some how end up doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. I think that's about as much as we CAN hope for.

Compare the "major corporations" to the politicians and I would ask who do you trust more?

And who are the "major corporations"? Look around your house at the products that you like. Are they given to you by the government or are they made available by the "major corporations"? All of the best products in my house come from the private market. The government gives me nothing. They just take. Take a look around before you hang the blame.

[Mark 3 Pointer]

I learned this in sixth grade.

Proper Scientific Method

Ask a Question - Does increasing CO2 levels cause global temperatures to rise?
Do Background Research - Research and determine ALL contributing factors to global temperatures.
Construct a Hypothesis - If Human's continue producing C02 at current and growing levels then global temperatures will rise.
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment - Construct models (physcial and computer based) that take into account ALL contributing factors.
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion - Increasing levels of CO2 do in fact cause global temeratures to rise (not at a rate that is overly alarming or irreverseable), however, there are other more powerful forces such as sun spots that cause more significant, immediate and long-term variances in global temperatures .

If hypothesis proven true (Communicate), If hypothesis proven false (Return to step 3)

Communicate Your Results -



Global Warming Scientific Method

Ask a Question - Does increasing CO2 levels cause global temperatures to rise?
Construct a Hypothesis - If Human's continue producing CO2 at current and growing levels then global temeratures will rise.
Test Your Hypothesis By Doing an Experiment - Construct computer based models desingned and written by non-skeptics.
Communicate Your Results - Presented to the press for release to the public. Actual results very from inital press releases.
Do Background Research - Ignore significant factors such as sun spots to further their claims.
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion - Global Warming is the result of the production CO2 by humans. If hypothesis proven true (Release more press), If hypothesis proven false (Return to step 3 and manipulate data).


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scientist- a person learned in science and especially natural science : a scientific investigator

Alarmist - A person who needlessly alarms or attempts to alarm others, as by inventing or spreading false or exaggerated rumors of impending danger or catastrophe.



"Beware of the Liberal Scientist" ~ M3P

[Fireball]

Compare the "major corporations" to the politicians and I would ask who do you trust more?

And who are the "major corporations"? Look around your house at the products that you like. Are they given to you by the government or are they made available by the "major corporations"? All of the best products in my house come from the private market. The government gives me nothing. They just take. Take a look around before you hang the blame.

Snipe,

I'm all for a good conversation on how much the government sucks, but to claim the government gives you nothing is a little over the top, don't you think? They do, after all, give us education (public schools) and safety (police and national defense) to name a couple of things. And yes, I know both of those are flawed, but would we be without it. It's one thing to be libertarian...it's quite another to be anarchist.

But...back to the point here. While I agree that business has done many wonderful things for us, you cannot also deny that we are in the position we are as far as pollution goes because most many of these business don't care what effect they have, as long as they can shave a few pennies off their expenses. I'm generalizing here, I know. That being said, it is government who started passing regulations that have improved things to a certain extent. It's still not where we need to be, but it is better.

My point here is to say that it's going to take both our major corporations and our government working together to improve here. Both pieces are vital here. Which do I trust more? I don't know. I hear about enough corrupt politicians to make me sick. I also hear about enough executives taking 8-figure bonuses with the government bailout money to make me sick also. So, who are we left to trust? The almighty dollar. When politicians are paid enough by lobbyists to regulate and business can make more money by "going green" is when we'll get our wind energy and our electric cars.

So like I said before, I don't trust government or major corporations. Hopefully, though, they can stumble into the right solutions.

[American X]

This is impossible to answer considering Snipe is so full of hot air.

[muskienick]

I believe that mankind is one of numerous variables in the cooling/warming cycle of the earth. If the poll question asked was: Is mankind solely responsible for global warming? The answer would have to be a resounding "NO!"

Another thing to realize is that we are not talking "WEATHER" here. The question is CLIMATE change. CLIMATE is an atmospheric factor determined over continuingly progressive 30-year cycles. To pick out yearly or monthly weather statistics to bolster one's opinion on the global warming issue is ludicrous.

[GuyFawkes38]

Snipe,

I'm all for a good conversation on how much the government sucks, but to claim the government gives you nothing is a little over the top, don't you think? They do, after all, give us education (public schools) and safety (police and national defense) to name a couple of things. And yes, I know both of those are flawed, but would we be without it. It's one thing to be libertarian...it's quite another to be anarchist.

But...back to the point here. While I agree that business has done many wonderful things for us, you cannot also deny that we are in the position we are as far as pollution goes because most many of these business don't care what effect they have, as long as they can shave a few pennies off their expenses. I'm generalizing here, I know. That being said, it is government who started passing regulations that have improved things to a certain extent. It's still not where we need to be, but it is better.

My point here is to say that it's going to take both our major corporations and our government working together to improve here. Both pieces are vital here. Which do I trust more? I don't know. I hear about enough corrupt politicians to make me sick. I also hear about enough executives taking 8-figure bonuses with the government bailout money to make me sick also. So, who are we left to trust? The almighty dollar. When politicians are paid enough by lobbyists to regulate and business can make more money by "going green" is when we'll get our wind energy and our electric cars.

So like I said before, I don't trust government or major corporations. Hopefully, though, they can stumble into the right solutions.

Fireball, what you say above makes some sense.

But I think you are avoiding the big question: would you be willing to give up a larch chunk of your pay check to fight global warming?

You don't really hear that question often because somehow environmentalists have convinced us that strict green regulations will save us a bunch of cash in the long run. But that couldn't be further from the truth.

[The Artist]

Fireball, what you say above makes some sense.

But I think you are avoiding the big question: would you be willing to give up a larch chunk of your pay check to fight global warming?

You don't really hear that question often because somehow environmentalist have convinced us that strict green regulations will save us a bunch of cash. But that couldn't be further from the truth.

large chunk? really???

at least nobody here is over-reacting or exaggerating.

[Snipe]

This is impossible to answer considering Snipe is so full of hot air.

I am the leading cause of global warming.


I believe that mankind is one of numerous variables in the cooling/warming cycle of the earth. If the poll question asked was: Is mankind solely responsible for global warming? The answer would have to be a resounding "NO!"

Another thing to realize is that we are not talking "WEATHER" here. The question is CLIMATE change. CLIMATE is an atmospheric factor determined over continuingly progressive 30-year cycles. To pick out yearly or monthly weather statistics to bolster one's opinion on the global warming issue is ludicrous.

Every living organism affects the environment in some way. Every breath you take converts oxygen to carbon dioxide. I guess you are sold on the idea that carbon dioxide is a cause of warming. Aren't butterflies one of the numerous variables in the cooling/warming cycle of the earth? I think that is kind of weak. I will concede that man is one of numerous variables just as termites and cows and trees and frogs are.

Just curious nick, how do you think man affects the cooling/warming cycle if he has a tangible affect at all? Does man make it cooler or warmer? Is it because of CO2?

As for picking out yearly weather statistics to bolster one's opinion, the earth has been cooling for a decade. This year was the coldest in the last decade. The climate models that the alamists presented showed the temperature rising. Those climate models have been proven wrong. Is it ludicrous to pick out global temperatures over a decade to bolster my case about global temperatures? What data set would you prefer me to use?

[Fireball]

Fireball, what you say above makes some sense.

But I think you are avoiding the big question: would you be willing to give up a larch chunk of your pay check to fight global warming?

You don't really hear that question often because somehow environmentalist have convinced us that strict green regulations will save us a bunch of cash. But that couldn't be further from the truth.

No, I wouldn't. A little bit maybe. But not much.

[GuyFawkes38]

large chunk? really???

at least nobody here is over-reacting or exaggerating.

"large chunk" is appropriate (especially if fireball or anyone invests over a long period of time after strict green regulations are put in place).

[Snipe]

large chunk? really???

at least nobody here is over-reacting or exaggerating.

I think it was larch chunk.


Third, a number of countries have experienced a political backlash over their renewable energy schemes. Tens of billions of euros of taxpayers' money have been pumped into projects that depend on endless government handouts. Each of the 35,000 solar jobs in Germany, for instance, is subsidized to the tune of €130,000. According to estimates by the Rhine-Westphalia Institute for Economic Research, green subsidies will cost German electricity consumers nearly €27 billion in the next two years.

That is a larch chunk for German electricity consumers. If you don't agree with that then our disagreement is on the definition of larch.

[The Artist]

Right, but here's the thing, if they stopped spending those tens of billions of dollars on such things, it not like our taxes would magically decrease, they would find something else to spend it on.

If you want to argue about what else they would spend it on, have at it, but don't sit here and try to tell me I'm losing money or not keeping as much as I would if these things weren't being funded.

[Snipe]

Snipe,

I'm all for a good conversation on how much the government sucks, but to claim the government gives you nothing is a little over the top, don't you think? They do, after all, give us education (public schools) and safety (police and national defense) to name a couple of things. And yes, I know both of those are flawed, but would we be without it. It's one thing to be libertarian...it's quite another to be anarchist.



I will give you the police and national defense, and like you say those are flawed. We could make due with less national defense and much less of a police state.

Where would we be without public schools? Where would we be without the department of education, the FDA, the National Institute of Health, the Internal Revenue Service or a host of other government agencies? Where would we be without the department of Housing and Urban Development? I can only dream.

If we didn't have public schools my kids would still be getting an education. I would have still gotten an education. You would have still gotten an education. And many of our urban public schools are only schools in name only if you look at the results. Black people had higher literacy rates a hundred years ago than they have today. I would love to know where we would be without public schools.

Public schools came about because a bunch of anti-catholic WASPs didn't like the fact that so many young people were being educated in Catholic Schools. They then instituted a public school that taught their religion. Ever wonder why we have Catholic schools but not so many Protestant schools? That is because the public schools were the Protestant schools. They wanted to use taxpayer money to indoctrinate youth. Though the religion is now gone the song remains the same. You can bet your sweet patoutie they teach the new religion of global warming in every public school.



But...back to the point here. While I agree that business has done many wonderful things for us, you cannot also deny that we are in the position we are as far as pollution goes because most many of these business don't care what effect they have, as long as they can shave a few pennies off their expenses. I'm generalizing here, I know. That being said, it is government who started passing regulations that have improved things to a certain extent. It's still not where we need to be, but it is better.

Agree or disagree: Most businesses don't care what effect they have on the environment, as long as they can have a few pennies off their expenses.

I disagree.

We do need regulations on polution, as well zoning and buliding codes in my opinion. I also think that most businesses are far more responsible than you give them credit.

[Snipe]

Right, but here's the thing, if they stopped spending those tens of billions of dollars on such things, it not like our taxes would magically decrease, they would find something else to spend it on.

If you want to argue about what else they would spend it on, have at it, but don't sit here and try to tell me I'm losing money or not keeping as much as I would if these things weren't being funded.

I believe that eventually the dollar will collapse and that we are all going to hell. Given that it is impossible for me to argue that they would not find something else to spend it on. That doesn't mean that I should embrace any of their spending. I deplore it all.

As for what we should be spending it on, perhaps some new nukes, updating the grid, a new pipeline to Anwar, opening up the offshore oil sites and coal to gas technology. All of that would have much better bang for the buck than solar. But Solar is politically correct. It is part and parcel of the new religion.

[Fireball]

Agree or disagree: Most businesses don't care what effect they have on the environment, as long as they can have a few pennies off their expenses.

I disagree.

We do need regulations on polution, as well zoning and buliding codes in my opinion. I also think that most businesses are far more responsible than you give them credit.

I disagree with you on the public school system being unnecessary, but that's a discussion for another thread.

As far as this point above...many businesses do care about their result on the environment, and many do not. That's why we need the regulations.

[muskienick]

As I said, Snipe, using statistics from an isolated month or a year is what is ludicrous to support one's claim in the global warming issue whether you are pro or con.

If you (or anyone else) want to use climate statistics, that is both the logical and ethical thing to do. The climatic conditions of an area (or the Earth, for that matter) are 30-year averages. So, if you are asking me if 10-year trends are acceptable to convince me (or any other person who doesn't have a political agenda to be concerned about), I would say that would not be acceptable.

If you can show generally accepted data showing lower (or higher) average global temperatures over the last 30 years, I will sit up and take notice.

[Mark 3 Pointer]

You can bet your sweet patoutie they teach the new religion of global warming in every public school.

Most public school curriculums have chosen to stay neutral in the entire debate. I have a friend that is a 7th grade natural science teacher in the Mason school district that told me that no teacher is allowed to present only one side. In fact both sides are given equal class and lab time. In order to show her students “An inconvenient Truth” she needed to petition her principal and require that all students had written permission from their parents. The movie was only allowed to be shown after school hours and she needed to present opposing views at the movies conclusion which was then followed by a debate.

My Sister works for the Oak Hills School district and similar cirriculum is followed.
Hell I think this sounds super redundant and like overkill but it’s the fairest way a public school can tackle such issues.

[Snipe]

Nick, I think that 30 years is a small speck of time when considering the earth's climate history. That said, going back to 1980:


"The extent of global sea ice is at the same level it was in 1980. The mean planetary temperature, as monitored by satellite, also is the same as in 1980." link (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/10/global-warming-freeze/)

Mark, that is good news about the school issue. It is good to know they aren't brainwashing kids with junk science.

[Snipe]

A lot of old school progressives and marxists hate capitalism and they hate corporations. I think when the Berlin Wall fell and the Soviet Union collapsed a lot of them have converted into enviromentalists. They are just using the new religion as the ends that justify their means. The endgame is still the same. They want power and control over people.



Did I say marxists that hate corporations?

I give you NASA's James Hansen. He is chief of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies and an big backer of Algore. He wrote a letter to Michelle and Barack Obama that was published on Columbia University's website.

James Hansen proposes a carbon tax that will affect all consumption. He then wants to give 100% of the tax back on a per capita basis. Those who consume more will be taxed more and the poor and the needy will come out ahead.

"A person with large cars and a big house will pay a tax much higher than the dividend."

"It will increase energy prices, but low and middle income people, especially, will find ways to reduce carbon emissions so as to come out ahead."

"The carbon tax has social benefits. It is progressive. It is useful to those most in need in hard times, providing them an opportunity for larger dividend than tax."

"Tax with 100% dividend, in contrast, would spur our economy, while aiding the disadvantaged"

I think this is the endgame of the whole plan and it doesn't matter to these people if the globe is warming or not. They don't like consumption. They want to take away property from those who consume and give it to the needy so they can consume more (somehow that consumption isn't so bad to them).

We can go after the big nasty corporations (Big Oil, Big Coal) and we can tax them until their products aren't competative. We can take that tax money and give it to the poor. Sounds like these people don't like Capitalism, Corporations, or people that enjoy lifestlyes of high income and consumption. The facts of the climate matter very little, as these are the exact same type of marxists that have always been with us.

[muskienick]

David Deming is an anomoly in the scientific world. He is one of only a few scientits out of thousands who have reached his level of accomplishments who hold that global warming is a myth (as it applies to even minor human intervention).

To cherry-pick his article instead of citing one or more from from among the thousands by climatologists (of which Deming is not --- his areas of expertise are geology and geophysics), only goes to show that one can prove by "voodoo journalism" that black is white or that Xavier is really an institution run by the Dominican Fathers.

[Snipe]

David Deming is an anomoly in the scientific world. He is one of only a few scientits out of thousands who have reached his level of accomplishments who hold that global warming is a myth (as it applies to even minor human intervention).

To cherry-pick his article instead of citing one or more from from among the thousands by climatologists (of which Deming is not --- his areas of expertise are geology and geophysics), only goes to show that one can prove by "voodoo journalism" that black is white or that Xavier is really an institution run by the Dominican Fathers.

Anomoly? Perhaps you missed this:


Scientists abandon global warming 'lie' (http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=83323)
650 to dissent at U.N. climate change conference

Here are some excerpts from the experts:



"I am a skeptic ... . Global warming has become a new religion." -- Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.


"Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly ... . As a scientist I remain skeptical." -- Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called "among the most pre-eminent scientists of the last 100 years."


Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history ... . When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists." -- U.N. IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning Ph.D. environmental physical chemist.


"The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn't listen to others. It doesn't have open minds ... . I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists." -- Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the U.N.-supported International Year of the Planet.


"The models and forecasts of the U.N. IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity." -- Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.


"It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming." -- U.S. Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.


"Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapor and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will." -- Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, New Zealand.


"After reading Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet." -- [U]Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an associate editor of Monthly Weather Review.


"For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" -- Geologist Dr. David Gee, the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer-reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.


"Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp ... . Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact." -- Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch U.N. IPCC committee.


"Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined." -- Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh, Pa.


"Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense ... . The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning." -- Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.


"CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another ... . Every scientist knows this, but it doesn't pay to say so ... . Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver's seat and developing nations walking barefoot." -- Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.


"The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds." -- Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.


Sounds as if it may be more than just a few people to me.

[Emp]

f we didn't have public schools my kids would still be getting an education. I would have still gotten an education. You would have still gotten an education. And many of our urban public schools are only schools in name only if you look at the results. Black people had higher literacy rates a hundred years ago than they have today. I would love to know where we would be without public schools.

Public schools came about because a bunch of anti-catholic WASPs didn't like the fact that so many young people were being educated in Catholic Schools. They then instituted a public school that taught their religion. Ever wonder why we have Catholic schools but not so many Protestant schools? That is because the public schools were the Protestant schools. They wanted to use taxpayer money to indoctrinate youth. Though the religion is now gone the song remains the same. You can bet your sweet patoutie they teach the new religion of global warming in every public school.----------

You are truly manic, monsieur. Sources, reliable sources for these contentions.

And will you please use really huge typeface and bold, because otherwise the illiterate blacks wont be able to read your answers.

[Snipe]

Sources?

For the black literacy rates I got them from a book by Thomas Sowell. The Quest for Cosmic Justice (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684864622/o/qid=948741318/sr=8-1/103-0891201-8089414) (1999). I have also referenced some articles below on black literacy rates.

For the history of public schools being started by WASPs who didn't like the fact that so many young children were being educated by the Catholic Church, I got that from a book by Sol Stern. Breaking free: public school lessons and the imperative of school choice (http://books.google.com/books?id=69EHAAAACAAJ&dq=Sol+Stern&source=an&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result) (2004).

I highly recommend both books.

Also check this article out: The Good Old Days (http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north289.html)


By 1940, the literacy figure for all states stood at 96 percent for whites, 80 percent for blacks. Notice that for all the disadvantages blacks labored under, four of five were nevertheless literate. Six decades later, at the end of the twentieth century, the National Adult Literacy Survey and the National Assessment of Educational Progress say 40 percent of blacks and 17 percent of whites can?t read at all. Put another way, black illiteracy doubled, white illiteracy quadrupled. Before you think of anything else in regard to these numbers, think of this: we spend three to four times as much real money on schooling as we did sixty years ago, but sixty years ago virtually everyone, black or white, could read.

Jamaca is a relatively poor Island nation with plenty of poor black people. They came from the same stock as the slaves that populated the south in this country. The literacy rate in Jamaca is 98.5%.
(http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/3b.htm)

I apologize for going off topic in my own thread.

[Emp]

I dont have all day to make hundreds of posts while I manage my properties, but

when I do, I can easily google and get US Dept of Ed Literacy rates. You and your cut and past "sources" are so totally wrong on literacy rates for blacks. 1900, 45.5% illiteracy, 1979 1.6%.
link http://nces.ed.gov/naal/lit_history.asp

No clothes on that one, Emp.

Dealing with your totally bogus assertion that public schools were a reaction to catholic education will take a bit more time. (elite) Private catholic schools (and colleges) were in part a reaction to preexisting (elite) protestant schools and academies in the 19th century.

Followup promised.

[Stonebreaker]

I've been calling Global Warming/Environmentalism a religion for years. Something tells me that some of them hug trees because mommy didn't hug them enough...or something. There is definitely a void (God?) in their life. IMO

In any event, weather patterns, including precipitation, are cyclical and ever changing. People who actually think a model (no inherent bias there) can predict the weather haven't been watching the BCS polls very closely.

[danaandvictory]

I've been calling Global Warming/Environmentalism a religion for years. Something tells me that some of them hug trees because mommy didn't hug them enough...or something. There is definitely a void (God?) in their life. IMO


LIEBERALS!!!!!!

[Fred Garvin]

I dont have all day to make hundreds of posts while I manage my properties, but



Ha! I never thought I'd rep the Emp.

[Emp]

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7228/edsumm/e090122-01.html

[XUglow]

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7228/edsumm/e090122-01.html

The basic premise of this article is that Antarctica's temps are rising at 0.1C per decade or 0.5C over the last 50 years. This finding is based on an algorithm that reconstructs temperatures on Antarctica over the past 50 years.

Say what? The findings aren't based on actual measurements, but on crafted measurements that use an algorithm. An algorithm?

Does anyone else find it suspicious that algorithm and Al Gore are so similar? Coincidence? I think not.