Posts: 24,831
Threads: 623
Reputation:
228672
Joined: May 2015
Location: Jackson, OH
Mood:
According to the "settled science" aka the scientists paid by the government, Alaska has been warming. Not so fast, say independent trackers of temperature in non urban areas...
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/06/sorry-president-pants-on-fire-but-alaska-is-cooling-not-warming/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social
And, before anyone tries to chide me on the source, bite me. A source is a source. Breitbart is as reliable as any Left leaning source is, to facts that you want to construe.. 
Volson is meh, but I like him, and he has far exceeded my expectations
-Frank Booth 1/9/23
Posts: 40,628
Threads: 1,062
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
Typical Breitbart cherry picking stats.
Wonder why they happened to choose 1977 as the starting points of their analysis? Well if you go to the source of the info they are quoting, the Alaska Climate Research Center, you will find this interesting tidbit.
the 5-year moving average demonstrates large increase in 1976. The period 1949 to 1975 was substantially colder than the period from 1977 to 2009,
So all Breitbart did was cut out a shorter data period to hide long term warming.
Posts: 24,831
Threads: 623
Reputation:
228672
Joined: May 2015
Location: Jackson, OH
Mood:
(09-06-2015, 10:23 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Typical Breitbart cherry picking stats.
Wonder why they happened to choose 1977 as the starting points of their analysis? Well if you go to the source of the info they are quoting, the Alaska Climate Research Center, you will find this interesting tidbit.
the 5-year moving average demonstrates large increase in 1976. The period 1949 to 1975 was substantially colder than the period from 1977 to 2009,
So all Breitbart did was cut out a shorter data period to hide long term warming.
Cherry picking facts?? Wait, the same way that you respond to peoples posts? Naw, people wouldn't do that, Fred. Only you would do that..
Volson is meh, but I like him, and he has far exceeded my expectations
-Frank Booth 1/9/23
Posts: 3,824
Threads: 36
Reputation:
21825
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
97% of scientists that have put forward a stance on the issue of climate change agree that it is happening, and that it is caused, or helped along by man. Excuse me while I don't take seriously the ideas of someone who repeatedly denies scientific facts.
Speaking of this 97%.....not a single Republican presidential candidate agrees with them. ***** imbiciles, is what they are.
I could care less if a small segment of Alaska is cooling. The planet as a whole is undeniably warming. Denying it at this point makes you look like a fool.
Posts: 4,251
Threads: 51
Reputation:
11344
Joined: May 2015
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Mood: None
I don't understand how people find it so hard to believe that there's global warming.
Posts: 40,628
Threads: 1,062
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(09-07-2015, 12:00 AM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: The planet as a whole is undeniably warming. Denying it at this point makes you look like a fool.
(09-07-2015, 12:01 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: I don't understand how people find it so hard to believe that there's global warming.
There really isn't much of an argument that the planet is warming. The only real debate is how much of it is due to man's use of fossil fuels.
But there are always those out there who just believe whatever Breitbart tells them.
Posts: 40,628
Threads: 1,062
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(09-06-2015, 11:39 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Cherry picking facts?? Wait, the same way that you respond to peoples posts? Naw, people wouldn't do that, Fred. Only you would do that..
Not sure what any of this has to do with the facts I just posted.
Are you admitting that Breitbart cherry picked stats, but just want to insult me instead of addressing the truth?
Or do you really think that Breitbart would never cherry pick stats?
What exactly are you trying to say?
Posts: 28,157
Threads: 40
Reputation:
122417
Joined: May 2015
Location: Parts Unknown, PA
Mood:
(09-07-2015, 12:01 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: I don't understand how people find it so hard to believe that there's global warming.
Short answer?
![[Image: dirty_money.jpg]](http://www.visitnowhere.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/dirty_money.jpg)
Posts: 3,824
Threads: 36
Reputation:
21825
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(09-07-2015, 12:18 AM)fredtoast Wrote: There really isn't much of an argument that the planet is warming. The only real debate is how much of it is due to man's use of fossil fuels.
But there are always those out there who just believe whatever Breitbart tells them.
There really isn't much of a debate as to whether man has a hand in it or not.
Here is a paper that has complied data on abstracts within the science community and whether they support or reject the idea of anthropogenic global warming. 11,944 abstracts were examined from between 1991 and 2001, 66.4% of these expressed no opinion on climate change, but in those that did, 97.1% of them endorsed the idea that human beings are causing global warming. 1% was uncertain, and 1.9% rejected it.
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
Posts: 323
Threads: 8
Joined: Aug 2015
Mood: None
(09-07-2015, 12:36 AM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: There really isn't much of a debate as to whether man has a hand in it or not.
Here is a paper that has complied data on abstracts within the science community and whether they support or reject the idea of anthropogenic global warming. 11,944 abstracts were examined from between 1991 and 2001, 66.4% of these expressed no opinion on climate change, but in those that did, 97.1% of them endorsed the idea that human beings are causing global warming. 1% was uncertain, and 1.9% rejected it.
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
That 97% scientist agree bullshit has been proven a myth.
Posts: 3,824
Threads: 36
Reputation:
21825
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(09-07-2015, 01:54 AM)Blutarsky Wrote: That 97% scientist agree bullshit has been proven a myth.
If I'm reading it right and you're saying that climate change is a proven myth, then I'm sure you'll be able to provide some of this proof. Maybe a link? Anything more than an uneducated opinion?
Posts: 1,145
Threads: 21
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(09-07-2015, 12:00 AM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: 97% of scientists that have put forward a stance on the issue of climate change agree that it is happening, and that it is caused, or helped along by man. Excuse me while I don't take seriously the ideas of someone who repeatedly denies scientific facts.
Speaking of this 97%.....not a single Republican presidential candidate agrees with them. ***** imbiciles, is what they are.
I could care less if a small segment of Alaska is cooling. The planet as a whole is undeniably warming. Denying it at this point makes you look like a fool.
"There ain't no global warming: it was hot in my backyard yestetday!!!!"
Posts: 40,628
Threads: 1,062
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(09-07-2015, 01:54 AM)Blutarsky Wrote: That 97% scientist agree bullshit has been proven a myth.
link?
Posts: 3,824
Threads: 36
Reputation:
21825
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(09-07-2015, 02:53 AM)fredtoast Wrote: link?
I now understand his sentence. With the way it was put together, I was reading it wrong before.
He's saying that the "97% of scientists agree" statement is bullshit.....I think.
The link that I have in my post above has all of the information in exactly where that number came from, and although 97% of scientists in the abstracts didn't say that global climate change was caused by humans, 97% of scientists who bother to take a stance on it do. Some do not even address the issue. If they don't address it, I don't know why their non-opinions would even be taken into account.
All of the information for it is shown in the link above. Anyone that wants to see it can do so.
Posts: 3,989
Threads: 44
Reputation:
27912
Joined: May 2015
Location: ¯\(°.o)/¯
Mood: None
Let's be real here. The truth is that our measurement of atmospheric conditions is a limited sample size when you consider the sheer age of the earth. However, we also cant disregard what information we have so far, which indicates a slow warm up over time. That said, even though it's not warming up at a rate that people notice (because of earth's changing seasons) the change affects our only planet which is most certainly climate sensitive. So while yes it is true that we should always keep collecting our environmental data, what we have now overwhelmingly shows that we are affecting our environment. It'd be wise to be proactive with this data rather than reactive.
Posts: 323
Threads: 8
Joined: Aug 2015
Mood: None
(09-07-2015, 02:05 AM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: I'm not completely sure what I'm reading here. Can someone interpret this sentence for me?
If I'm reading it right and you're saying that climate change is a proven myth, then I'm sure you'll be able to provide some of this proof. Maybe a link? Anything more than an uneducated opinion
The "study" proclaiming that 97% percent of scientists agreeing on man made climate change was debunked a couple years ago.
The first link is the most telling. It doesn't even set out to debunk the 97%, it just so happened that when Purdue University polled scientists in this study, only 53% of scientists polled believed man was contributing to global warming.
In science there must be consensus, and there is none. 53% doesn't cut it.
The atmosphere contains approx 400ppm of Co2,...(that's my $1,000,000 to your $400 if you are unable to comprehend ppm), an increase of 120ppm since the start of the industrial revolution a little over 100yrs. ago. Even if it could be proven that this amount is causing said warming, then it's probably a good thing because we need a little more warmth to fend of the mini ice age that's coming.
The sky isn't falling people. Just stop it.
The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, in a position statement written by Chairman C.D. Idso, PhD, and Vice President K.E. Idso, PhD, stated the following in its 2008 publication "Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming: Where We Stand on the Issue," available at http://www.co2science.org:
Quote:"There is little doubt the air's CO2 concentration has risen significantly since the inception of the Industrial Revolution; and there are few who do not attribute the CO2 increase to the increase in humanity's use of fossil fuels. There is also little doubt the earth has warmed slightly over the same period; but there is no compelling reason to believe that the rise in temperature was caused by the rise in CO2...
Proponents of the notion that increases in the air's CO2 content lead to global warming point to the past century's weak correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentration and global air temperature as proof of their contention. However, they typically gloss over the fact that correlation does not imply causation, and that a hundred years is not enough time to establish the validity of such a relationship when it comes to earth's temperature history...
In thus considering the seven greatest temperature transitions of the past half-million years - three glacial terminations and four glacial inceptions - we note that increases and decreases in atmospheric CO2 concentration not only did not precede the changes in air temperature, they followed them, and by hundreds to thousands of years...
Hence, the climate history of the past half-million years provides absolutely no evidence to suggest that the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 concentration will lead to significant global warming...
Proponents of the CO2-induced global warming hypothesis often predict that extreme weather events such as droughts, floods, and hurricanes will become more numerous and/or extreme in a warmer world; however, there is no evidence to support this claim. In fact, many studies have revealed that the numbers and intensities of extreme weather events have remained relatively constant over the last century."
Richard S. Lindzen, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), stated the following in his article, "Climate of Fear: Global Warming Alarmists Intimidate Dissenting Scientists into Silence," Wall Street Journal, Apr. 12, 2006:
Quote:"There have been repeated claims that this past year's hurricane activity was another sign of human-induced climate change. Everything from the heat wave in Paris to heavy snows in Buffalo has been blamed on people burning gasoline to fuel their cars, and coal and natural gas to heat, cool and electrify their homes. Yet how can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And how can it translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes?...
Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred... It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming."
John R. Christy, PhD, M.Div, Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, provided the following testimony on Aug. 1, 2012 before the US Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, available at http://www.epw.senate.gov: Quote:"It is popular again to claim that extreme events, such as the current central US drought, are evidence of human-caused climate change. Actually, the Earth is very large, the weather is very dynamic, and extreme events will continue to occur somewhere, every year, naturally…
New discoveries explain part of the warming found in traditional surface temperature datasets. This partial warming is unrelated to the accumulation of heat due to the extra greenhouse gases, but related to human development around the thermometer stations...
Widely publicized consensus reports by 'thousands' of scientists are misrepresentative of climate science, containing overstated confidence in their assertions of high climate sensitivity...
...[C]limate models overestimate the response of temperature to greenhouse gas increases. Also shown was a lack of evidence to blame humans for an increase in extreme events. One cannot convict CO2 of causing any of these events, because they've happened in the past before CO2 levels rose...
It is a simple fact that CO2 is plant food and the world around us evolved when levels of CO2 were five to ten times what they are today. Our green world is a consequence of atmospheric CO2. And, food for plants means food for people. The extra CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere not only invigorates the biosphere, but also enhances the yields of our food crops. This is a tremendous benefit to nature and us in my view..."
Willie Soon, PhD, Physicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, stated the following in his Nov. 2007 article “Implications of the Secondary Role of Carbon Dioxide and Methane Forcing in Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future,” published in Physical Geography:
Quote:"There is no quantitative evidence that varying levels of minor greenhouse gases like CO2 and CH4 have accounted for even as much as half of the reconstructed glacial-interglacial temperature changes or, more importantly, for the large variations in global ice volume on both land and sea over the past 650kyr [650,000 years]. This paper shows that changes in solar insolation [amount of solar energy hitting the earth] at climatically sensitive latitudes and zones exceed the global radiative forcings [greenhouse gas accumulation in the atmosphere traping solar heat] of CO2 and CH4 by severalfold...
[T]he popular notion of CO2 and CH4 radiative forcing as the predominant amplifier of glacial-interglacial phase transitions cannot be confirmed…
Our basic hypothesis is that long-term climate change is driven by insolation changes, from both orbital variations and intrinsic solar magnetic luminosity variations. This implies natural warming and cooling variations.”
Harrison H. Schmitt, PhD, Geologist, Honorary Associate Fellow of Engineering at the University of Wisconsin at Madison and former US Senator and NASA Astronaut, and William Happer, PhD, Professor of Physics at Princeton University, stated the following in their May 8, 2013 article "Harrison H. Schmitt and William Happer: In Defense of Carbon Dioxide," available at wsj.com:
Quote:"The cessation of observed global warming for the past decade or so has shown how exaggerated NASA's and most other computer predictions of human-caused warming have been—and how little correlation warming has with concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide. As many scientists have pointed out, variations in global temperature correlate much better with solar activity and with complicated cycles of the oceans and atmosphere. There isn't the slightest evidence that more carbon dioxide has caused more extreme weather...
The current levels of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere, approaching 400 parts per million, are low by the standards of geological and plant evolutionary history. Levels were 3,000 ppm, or more, until the Paleogene period (beginning about 65 million years ago). For most plants, and for the animals and humans that use them, more carbon dioxide, far from being a ‘pollutant’ in need of reduction, would be a benefit…
We know that carbon dioxide has been a much larger fraction of the earth's atmosphere than it is today, and the geological record shows that life flourished on land and in the oceans during those times. The incredible list of supposed horrors that increasing carbon dioxide will bring the world is pure belief disguised as science."
Tim Ball, PhD, former Geography Professor at the University of Winnipeg, stated the following in his July 7, 2008 article "Alarmists Use Weather to Promote Global Warming Hoax," available at canadafreepress.com:
Quote:"Claims that recent severe weather and flooding in the US are proof of human CO2 impacts on global climate are scientific nonsense...
Those who perpetrated possibly the greatest deception in human history that CO2 is causing global warming/climate change are scared. Events are driving them to extreme, unsubstantiated and even ridiculous claims and threats.
One of these was that sea level would rise, but it foundered when the two Nobel Peace Prize winners, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Al Gore were in serious disagreement. Another was Arctic sea ice except it returned to long term normal levels last winter and NASA announced the one year anomaly was due to changes in wind patterns.
So they return to their central theme of convincing you that normal weather events are abnormal...
Proponents of human caused climate change will... continue their practice of claiming natural events as unnatural. Unless people understand the basic science they will continue the fraud and pressure politicians into even more damaging energy and environmental policies."
Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology at Western Washington University, stated the following in his June 28, 2014 article "Global Cooling Is Here," available at globalresearch.ca:
Quote:"Despite no global warming in 10 years and recording setting cold in 2007-2008, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climatic Change (IPCC) and computer modelers who believe that CO2 is the cause of global warming still predict the Earth is in store for catastrophic warming in this century…
Global warming of the past century (0.8° C) is virtually insignificant when compared to the magnitude of at least 10 global climate changes in the past 15,000 years. None of these sudden global climate changes could possibly have been caused by human CO2 input to the atmosphere because they all took place long before anthropogenic CO2 emissions began. The cause of the ten earlier 'natural' climate changes was most likely the same as the cause of global warming from 1977 to 1998...
The Pacific Ocean has a warm temperature mode and a cool temperature mode, and in the past century, has switched back forth between these two modes every 25-30 years (known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation or PDO). In 1977 the Pacific abruptly shifted from its cool mode (where it had been since about 1945) into its warm mode, and this initiated global warming from 1977 to 1998…
Global warming (i.e, the warming since 1977) is over. The minute increase of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere (0.008%) was not the cause of the warming - it was a continuation of natural cycles that occurred over the past 500 years."
William Gray, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University, stated the following in his Apr. 7, 2010 article, "MIT Professor's Climate Change Op-Ed Proven False," available at http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org: Quote: "A high percentage of meteorologists and/or climate scientists do not agree that the climate changes we have seen are mostly manmade. Thousands of us think the larger part of the climate changes we have observed over the last century are of natural origin. I believe most of the changes that have been observed are due to multi-decadal and multi-century changes in deep global ocean currents. Such changes have yet to be properly incorporated into the global models or into most climate modelers’ thinking...
Many scientists believe a slightly warmer world would be, in general, more beneficial for humanity. The small changes in climate we have seen so far and the changes we will likely see in the coming decades are not potentially dangerous. It has been noted that vegetation growth is enhanced by higher CO2 levels...
[T]he global climate models will never be able to replicate the complex global atmosphere/ocean environment and its continuing changes...
We should all call out faulty science wherever we see it, including the blind belief (without any evidence beyond the faulty models) that humans are largely responsible for climate change."
Roy W. Spencer, PhD, Principal Research Scientist at the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, stated the following in his Oct. 20, 2008 article "Global Warming as a Natural Response to Cloud Changes Associated with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation," available at http://www.drroyspencer.com: Quote:"[W]e are finding satellite evidence that the climate system is much less sensitive to greenhouse gas emissions than the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) climate models suggest that it is. And if that is true, then mankind’s CO2 emissions are not strong enough to have caused the global warming we’ve seen over the last 100 years...
[M]ost of the warming could be the result of a natural cycle in cloud cover forced by a well-known mode of natural climate variability: the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). While the PDO is primarily a geographic rearrangement in atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns in the North Pacific, it is well known that such regional changes can also influence weather patterns over much larger areas...
[R]ecent satellite measurements - even though they span only 7.5 years - support the Pacific Decadal Oscillation as a potential major player in global warming and climate change."
Steven F. Hayward, PhD, FK Weyerhaeuser Fellow at the American Enterprise Instutute for Public Policy Research, stated the following in his Mar. 15, 2010 article "In Denial," available at http://www.aei.org: Quote:"The models the IPCC uses for projecting a 3 to 4 degree Celsius increase in temperature all assume large positive (that is, temperature-magnifying) feedbacks from a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere...
If the climate system is less sensitive to greenhouse gases than the climate campaign believes, then what is causing plainly observable changes in the climate, such as earlier arriving springs, receding glaciers, and shrinking Arctic Ocean ice caps?...
The IPCC downplays theories of variations in solar activity, such as sunspot activity and gamma ray bursts, and although there is robust scientific literature on the issue, even the skeptic community is divided about whether solar activity is a primary cause of recent climate variation. Several studies of Arctic warming conclude that changes in ocean currents, cloud formation, and wind patterns in the upper atmosphere may explain the retreat of glaciers and sea ice better than greenhouse gases... Above all, if the medieval warm period was indeed as warm or warmer than today, we cannot rule out the possibility that the changes of recent decades are part of a natural rebound from the 'Little Ice Age' that followed the medieval warm period and ended in the 19th century."
The George C. Marshall Institute, a science and public policy organization, stated the following in its July 23, 2009 publication "The Cocktail Conversation Guide to Global Warming," available at http://www.marshall.org: Quote:"[G]lobal surface temperatures have not increased since about 1998. Since the late 1800s, the world’s average surface temperature is believed to have warmed about 1°F, which is, in part, a natural recovery from the 'Little Ice Age,' a period of global cooling lasting from about 1400 to the 1800s AD...
[N]atural flows of CO2 in and out of the Earth’s surface average about 20 times the human contribution...
Predictions of future climate come from computer models, which are very incomplete approximations of the behavior of the real climate system... The predictions of future climatic changes are hypotheses, not scientific facts...
Whatever the threat of climate change to humanity, it is most likely to be natural — not man-made."
James M. Inhofe, United States Senator (R-OK), stated the following in his Sep. 25, 2006 speech "Hot & Cold Media Spin: A Challenge to Journalists Who Cover Global Warming,” available at http://www.epw.senate.gov: Quote:"I am going to speak today about the most media-hyped environmental issue of all time, global warming…
The media have missed the big pieces of the puzzle when it comes to the Earth’s temperatures and mankind’s carbon dioxide (C02) emissions. It is very simplistic to feign horror and say the one degree Fahrenheit temperature increase during the 20th century means we are all doomed. First of all, the one degree Fahrenheit rise coincided with the greatest advancement of living standards, life expectancy, food production and human health in the history of our planet. So it is hard to argue that the global warming we experienced in the 20th century was somehow negative or part of a catastrophic trend.
Second, what the climate alarmists and their advocates in the media have continued to ignore is the fact that the Little Ice Age, which resulted in harsh winters which froze New York Harbor and caused untold deaths, ended about 1850. So trying to prove man-made global warming by comparing the well-known fact that today's temperatures are warmer than during the Little Ice Age is akin to comparing summer to winter to show a catastrophic temperature trend.
In addition, something that the media almost never addresses are the holes in the theory that C02 has been the driving force in global warming. Alarmists fail to adequately explain why temperatures began warming at the end of the Little Ice Age in about 1850, long before man-made CO2 emissions could have impacted the climate. Then about 1940, just as man-made CO2 emissions rose sharply, the temperatures began a decline that lasted until the 1970’s, prompting the media and many scientists to fear a coming ice age.
Let me repeat, temperatures got colder after C02 emissions exploded. If C02 is the driving force of global climate change, why do so many in the media ignore the many skeptical scientists who cite these rather obvious inconvenient truths?”
Patrick Moore, PhD, Chair and Chief Scientist of Greenspirit Strategies Ltd. and former Director of Greenpeace International, stated the following in his Feb. 25, 2014 Senate Environment and Public Works Committee testimony "Natural Resource Adaptation: Protecting Ecosystems and Economies," available at epw.senate.gov:
"There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years. If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists...
When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time. Then an Ice Age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today. There is some correlation, but little evidence, to support a direct causal relationship between CO2 and global temperature through the millennia. The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming."
Posts: 4,251
Threads: 51
Reputation:
11344
Joined: May 2015
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Mood: None
(09-07-2015, 09:29 AM)Blutarsky Wrote:
The "study" proclaiming that 97% percent of scientists agreeing on man made climate change was debunked a couple years ago.
The first link is the most telling. It doesn't even set out to debunk the 97%, it just so happened that when Purdue University polled scientists in this study, only 53% of scientists polled believed man was contributing to global warming.
In science there must be consensus, and there is none. 53% doesn't cut it.
The atmosphere contains approx 400ppm of Co2,...(that's my $1,000,000 to your $400 if you are unable to comprehend ppm), an increase of 120ppm since the start of the industrial revolution a little over 100yrs. ago. Even if it could be proven that this amount is causing said warming, then it's probably a good thing because we need a little more warmth to fend of the mini ice age that's coming.
The sky isn't falling people. Just stop it.
The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, in a position statement written by Chairman C.D. Idso, PhD, and Vice President K.E. Idso, PhD, stated the following in its 2008 publication "Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming: Where We Stand on the Issue," available at http://www.co2science.org:
Richard S. Lindzen, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), stated the following in his article, "Climate of Fear: Global Warming Alarmists Intimidate Dissenting Scientists into Silence," Wall Street Journal, Apr. 12, 2006:
John R. Christy, PhD, M.Div, Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, provided the following testimony on Aug. 1, 2012 before the US Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, available at http://www.epw.senate.gov:
Willie Soon, PhD, Physicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, stated the following in his Nov. 2007 article “Implications of the Secondary Role of Carbon Dioxide and Methane Forcing in Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future,” published in Physical Geography:
Harrison H. Schmitt, PhD, Geologist, Honorary Associate Fellow of Engineering at the University of Wisconsin at Madison and former US Senator and NASA Astronaut, and William Happer, PhD, Professor of Physics at Princeton University, stated the following in their May 8, 2013 article "Harrison H. Schmitt and William Happer: In Defense of Carbon Dioxide," available at wsj.com:
Tim Ball, PhD, former Geography Professor at the University of Winnipeg, stated the following in his July 7, 2008 article "Alarmists Use Weather to Promote Global Warming Hoax," available at canadafreepress.com:
Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology at Western Washington University, stated the following in his June 28, 2014 article "Global Cooling Is Here," available at globalresearch.ca:
William Gray, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University, stated the following in his Apr. 7, 2010 article, "MIT Professor's Climate Change Op-Ed Proven False," available at http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org:
Roy W. Spencer, PhD, Principal Research Scientist at the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, stated the following in his Oct. 20, 2008 article "Global Warming as a Natural Response to Cloud Changes Associated with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation," available at http://www.drroyspencer.com:
Steven F. Hayward, PhD, FK Weyerhaeuser Fellow at the American Enterprise Instutute for Public Policy Research, stated the following in his Mar. 15, 2010 article "In Denial," available at http://www.aei.org:
The George C. Marshall Institute, a science and public policy organization, stated the following in its July 23, 2009 publication "The Cocktail Conversation Guide to Global Warming," available at http://www.marshall.org:
James M. Inhofe, United States Senator (R-OK), stated the following in his Sep. 25, 2006 speech "Hot & Cold Media Spin: A Challenge to Journalists Who Cover Global Warming,” available at http://www.epw.senate.gov:
The first link says that over 90% of scientists agree there has been global warming that has at least some contributions from humans... The stat is brought down, because they lump in farmers in that too...
"More than 90 percent of the 173 scientists and climatologists surveyed said they believed climate change was occurring, with more than 50 percent attributing climate change primarily to human activities. An additional 30 percent said they believed climate change was due to a combination of human activities and natural causes."
I can't read the 2nd link because I don't pay for it...
The 3rd link basically said that we didn't use any Russian scientists, and most of the scientists that were used were mostly in America, and some in Europe. Because they are all from "western" scientists it must be wrong!
The forbs article doesn't even say that the 97% of scientists agree is wrong...
The "mini ice age" that's coming is due to the suns cycles according to your link. It says an ice age will happen from 2030-2040, and we get a "mini ice age" for 10-12 years, because of the suns cycle... What's the point of even posting that? "Well global warming might be real, but there's a mini ice age that will go on for 10 to 12 years, and it happens every so often!"
Why would it be so hard to understand parts per million?
Do you even read the links that you posted?
Posts: 323
Threads: 8
Joined: Aug 2015
Mood: None
(09-07-2015, 12:32 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Short answer?
Are you referring to:
When $500 million in taxpayer money was given to Solyndra, both Goldman Sachs and George Kaiser benefited. Coincidentally, both have made contributions to Obama’s election campaigns adding up to roughly $1.25 million.
It doesn’t stop there.
- In 2010, another federal loan of $400 million went Abound Solar. That resulted in a bankruptcy as well. But investors in Abound Solar seemed to do just fine . . . investors like billionaire heiress Patricia Stryker. Stryker has famously contributed $500,000 to the Coalition for Progress while throwing $85,000 toward Obama’s inaugural committee. It’s just a coincidence that the government handed a company she invested in $400 million just before bankruptcy . . . right?
- There’s also A123 Systems, which paid one lobbying firm $970,000 to secure money from the government — and received $279 million in federal assistance. The CEO of A123 Systems went on to fund multiple Democratic senators and contributed to Obama’s campaign.
- First Solar received $646 million in government loan guarantees, and has since contributed more than $180,000 to Democratic campaigns.
- GE is notorious for spending tens of millions of dollars a year to “buy” green energy credits for its wind turbines and other green technologies — credits which helped the firm pay ZERO taxes in 2011.
Or in the terms of the global redistribution of wealth? This is one of the main objectives of Progressive movement.
http://iceagenow.info/2013/08/we-redistribute-worlds-wealth-climate-policy-whistle-blowing-billboard/
The term “climate” is typically associated with annual world-wide average temperature records measured over at least three decades. Yet global warming observed less than two decades after many scientists had predicted a global cooling crisis prompted the United Nations to organize an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and to convene a continuing series of international conferences purportedly aimed at preventing an impending catastrophe. Virtually from the beginning, they had already attributed the “crisis” to human fossil-fuel carbon emissions.
A remark from Maurice Strong, who organized the first U.N. Earth Climate Summit (1992) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil revealed the real goal: “We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse.”
Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), then representing the Clinton-Gore administration as U.S undersecretary of state for global issues, addressing the same Rio Climate Summit audience, agreed: “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” (Wirth now heads the U.N. Foundation which lobbies for hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to help underdeveloped countries fight climate change.)
Also speaking at the Rio conference, Deputy Assistant of State Richard Benedick, who then headed the policy divisions of the U.S. State Department said: “A global warming treaty [Kyoto] must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.”
In 1988, former Canadian Minister of the Environment, told editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald: “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
In 1996, former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev emphasized the importance of using climate alarmism to advance socialist Marxist objectives: “The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.”
Speaking at the 2000 U.N. Conference on Climate Change in the Hague, former President Jacques Chirac of France explained why the IPCC’s climate initiative supported a key Western European Kyoto Protocol objective: “For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance, one that should find a place within the World Environmental Organization which France and the European Union would like to see established.”
Or in terms of funding for this fake "research"?
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/414359/global-warming-follow-money-henry-payne
https://climatism.wordpress.com/2014/01/11/driessen-a-climate-of-fear-cash-and-correctitude/
|
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: oyb7yuz66nd81.jpg]](https://i.redd.it/oyb7yuz66nd81.jpg)
