Weather Channel Founder on Global Warming - Page 2 - 600RR.net
Politics This forum is dedicated to any political subject you got in mind

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #31 of 118 (permalink) Old 06-30-2009, 11:02 AM
World Superbike Racer
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Windsor, ON
Posts: 2,003
Thanks: 19
Thanked 69 Times in 42 Posts
Feedback Score: 2 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by LanCo Rider View Post
Wait, wait, wait.... A colder climate!? Is that what they are saying now?

You have got to be fuckin kidding me.
Yes, didn't you catch the new phrase they started using ~year ago now? Climate Change because a bunch of sh*t was coming out that put "Global Warming" in serious doubt.

So instead of calling it "Global Warming" and getting called out they switched names. It's convenient for them because most people that are clueless just think it's a new name for the same thing (global warming) but evidence out there actually shows that we're in a cooling cycle and have been for many years.

If there's one universally known thing about climate/weather it's that it CHANGES all the time. I'm more convinced now than I have ever been that this "Global Warming/Climate Change" crap was a bunch of BS. The kicker was when Al Gore got a Nobel Prize. How does someone go from nothing to Nobel recipient in a matter of a few years... while doing almost nothing substantial to earn it.

Let the scientists do their job, enough with pushing scientists to publish junk science so that they can get more funding from lobbyists.
pbeaul is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 118 (permalink) Old 06-30-2009, 11:37 AM
Moto GP Racer
 
LanCo Rider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: LanCo, PA
Posts: 4,710
Thanks: 354
Thanked 225 Times in 163 Posts
Feedback Score: 8 reviews
Well, I have known that they started calling "global warming" "climate change"... But I had never heard them actually state that we are in a cooling cycle.

Wow, I just cannot believe that people still fall for this sh*t!! From "heating up an average of one degree per [so many] years", to being in a "cooling cycle"!?

I guess "climate change" just sounds better and makes them able to fool people a little better. Just like the government bailout became the Stimulus bill and then became the "economic recovery bill".

anything that sounds pretty is what the blind american public will go for.

Quote:
Harley-Davidson: The world's most efficient method of turning gasoline into noise without the harmful side effect of horsepower.
LanCo Rider is offline  
post #33 of 118 (permalink) Old 06-30-2009, 12:31 PM
BDT
Moto GP Racer
 
BDT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Victoria, BC
Posts: 3,365
Thanks: 21
Thanked 80 Times in 71 Posts
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
The term Climate Change is infuriating to me. Of course the climate is changing, its ALWAYS changing one way or the other. Its like calling water wet or saying the sun's bright.
BDT is offline  
 
post #34 of 118 (permalink) Old 07-24-2009, 08:54 AM Thread Starter
Mad Chemist
 
WherzRoony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Central New York State, The Hills
Posts: 5,798
Images: 57
Thanks: 37
Thanked 83 Times in 64 Posts
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
$79,000,000,000.00 US Taxpayer Money spent by government to study/prop up global warm

http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsSt...=104031&cat=12



The Science and Public Policy Institute announces the publication of Climate Money, a study by Joanne Nova revealing that the federal Government has a near-monopsony on climate science funding. This distorts the science towards self-serving alarmism. Key findings:



Ø The US Government has spent more than $79 billion of taxpayers’ money since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, administration, propaganda campaigns, foreign aid, and tax breaks. Most of this spending was unnecessary.



Ø Despite the billions wasted, audits of the science are left to unpaid volunteers. A dedicated but largely uncoordinated grassroots movement of scientists has sprung up around the globe to test the integrity of “global warming” theory and to compete with a lavishly-funded, highly-organized climate monopsony. Major errors have been exposed again and again.



Ø Carbon trading worldwide reached $126 billion in 2008. Banks, which profit most, are calling for more. Experts are predicting the carbon market will reach $2 - $10 trillion in the near future. Hot air will soon be the largest single commodity traded on global exchanges.



Ø Meanwhile, in a distracting sideshow, Exxon-Mobil Corp is repeatedly attacked for paying just $23 million to skeptics—less than a thousandth of what the US government spends on alarmists, and less than one five-thousandth of the value of carbon trading in 2008 alone.



Ø The large expenditure designed to prove the non-existent connection between carbon and climate has created a powerful alliance of self-serving vested interests.



Ø By pouring so much money into pushing a single, scientifically-baseless agenda, the Government has created not an unbiased investigation but a self-fulfilling prophecy.



Ø Sound science cannot easily survive the vice-like grip of politics and finance.



Says Nova, “For the first time, the numbers from government documents have been compiled in one place. It’s time to start talking of “Monopolistic Science”. It’s time to expose the lie that those who claim “to save the planet” are the underdogs. And it’s time to get serious about auditing science, especially when it comes to pronouncements that are used to justify giant government programs and massive movements of money.”



Robert Ferguson, SPPI’s president, says: “This study counts the cost of years of wasted Federal spending on the ‘global warming’ non-problem. Government bodies, big businesses and environmental NGOs have behaved like big tobacco: recruiting, controlling and rewarding their own “group-think” scientists who bend climate modeling to justify the State’s near-maniacal quest for power, control, wealth and forced population reduction.



“Joanne Nova, who wrote our study, speaks for thousands of scientists in questioning whether a clique of taxpayer-funded climate modelers are getting the data right, or just getting the “right” data. Are politicians paying out billions of our dollars for evidence-driven policy-making, or policy-driven evidence-making? The truth is more crucial than ever, because American lives, property and constitutional liberties are at risk.”

I Like My Guns Like Obama Likes His Voters: Undocumented

WherzRoony is offline  
post #35 of 118 (permalink) Old 10-10-2009, 10:04 PM Thread Starter
Mad Chemist
 
WherzRoony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Central New York State, The Hills
Posts: 5,798
Images: 57
Thanks: 37
Thanked 83 Times in 64 Posts
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Even The Bbc Has Caught On!!!!!

What happened to global warming?

This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

So what on Earth is going on?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

I Like My Guns Like Obama Likes His Voters: Undocumented

WherzRoony is offline  
post #36 of 118 (permalink) Old 10-10-2009, 10:09 PM Thread Starter
Mad Chemist
 
WherzRoony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Central New York State, The Hills
Posts: 5,798
Images: 57
Thanks: 37
Thanked 83 Times in 64 Posts
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
BUT GUESS WHAT, Our government is about to pass a massive tax increase on any energy usage. All to "SAVE THE PLANET"

That ought'ta help the economy!!!!

I Like My Guns Like Obama Likes His Voters: Undocumented

WherzRoony is offline  
post #37 of 118 (permalink) Old 10-13-2009, 11:21 AM
BDT
Moto GP Racer
 
BDT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Victoria, BC
Posts: 3,365
Thanks: 21
Thanked 80 Times in 71 Posts
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
Carbon trading is the biggest scam to ever hit the earth.
BDT is offline  
post #38 of 118 (permalink) Old 10-14-2009, 08:21 PM
Lifetime Premium
 
sfoster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Wilmington, Delaware
Posts: 89
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by WherzRoony View Post
And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

So what on Earth is going on?
Simple. CO2 levels lag temperature increases, they do not precede them. Let me repeat, CO2 levels go up AFTER temperatures increase, temperatures do not go up after CO2 increases.

Goddard Space Flight Center is where all this data is collected. If you take a look at the raw data you can plot your own graph and see this for yourself. The problem is that Gore shows graphs that squeeze the years together, so the curves appear to move up and down at the same time. This is not the case.

In the interest of presenting both sides, here is the opposing view. If you labor through the article, the arguments are laughable. For instance:

Quote:
Several recent papers have indeed established that there is lag of CO2 behind temperature. We don’t really know the magnitude of that lag as well as Barton implies we do, because it is very challenging to put CO2 records from ice cores on the same timescale as temperature records from those same ice cores, due to the time delay in trapping the atmosphere as the snow is compressed into ice (the ice at any time will always be younger older than the gas bubbles it encloses, and the age difference is inherently uncertain).
Are you kidding? On the one hand papers have "established there is a lag", however there is "uncertainty" about the date of the air bubbles relative to the ice enclosing said air bubble. Seems to me the snow which becomes ice is the same age as the air it encloses. How could it not be? Even if it wasn't, how much of a delta could there be? 100 years? Take a look at the graph and you can see that even 100 years doesn't absorb the delta or account for the lag.


Democracy: Two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
Representative democracy: Two thousand wolves and one thousand sheep electing two wolves and a sheep who vote on what to have for dinner.
Constitutional republic: Constitution that says sheep cannot be eaten. The Supreme Court then votes 5 wolves to 4 sheep that mutton does not count as sheep.
Liberty: Well-armed sheep contesting the above votes.
sfoster is offline  
post #39 of 118 (permalink) Old 11-20-2009, 04:49 PM Thread Starter
Mad Chemist
 
WherzRoony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Central New York State, The Hills
Posts: 5,798
Images: 57
Thanks: 37
Thanked 83 Times in 64 Posts
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?

If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)

When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:

“In an odd way this is cheering news.”

But perhaps the most damaging revelations – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.

Here are a few tasters. (So far, we can only refer to them as alleged emails because – though Hadley CRU’s director Phil Jones has confirmed the break-in to Ian Wishart at the Briefing Room – he has yet to fess up to any specific contents.) But if genuine, they suggest dubious practices such as:

Manipulation of evidence:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Suppression of evidence:

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:

Next
time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.

Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):

……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….

And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

Hadley CRU has form in this regard. In September – I wrote the story up here as “How the global warming industry is based on a massive lie” – Hadley CRU’s researchers were exposed as having “cherry-picked” data in order to support their untrue claim that global temperatures had risen higher at the end of the 20th century than at any time in the last millenium. Hadley CRU was also the organisation which – in contravention of all acceptable behaviour in the international scientific community – spent years withholding data from researchers it deemed unhelpful to its cause. This matters because Hadley CRU, established in 1990 by the Met Office, is a government-funded body which is supposed to be a model of rectitude. Its HadCrut record is one of the four official sources of global temperature data used by the IPCC.

I asked in my title whether this will be the final nail in the coffin of Anthropenic Global Warming. This was wishful thinking, of course. In the run up to Copenhagen, we will see more and more hysterical (and grotesquely exaggerated) stories such as this in the Mainstream Media. And we will see ever-more-virulent campaigns conducted by eco-fascist activists, such as this risible new advertising campaign by Plane Stupid showing CGI polar bears falling from the sky and exploding because kind of, like, man, that’s sort of what happens whenever you take another trip on an aeroplane.

The world is currently cooling; electorates are increasingly reluctant to support eco-policies leading to more oppressive regulation, higher taxes and higher utility bills; the tide is turning against Al Gore’s Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. The so-called “sceptical” view is now also the majority view.

Unfortunately, we’ve a long, long way to go before the public mood (and scientific truth) is reflected by our policy makers. There are too many vested interests in AGW, with far too much to lose either in terms of reputation or money, for this to end without a bitter fight.

But if the Hadley CRU scandal is true,it’s a blow to the AGW lobby’s credibility which is never likely to recover.

I Like My Guns Like Obama Likes His Voters: Undocumented

WherzRoony is offline  
post #40 of 118 (permalink) Old 11-22-2009, 09:45 AM
Knee Dragger
 
JWSO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 147
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
I saw a documentary done about GW. Scientists polled in Aug of 2007 agreed with Al Gore's BS at a whopping 71%. Two years later the same poll was taken and 51% of scientists surveyed agreed with GW.

Steve Pakin - the mediator asked the panel, "20% decrease in two years? That is a pretty big margin of error for science isn't it?"

I appreciated the response from the panel.... Many of us bought into the media sensationalism.

This tells me that even though science is science, the power of manipulation is evident if one puts media under a microscope.

ALWAYS ALWAYS do the math.... And if you can't do the math, then ask yourself, "Do I REALLY need to know this?"

I let my $h!T riding do the talking! Wait a second??
JWSO is offline  
post #41 of 118 (permalink) Old 11-22-2009, 12:06 PM
AMA Supersport Racer
 
Sinkoumn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: MN & SoCal
Posts: 932
Images: 3
Thanks: 8
Thanked 14 Times in 6 Posts
Feedback Score: 9 reviews
Sinkoumn is offline  
post #42 of 118 (permalink) Old 11-25-2009, 02:12 PM
BDT
Moto GP Racer
 
BDT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Victoria, BC
Posts: 3,365
Thanks: 21
Thanked 80 Times in 71 Posts
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
Wow, the more I read about the hacked Climate Research Unit computers the more I become cynical.

These so called scientists are no longer unbiased. They're making unsubstantiated claims, hiding information and lying. They're pushing their agenda in the face of objective science.

One of the best statements so far is from George Monbiot of The Guardian Newspaper in the U.K. He's considered the U.K.'s Al Gore and a promenant global warming advocate.

"It's no use pretending this isn't a major blow," he writes. The emails "could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I'm dismayed and deeply shaken by them."

"Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context, but there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request."

"Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate skeptics, or to keep it out of a report by the IPCC. I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign."


Another part from Phil Jones (the head of CRU) talking about an article in the magazine Nature:

"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline" in late 20th century temperatures.

Even Kevin Trenberth, a lead IPCC author wrote:
"the fact is, that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. ... Our observing system is inadequate".

Now this doesn't drive a nail in the coffin of global warming advocates. But it should at least raise doubt that climate science is settled and cause the public to question the need for massive government intervention.
BDT is offline  
post #43 of 118 (permalink) Old 11-26-2009, 03:56 PM
Moto GP Racer
 
LanCo Rider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: LanCo, PA
Posts: 4,710
Thanks: 354
Thanked 225 Times in 163 Posts
Feedback Score: 8 reviews
^ you know, the sad thing is... This probably will still not stop these crazy wackjob environmentalists from hawking their global warming agenda. And most of the liberal, moronic left will still believe this crap. The media is doing a damn good job of hiding this whole information leak; therefore most of America will have no clue that this global warming damning evidence has even come to light.

Cliff notes: We live in a nation of morons.

Quote:
Harley-Davidson: The world's most efficient method of turning gasoline into noise without the harmful side effect of horsepower.
LanCo Rider is offline  
post #44 of 118 (permalink) Old 11-30-2009, 12:02 PM Thread Starter
Mad Chemist
 
WherzRoony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Central New York State, The Hills
Posts: 5,798
Images: 57
Thanks: 37
Thanked 83 Times in 64 Posts
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
It gets even better THEY TRASHED ALL OF THE DATA THAT WAS USED TO SHOW GLOBAL WARMING !!!!


Climate change data dumped
Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.

Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. “The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” he said.

Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue. The lost material was used to build the databases that have been his life’s work, showing how the world has warmed by 0.8C over the past 157 years.

He and his colleagues say this temperature rise is “unequivocally” linked to greenhouse gas emissions generated by humans. Their findings are one of the main pieces of evidence used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which says global warming is a threat to humanity.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6936328.ece

I Like My Guns Like Obama Likes His Voters: Undocumented

WherzRoony is offline  
post #45 of 118 (permalink) Old 07-28-2011, 09:34 AM Thread Starter
Mad Chemist
 
WherzRoony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Central New York State, The Hills
Posts: 5,798
Images: 57
Thanks: 37
Thanked 83 Times in 64 Posts
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hold In Global Warming Alarmism

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.

"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."

In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.

The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate.

MORE: http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow...192334971.html

I Like My Guns Like Obama Likes His Voters: Undocumented

WherzRoony is offline  
post #46 of 118 (permalink) Old 07-28-2011, 04:16 PM Thread Starter
Mad Chemist
 
WherzRoony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Central New York State, The Hills
Posts: 5,798
Images: 57
Thanks: 37
Thanked 83 Times in 64 Posts
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Also, it sounds like the polar bear drowning guy may have been full of schitt!



JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) — A federal wildlife biologist whose observation that polar bears likely drowned in the Arctic helped galvanize the global warming movement during the last decade was placed on administrative leave while officials investigate scientific misconduct allegations.

While it wasn't clear what the exact allegations are, a government watchdog group representing Anchorage-based scientist Charles Monnett said investigators have focused on his 2006 journal article about the bears that garnered worldwide attention.

The group, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, filed a complaint on Monnett's behalf Thursday with the agency, the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement.

BOEMRE told Monnett on July 18 that he was being put on leave, pending an investigation into "integrity issues." The investigator has not yet told him of the specific charges or questions related to the scientific integrity of his work, said Jeff Ruch, the watchdog group's executive director.

A BOEMRE spokeswoman, Melissa Schwartz, acknowledged there was an "ongoing internal investigation" but declined to get into specifics about it.

MORE: http://news.yahoo.com/apnewsbreak-ar...082217993.html

I Like My Guns Like Obama Likes His Voters: Undocumented


Last edited by WherzRoony; 07-28-2011 at 04:18 PM.
WherzRoony is offline  
post #47 of 118 (permalink) Old 07-28-2011, 04:24 PM
Moto GP Racer
 
TheX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Austin Texas
Posts: 14,333
Images: 2
Thanks: 129
Thanked 2,461 Times in 1,716 Posts
Feedback Score: 5 reviews
Amazing that 12,000 years ago we were in an ICE AGE and N. America was a solid sheet of ICE. Now come on guys, fess up. Who caused that DRAMATIC warming? And the one that ended the ice age before that? One of y'all has to be responsible, this sh1t doesn't just happen...ohhhh, wait...maybe it DOES????
TheX is offline  
post #48 of 118 (permalink) Old 07-28-2011, 04:49 PM
Moto GP Racer
 
DepPravacion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 7,219
Thanks: 223
Thanked 224 Times in 183 Posts
Feedback Score: 4 reviews
Fact is temps are rising and ice is melting.

Humans have an impact, sure I buy that.

Is it also a part of a bigger geo cycle, yea I think so.

Now whatever you want to call it or where you point your finger doesn't chnage the fact that civilization will have to adapt a new way of thinking about energy and resources.

I think if you dissagree and r unwilling to change fine, you will fail and that's ok. There is a growing census of people across the modern world that sustainability is the new paradigm. We will prosper.


RIP PHATTY
05/08/1980-10/19/2010
VOTE RON PAUL 2012
DepPravacion is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to DepPravacion For This Useful Post:
StolenCamaro (07-29-2011)
post #49 of 118 (permalink) Old 07-28-2011, 07:12 PM
Get Jiggy with it
 
Dr.Spank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tennessee --- Via N.J.
Posts: 6,178
Images: 4
Thanks: 8
Thanked 9 Times in 8 Posts
Feedback Score: 11 reviews
Global warming is a myth to keep idiots busy while the real cause continues. These crazy weather patterns, like the earthquakes,and tornadoes that been massive in size are all man made. I'm learning more and more everyday, and to be completely honest, it all makes perfect sense now!...Educate yourselves to what's really going on!

http://youtu.be/YSubC55KI2c

http://youtu.be/jjer4fTUA-I

_______________
Black 05' 600RR

___________________

Dr.Spank is offline  
post #50 of 118 (permalink) Old 07-28-2011, 10:06 PM
Moto GP Racer
 
LanCo Rider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: LanCo, PA
Posts: 4,710
Thanks: 354
Thanked 225 Times in 163 Posts
Feedback Score: 8 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by DepPravacion View Post
Fact is temps are rising and ice is melting.

Show the facts. Then I can show you facts that disprove your facts. Global warming is a lie made to cash in on the general dumb public.

Quote:
Harley-Davidson: The world's most efficient method of turning gasoline into noise without the harmful side effect of horsepower.
LanCo Rider is offline  
post #51 of 118 (permalink) Old 07-29-2011, 10:09 AM
AMA Supersport Racer
 
StolenCamaro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 531
Thanks: 17
Thanked 48 Times in 27 Posts
Feedback Score: 3 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by DepPravacion View Post
Fact is temps are rising and ice is melting.

Humans have an impact, sure I buy that.

Is it also a part of a bigger geo cycle, yea I think so.

Now whatever you want to call it or where you point your finger doesn't chnage the fact that civilization will have to adapt a new way of thinking about energy and resources.

I think if you dissagree and r unwilling to change fine, you will fail and that's ok. There is a growing census of people across the modern world that sustainability is the new paradigm. We will prosper.
I really feel like a shift is in order whether global warming is real or not. It almost seems like the argument for change has cemented objectors even more stubbornly into their ways.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LanCo Rider View Post
Show the facts. Then I can show you facts that disprove your facts. Global warming is a lie made to cash in on the general dumb public.
LanCo, I don't mean for this to sound sarcastic... it's really not, nor is it meant to be an attack- I just don't know how else to pose the question:

Do you really think so?

I like to see things from all angles, but I just can't bring myself to believe that the global warming topic is driven by profit. Who exactly would be profiting by us changing our habits? From everything I've seen, the trend seems to be that alternative energies and such are largely stratified... there are no giants like Exxon Mobil or BP to own the benefits completely! Furthermore, alternative energies promote localization of power grids. Again, I meant that as a legit question, not a challenge or anything.

One other point... ANYBODY can find and post "facts" for either side of the argument. Data manipulation has endless possibilities when you have 100,000 metrics from different studies.

My one big question to everyone opposing this is:

Why are you so vehemently against changing? Would it really hurt to be more efficient with our utilization of power and cleaner with our consumption thereof? Politics aside, I'm just saddened by the general stoicism of America. Our greatest move toward change has been fashionably voting for a president who promised such.

To everyone who has ever mentioned any of the "keep the change" kind of statements about Obama, I say this: we live in a representative democracy. You standing in line for 5 minutes and signing a ballot for the opposing party doesn't free you of association with the state of our country! Vote in local elections, write to your congressmen. I assure you that even the slightest involvement will be more effective than discourse on 600rr.net.

I still ask though... what's the big deal? Have you all really lost a lot personally because of global warming?

I hope this post is as politically ambivalent as my thoughts are about it.
StolenCamaro is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to StolenCamaro For This Useful Post:
Beast6rr (08-01-2011)
post #52 of 118 (permalink) Old 07-29-2011, 01:15 PM
AMA Supersport Racer
 
StolenCamaro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 531
Thanks: 17
Thanked 48 Times in 27 Posts
Feedback Score: 3 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by WherzRoony View Post
The last two bitter winters have lead to a rise in public awareness that CO2 is not a pollutant and is not a significant greenhouse gas that is triggering runaway global warming.
1- A greenhouse gas is defined as being a gas in an atmosphere that absorbs and emits radiation within the thermal infrared range. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. CO2 is the 2nd most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.

2- CO2 is recognized as a fund pollutant. Fund pollutants do not cause damage to the environment unless the emission rate exceeds the receiving environment's absorptive capacity

3- The December 2008 – February 2009 average temperature was 33.49 degrees F, which is 0.53 degree F above normal. This data was provided by the NOAA's National Climatic Data Center and is a measure of the United States as a whole.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WherzRoony View Post
How did we ever get to this point where bad science is driving big government we have to struggle so to stop it?
1- Intensely poor grammar. Valid pieces of information are generally composed with great attention to detail and design. Poor writing is a poor framework for any argument.

2- We came to this point via membership in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, along with 193 other countries who recognize global warming as a reality. No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion of the cause of global warming.

3- "Bad" and "big" are very vague words. With neither factual evidence behind these adjectives nor a standard against which to compare, how does one know how big "big" is and what degree of error "bad" entails?

Quote:
Originally Posted by WherzRoony View Post
The story begins with an Oceanographer named Roger Revelle. He served with the Navy in World War II. After the war he became the Director of the Scripps Oceanographic Institute in La Jolla in San Diego, California. Revelle saw the opportunity to obtain major funding from the Navy for doing measurements and research on the ocean around the Pacific Atolls where the US military was conducting atomic bomb tests. He greatly expanded the Institute’s areas of interest and among others hired Hans Suess, a noted Chemist from the University of Chicago, who was very interested in the traces of carbon in the environment from the burning of fossil fuels. Revelle tagged on to Suess studies and co-authored a paper with him in 1957. The paper raises the possibility that the carbon dioxide might be creating a greenhouse effect and causing atmospheric warming. It seems to be a plea for funding for more studies. Funding, frankly, is where Revelle’s mind was most of the time.
1- Research yields no profit, and is therefore unsustainable without funding. Potential research projects are evaluated by potential funding sources and only the most promising receive funding. Revelle's concern with continuing his research is understandable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WherzRoony View Post
Next Revelle hired a Geochemist named David Keeling to devise a way to measure the atmospheric content of Carbon dioxide. In 1960 Keeling published his first paper showing the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and linking the increase to the burning of fossil fuels.

These two research papers became the bedrock of the science of global warming, even though they offered no proof that carbon dioxide was in fact a greenhouse gas. In addition they failed to explain how this trace gas, only a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, could have any significant impact on temperatures.
1- In the second sentence, it is stated that he did in fact link the cause with the effect. However, the third and fourth sentences contradict this. Contradictory statements, regardless of concurrence or dissent, greatly erode the credibility of both statements. Without even the slightest of detail behind either statement, this section is largely unusable for any credible argument.

2- CO2, by definition, is a greenhouse gas. Stating failure to prove this in a study done 51 years ago is clearly immaterial and intended to erode the case for greenhouse gas involvement in global warming. Analaogous to this would be reporting to a sixth grade class a study on the effects of smoking done in 1985 before reporting current evidence. It is both unnecessary and irrelevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WherzRoony View Post
Now let me take you back to the1950s when this was going on. Our cities were entrapped in a pall of pollution from the crude internal combustion engines that powered cars and trucks back then and from the uncontrolled emissions from power plants and factories. Cars and factories and power plants were filling the air with all sorts of pollutants. There was a valid and serious concern about the health consequences of this pollution and a strong environmental movement was developing to demand action. Government accepted this challenge and new environmental standards were set. Scientists and engineers came to the rescue. New reformulated fuels were developed for cars, as were new high tech, computer controlled engines and catalytic converters. By the mid seventies cars were no longer big time polluters, emitting only some carbon dioxide and water vapor from their tail pipes. Likewise, new fuel processing and smoke stack scrubbers were added to industrial and power plants and their emissions were greatly reduced, as well.
1- This states an issue and a resolution thereof completely concurrent with the argument for mankind's involvement in global warming through the emission of greenhouse gases.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WherzRoony View Post
But an environmental movement had been established and its funding and very existence depended on having a continuing crisis issue. So the research papers from Scripps came at just the right moment. And, with them came the birth of an issue; man-made global warming from the carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.
1- Speculation. The dependence on which funding stood is heresay and cannot be backed.

2- Previous statements from this essay both directly and implicitly support this. At this point in the reading, the basic logical argument still supports mankind's involvement.

3- Again, the writing style is weak and laden with grammatic mistakes. A lack of professionalism has made this a poor essay.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WherzRoony View Post
Revelle and Keeling used this new alarmism to keep their funding growing. Other researchers with environmental motivations and a hunger for funding saw this developing and climbed aboard as well. The research grants began to flow and alarming hypothesis began to show up everywhere.
1- Speculation, again. No factual basis stated.

2- Argument fails to address the issue of man's involvement in global warming. This focuses on discrediting the character of the researching by means of their funding sources. Irrelevant.

3- Assuming factual basis had been provided, this funding source argument showed the scientists to be completely logical. Changing the descriptive magnitude of events without altering their factual framework is a daily reality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WherzRoony View Post
The Keeling curve showed a steady rise in CO2 in atmosphere during the period since oil and coal were discovered and used by man. As of today, carbon dioxide has increased from 215 to 385 parts per million. But, despite the increases, it is still only a trace gas in the atmosphere. While the increase is real, the percentage of the atmosphere that is CO2 remains tiny, about .41 hundredths of one percent.
1- The first factual evidence arrives, and is partially misreported. The author states the concentration to be around ".41 hundredth of one percent," which is mathematically equal to .041% (forty-one hundredths hundredth of one percent). The actual concentration at the time was .41%. While this is largely grammatic, it is misleading and false.

2- This section fails to address the effect of such a concentration. Sarin is able to kill a human with 0.00000003 grams per cubic foot of air, a staggeringly small concentration.
StolenCamaro is offline  
post #53 of 118 (permalink) Old 07-29-2011, 01:15 PM
AMA Supersport Racer
 
StolenCamaro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 531
Thanks: 17
Thanked 48 Times in 27 Posts
Feedback Score: 3 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by WherzRoony View Post
Several hypothesis emerged in the 70s and 80s about how this tiny atmospheric component of CO2 might cause a significant warming. But they remained unproven. Years have passed and the scientists kept reaching out for evidence of the warming and proof of their theories. And, the money and environmental claims kept on building up.
1- Author uses the word "remained" (past tense), seemingly working around having to use different structure regarding the multitudes of supporting documents available now.

2- This essay is incredibly vague when making sharp statements. What money is the author referring to?

Quote:
Originally Posted by WherzRoony View Post
Back in the 1960s, this global warming research came to the attention of a Canadian born United Nation’s bureaucrat named Maurice Strong. He was looking for issues he could use to fulfill his dream of one-world government. Strong organized a World Earth Day event in Stockholm, Sweden in 1970. From this he developed a committee of scientists, environmentalists and political operatives from the UN to continue a series of meeting.

Strong developed the concept that the UN could demand payments from the advanced nations for the climatic damage from their burning of fossil fuels to benefit the underdeveloped nations, a sort of CO2 tax that would be the funding for his one-world government. But, he needed more scientific evidence to support his primary thesis. So Strong championed the establishment of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This was not a pure climate study scientific organization, as we have been lead to believe. It was an organization of one-world government UN bureaucrats, environmental activists and environmentalist scientists who craved the UN funding so they could produce the science they needed to stop the burning of fossil fuels. Over the last 25 years they have been very effective. Hundreds of scientific papers, four major international meetings and reams of news stories about climatic Armageddon later, the UN IPCC has made its points to the satisfaction of most and even shared a Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore.
1- This entire section is narrative. Heresay, speculation, little factual evidence.

2- Strong did NOT establish the IPCC. The creation of the United Nations Environment Program can be attributed to the conference mentioned here, a totally different group. False evidence, completely.

3- This section fails to give even a faint motive for this "one-government" theory. By this point in the essay, the lack of credible evidence, presentation of falsehoods as truth, and general poor presentation have rendered it laughably unsound in the eyes of any moderate reader.

4- This section states that hundreds of scientific papers have been produced. If the point of the essay is to discredit the theory of man's involvement in global warming, why are NONE of these addressed and discredited?

Quote:
Originally Posted by WherzRoony View Post
At the same time, that Maurice Strong was busy at the UN, things were getting a bit out of hand for the man who is now called the grandfather of global warming, Roger Revelle. He had been very politically active in the late 1950’s as he worked to have the University of California locate a San Diego campus adjacent to Scripps Institute in La Jolla. He won that major war, but lost an all important battle afterward when he was passed over in the selection of the first Chancellor of the new campus.

He left Scripps finally in 1963 and moved to Harvard University to establish a Center for Population Studies. It was there that Revelle inspired one of his students to become a major global warming activist. This student would say later, "It felt like such a privilege to be able to hear about the readouts from some of those measurements in a group of no more than a dozen undergraduates. Here was this teacher presenting something not years old but fresh out of the lab, with profound implications for our future!" The student described him as "a wonderful, visionary professor" who was "one of the first people in the academic community to sound the alarm on global warming," That student was Al Gore. He thought of Dr. Revelle as his mentor and referred to him frequently, relaying his experiences as a student in his book Earth in the Balance, published in 1992.

So there it is, Roger Revelle was indeed the grandfather of global warming. His work had laid the foundation for the UN IPCC, provided the anti-fossil fuel ammunition to the environmental movement and sent Al Gore on his road to his books, his movie, his Nobel Peace Prize and a hundred million dollars from the carbon credits business.
1- This section again relies on narrative and speculation, terrible evidence.

2- Again, false evidence is presented (IPCC).

3- Again, this section fails to address the issue and focuses on discrediting supporters. The method by which they are scrutinized shows no framework or direction, it merely focuses on their character.


Quote:
Originally Posted by WherzRoony View Post
What happened next is amazing. The global warming frenzy was becoming the cause celeb of the media. After all the media is mostly liberal, loves Al Gore, loves to warn us of impending disasters and tell us "the sky is falling, the sky is falling". The politicians and the environmentalist loved it, too.
1- By this point, I feel like I am reading a tabloid. This is complete, pure linguistic composition.

2- Failure to prove media bias, or even present a correlation.

3- Failure to even maintain a focus of the section. The argument has shifted so many times, just in the first parts of this writing. The author here is on a mission to partially discredit extraneous factors (largely unsuccessfully, I might add) and completely ignores the focus.

Do you need me to keep going with this? I can't believe this essay is considered even remotely legitimate as backup for anything. This has about the same credibility and gravity as a letter to Santa.

If you want to disprove a global warming study, disprove it. This is a joke.
StolenCamaro is offline  
post #54 of 118 (permalink) Old 07-29-2011, 07:13 PM
Get Jiggy with it
 
Dr.Spank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tennessee --- Via N.J.
Posts: 6,178
Images: 4
Thanks: 8
Thanked 9 Times in 8 Posts
Feedback Score: 11 reviews
Global Warming is like Aliens..It's bullsh!t created to keep idiots busy arguing while they rape us of our very existence!!

WAKE THE F^CK UP!

_______________
Black 05' 600RR

___________________

Dr.Spank is offline  
post #55 of 118 (permalink) Old 07-29-2011, 08:35 PM
AMA Supersport Racer
 
StolenCamaro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 531
Thanks: 17
Thanked 48 Times in 27 Posts
Feedback Score: 3 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.Spank View Post
Global Warming is like Aliens..It's bullsh!t created to keep idiots busy arguing while they rape us of our very existence!!

WAKE THE F^CK UP!
Are you guys really this cynical about things? Aliens or not, global warming or not... you guys really think everything is a conspiracy designed to take advantage of us?

To be completely honest and not mask anything with pretty words:

If the government(s) wanted to f*ck us, they would just do it. No need for a mask.
StolenCamaro is offline  
post #56 of 118 (permalink) Old 07-29-2011, 09:09 PM Thread Starter
Mad Chemist
 
WherzRoony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Central New York State, The Hills
Posts: 5,798
Images: 57
Thanks: 37
Thanked 83 Times in 64 Posts
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I'm a reality theorist!

What did you think about that article that shows the un's climate models aren't real? The actual data shows a different story.

The government knows that it can tax the hell out of fuel and control the economy in the name of saving the world from "Global Climate Change" which the planet does all of the time anyways.

And I don't believe in harp or whatever, I'm sorry, but a water spout is common, as is fish getting burned from volcanic vents on the floor of the ocean.

I Like My Guns Like Obama Likes His Voters: Undocumented

WherzRoony is offline  
post #57 of 118 (permalink) Old 07-29-2011, 09:54 PM
Moto GP Racer
 
LanCo Rider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: LanCo, PA
Posts: 4,710
Thanks: 354
Thanked 225 Times in 163 Posts
Feedback Score: 8 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by StolenCamaro View Post

To be completely honest and not mask anything with pretty words:

If the government(s) wanted to f*ck us, they would just do it. No need for a mask.

I doubt it.

If they just did whatever they wanted quickly and without hiding it, they would be vastly out numbered by pissed off Americans and their whole system would collapse.

Quote:
Harley-Davidson: The world's most efficient method of turning gasoline into noise without the harmful side effect of horsepower.
LanCo Rider is offline  
post #58 of 118 (permalink) Old 07-29-2011, 10:45 PM Thread Starter
Mad Chemist
 
WherzRoony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Central New York State, The Hills
Posts: 5,798
Images: 57
Thanks: 37
Thanked 83 Times in 64 Posts
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
^^^I'm there

I Like My Guns Like Obama Likes His Voters: Undocumented

WherzRoony is offline  
post #59 of 118 (permalink) Old 07-29-2011, 11:17 PM
Get Jiggy with it
 
Dr.Spank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tennessee --- Via N.J.
Posts: 6,178
Images: 4
Thanks: 8
Thanked 9 Times in 8 Posts
Feedback Score: 11 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by LanCo Rider View Post
I doubt it.

If they just did whatever they wanted quickly and without hiding it, they would be vastly out numbered by pissed off Americans and their whole system would collapse.
EXACTLY!!!...They do it gradually ...Don't worry...While they are all watching Jersey Shore one day, they might have a rude awakening.

_______________
Black 05' 600RR

___________________

Dr.Spank is offline  
post #60 of 118 (permalink) Old 08-01-2011, 10:23 PM
Pocketbike Racer
 
Beast6rr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Delaware
Posts: 270
Thanks: 54
Thanked 13 Times in 12 Posts
Feedback Score: 4 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by StolenCamaro View Post
I really feel like a shift is in order whether global warming is real or not. It almost seems like the argument for change has cemented objectors even more stubbornly into their ways.



LanCo, I don't mean for this to sound sarcastic... it's really not, nor is it meant to be an attack- I just don't know how else to pose the question:

Do you really think so?

I like to see things from all angles, but I just can't bring myself to believe that the global warming topic is driven by profit. Who exactly would be profiting by us changing our habits? From everything I've seen, the trend seems to be that alternative energies and such are largely stratified... there are no giants like Exxon Mobil or BP to own the benefits completely! Furthermore, alternative energies promote localization of power grids. Again, I meant that as a legit question, not a challenge or anything.

One other point... ANYBODY can find and post "facts" for either side of the argument. Data manipulation has endless possibilities when you have 100,000 metrics from different studies.

My one big question to everyone opposing this is:

Why are you so vehemently against changing? Would it really hurt to be more efficient with our utilization of power and cleaner with our consumption thereof? Politics aside, I'm just saddened by the general stoicism of America. Our greatest move toward change has been fashionably voting for a president who promised such.

To everyone who has ever mentioned any of the "keep the change" kind of statements about Obama, I say this: we live in a representative democracy. You standing in line for 5 minutes and signing a ballot for the opposing party doesn't free you of association with the state of our country! Vote in local elections, write to your congressmen. I assure you that even the slightest involvement will be more effective than discourse on 600rr.net.

I still ask though... what's the big deal? Have you all really lost a lot personally because of global warming?

I hope this post is as politically ambivalent as my thoughts are about it.
Great questions
Beast6rr is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the 600RR.net forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome