|
Post by espy on Mar 8, 2007 17:11:47 GMT -5
Government funded scientist......they might as well be government employees. They do and say whatever the gov them wants them to. Just like the FDA, they ok all these drugs for one thing or another with side affects ranging from birth defects to death but keep all natural pain and depression remedies illegal...government......pshhh
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 8, 2007 17:14:51 GMT -5
One of my favorite books is how to lie with statistics: www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728One of the easiest ways is to use charts and graphs. Depending on how close or far away you are you can make a staggering increase look like a flat line or vise versa. Here's a chart DixiePixie got from her quack: Notice it goes back 800,000 years. No recent change will show up on this chart. It's almost as though the quack doesn't want you to see the last 200 years. Now here's one from that craaaaazy EPA: Hmmm. But what about co2? Check out the far right side of the chart.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 8, 2007 17:17:17 GMT -5
Government funded scientist......they might as well be government employees. They do and say whatever the gov them wants them to. Just like the FDA, they ok all these drugs for one thing or another with side affects ranging from birth defects to death but keep all natural pain and depression remedies illegal...government......pshhh Good point. All the tree huggers in the Bush administration have been filling the place up with environmental wackos.
|
|
|
Post by espy on Mar 8, 2007 17:17:36 GMT -5
blondie, nice....
|
|
|
Post by dixiepixie on Mar 8, 2007 17:34:34 GMT -5
One of my favorite books is how to lie with statistics: www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728One of the easiest ways is to use charts and graphs. Depending on how close or far away you are you can make a staggering increase look like a flat line or vise versa. Here's a chart DixiePixie got from her quack: Notice it goes back 800,000 years. No recent change will show up on this chart. It's almost as though the quack doesn't want you to see the last 200 years. Now here's one from that craaaaazy EPA: Hmmm. But what about co2? Check out the far right side of the chart. From the same link: REF: Compiled by R. S. Bradley and J. A. Eddy based on J. T. Houghton et al., Climate Change: The IPCC Assessment, Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge, 1990 and published in EarthQuest, vol 5, no 1, 1991. Courtesy of Thomas Crowley, Remembrance of Things Past: Greenhouse Lessons from the Geologic Record This is the conclusions the authors came to with the collected data: The idea that man-made pollution is responsible for global warming is not supported by historical fact. The period known as the Holocene Maximum is a good example-- so-named because it was the hottest period in human history. The interesting thing is this period occurred approximately 7500 to 4000 years B.P. (before present)-- long before human's invented industrial pollution.How about this one?: It's from NOAA (I guess the National Weather people are quacks, too)
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Mar 8, 2007 19:14:41 GMT -5
Anyone who respects the opinions of the United Nations on anything ought to have their heads examined.
And since when does the Left use the words "well respected" and "Bush Administration" in the same sentence? Perhaps only when said Administration adopts a position with which they agree? Funny the Left admires them when they speak on global warming but absolutely destests them the rest of the time.
Can you say "hypocracy" on the part of the Left? I knew that you could.
You might be rights.
Other highlights of the Gore Legacy are:
Claiming to have 'discovered' Love Canal approximately eight years after the EPA had begun cleaning it up.
Claiming that he and Tipper were the inspriation for "Love Story".
Claiming to have been proud to have worked tobacco before a pro-tobacco group and then decrying its use several years later when speaking before an anti-tobacco group.
Claiming to have invented the internet.
Claiming that there was "no controlling legal authority" over his illegal campaign contribution solicitations.
Claiming that he didn't know the Buddhist temple event was a fun raiser because he had drunk several glasses of iced tea and had to leave the room frequently.
And now of course claiming to be a global warming champion all the while running up a yearly electric bill that is some TEN TIMES that of average Tennesseeans.
Using Al Gore as a credible source on, well, anything is like using Hopward Stern as a credible source when talking about sexual harassment.
|
|
|
Post by billt on Mar 8, 2007 19:21:20 GMT -5
blondie, thank you for the graphs, they SHOW what i have already stated repeatedly..the temperature/climate warms FIRST, then the co2 levels rise.
whenever there is a true cause= effect relationship it is REQUIRED 100% of the time that the " cause" comes FIRST followed by the effect!
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 8, 2007 20:12:34 GMT -5
billt, If you're so quick to dismiss NASA on the global warming issue why do you believe them about the moon landing? www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.htmlStudy Dr. Dinos debates. At least he never resorts to name calling. If you're confused about the co2 and warmth thing go to the EPA site. I'm sure you can find an answer. Obviously humans are producing a lot of co2. You say, "the temperature/climate warms FIRST, then the co2 levels rise." But then you say that the climate got cooler mid century. So not only are you assuming that the people that study this for a living haven't factored this in your only point doesn't even make sense. I guess I have to conclude that their are no objective, reputable sources that deny global warming anymore. Amazing. I used to be kind of unsure, but now I'm throughly convinced. The lack of any credible arguments against it speaks volumes. Here DixiePixie, I think I sent you here before: users.tpg.com.au/users/tps-seti/baloney.html
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 8, 2007 20:19:22 GMT -5
Anyone who respects the opinions of the United Nations on anything ought to have their heads examined. And since when does the Left use the words "well respected" and "Bush Administration" in the same sentence? Perhaps only when said Administration adopts a position with which they agree? Funny the Left admires them when they speak on global warming but absolutely destests them the rest of the time. Can you say "hypocracy" on the part of the Left? I knew that you could. You might be rights. Other highlights of the Gore Legacy are: Claiming to have 'discovered' Love Canal approximately eight years after the EPA had begun cleaning it up. Claiming that he and Tipper were the inspriation for "Love Story". Claiming to have been proud to have worked tobacco before a pro-tobacco group and then decrying its use several years later when speaking before an anti-tobacco group. Claiming to have invented the internet. Claiming that there was "no controlling legal authority" over his illegal campaign contribution solicitations. Claiming that he didn't know the Buddhist temple event was a fun raiser because he had drunk several glasses of iced tea and had to leave the room frequently. And now of course claiming to be a global warming champion all the while running up a yearly electric bill that is some TEN TIMES that of average Tennesseeans. Using Al Gore as a credible source on, well, anything is like using Hopward Stern as a credible source when talking about sexual harassment. Read Al Frankin's book Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them for an in-depth rebuttal of most of the above point. It always amazes me how right-wingers are so unaware of the other sides of these issues. Step back for a second and ask yourself if these attacks on Al Gore ring true.
|
|
|
Post by billt on Mar 8, 2007 20:21:55 GMT -5
childish insult noted blondie.
i am not really the one saying the temperatures rise first...the DATA is, the ice cores ARE, the actual observations do all of that for me.
this isnt my "opinion" it is the FACTS based on the known historical record.
|
|
|
Post by billt on Mar 8, 2007 20:30:40 GMT -5
the actual data isnt something that can be "factored in" and compensated for when it comes to proving a hypothesis....the ice cores show actual PROOF the co2 CANT be the "cause"of rising temps BECAUSE the temps rise BEFORE the co2 levels.
that is evidence that a warmer atmosphere is better able to hold co2 and warmer temps are the CAUSE of more co2 in the air.....WOW that would also mean humans CANT be the cause either!
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on Mar 8, 2007 21:27:12 GMT -5
I actually didn't. Thanks for pointing me to it. Now for the response!!!! You're on here acting as if Man-made global warming has been proven and it has not. If it has not been proven then that obviously means that there exist a possibility of this being a total load of crap. Which means, of course, that this theory is still under debate! Why would you want to completely change your life over a theory no one has been able to prove? It doesn't make any sense! Why would stand so strongly for this? It takes faith to believe in Man-made global warming. It's become the latest religion for the left.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 8, 2007 22:43:26 GMT -5
this theory is still under debate! Why would you want to completely change your life over a theory no one has been able to prove? It doesn't make any sense! Why would stand so strongly for this? It takes faith to believe in Man-made global warming. It's become the latest religion for the left. I don't stand so strongly on this issue. I haven't thought about it much before this thread. Now that I have thought about and researched it I realize that there is no real debate. There's a fake debate going on among the right-wing in America. Nobody else. The consequences are nothing less than the survival of humanity. It doesn't take faith to believe every single reputable source.
|
|
|
Post by billt on Mar 8, 2007 23:09:09 GMT -5
a quick reminder, among those "reputable sources" the UN....LOL
the main stream media...LOL
the EPA found to be falsifying science years ago in court.
the IPCC... government hacks writing a summary of scientists work leaving OUT all the qualifiers.
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on Mar 8, 2007 23:49:54 GMT -5
Blondie, are you trying to say that you've done enough research in three days to be totally convinced that Man-Made Global Warming is going to destroy the earth? You're kidding, right? No? Hmmm.....Well, I have this beach-front property in Colorado I'd love to sell you........
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 9, 2007 8:57:43 GMT -5
a quick reminder, among those "reputable sources" the UN....LOL the main stream media...LOL the EPA found to be falsifying science years ago in court. the IPCC... government hacks writing a summary of scientists work leaving OUT all the qualifiers. I think the UN has a lot more credibility than its detractors. Also, I believe the EPA is the single most credible source on global warming. Your inability to produce even a single, objective group that backs your claims speaks volumes. Where is their peer-reviewed research? Global warming deniers have stopped submitting evidence long ago. Now they only resort to name calling.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 9, 2007 9:02:38 GMT -5
Blondie, are you trying to say that you've done enough research in three days to be totally convinced that Man-Made Global Warming is going to destroy the earth? You're kidding, right? No? Hmmm.....Well, I have this beach-front property in Colorado I'd love to sell you........ It didn't take 3 days. I start with a question. Is global warming happening and is it being caused by humans? Then I ask myself, where would I go to find objective information. I go to those places and look at their conclusions. To be fair I look at the claims of the deniers. Here I see all the red flags of pseudo-science and an obvious political agenda.
|
|
|
Post by espy on Mar 9, 2007 9:36:50 GMT -5
Well, whether or not we are causing the planet to warm with our Co2 emissions, we are unbalancing the o2 and Co2 levels, take the LA basin, during a hot summer day you cant even see the city from all the smog, people with lung problems cant go outside, they have oxygen bars, and if you look at Birmingham on a hot day you see the same thing, a brown cloud we are all having to breath. Not to mention the fact we are destroying the earths lungs( trees ) in the rainforests, pretty soon there wont be enough vegetation to compensate for the amount of Co2 we have put into the air and we will start to suffer more and more health effects because of it. Its like running your car in the garage until you pass out and die from Co2 poisoning. So it really don't matter if the world is warming up because we are going to kill ourselves off with air pollution way before we see the effects of the warming cycle.
All of the groups like the UN, EPA, FDA, all branches of the government are all under control of the all mighty dollar and you know you cant trust anything controlled by that.
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on Mar 9, 2007 9:56:28 GMT -5
It didn't take 3 days. I start with a question. Is global warming happening and is it being caused by humans? Then I ask myself, where would I go to find objective information. I go to those places and look at their conclusions. To be fair I look at the claims of the deniers. Here I see all the red flags of pseudo-science and an obvious political agenda. Blondie, how would you even know where to go for objective information if you've never invested a significant amount of time into researching this? You should simply admit your ignorance in this matter instead of claiming to have all the answers.
|
|
|
Post by billt on Mar 9, 2007 10:38:22 GMT -5
espy, please understand i deal in truth...when a person dies from car fumes it is co, NOT co2 that kills them...carbon MONoxide, NOT carbon DIoxide.
this is not to insult anyone but folks some of you are discussing science yet KNOW NOTHING about science!
|
|
|
Post by dixiepixie on Mar 9, 2007 10:48:26 GMT -5
espy, please understand i deal in truth...when a person dies from car fumes its it co, NOT co2 that kills them...carbon MONoxide, NOT carbon DIoxide. this is not to insult anyone but folks some of you are discussing science yet KNOW NOTHING about science! Thanks, bill. you just saved me a mountain of cut & paste.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 9, 2007 11:29:27 GMT -5
Blondie, how would you even know where to go for objective information if you've never invested a significant amount of time into researching this? You should simply admit your ignorance in this matter instead of claiming to have all the answers. Since you're so wise I guess you can steer me toward this objective information that the GW deniers keep pretending exists. I find it odd that no one can provide even one objective source. I just get attacked for believing folks like NASA. I'm actually amazed at how obviously bogus, if not nonexistent the GW deniers' arguments are. I had no idea it was this cut and dry.
|
|
|
Post by billt on Mar 9, 2007 12:45:08 GMT -5
i find it odd that YOU having been provided links to THOUSANDS of scientists that disagree with human caused GW, yet you still claim nobody of substance disagrees!
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 9, 2007 13:09:46 GMT -5
i find it odd that YOU having been provided links to THOUSANDS of scientists that disagree with human caused GW, yet you still claim nobody of substance disagrees! Wow, if you're going to lie, at least make it believable. Anybody can scan back through this thread. DixiePixie did provide me a link to one quack. But I don't expect to see his byline in Scientific American anytime soon.
|
|
|
Post by billt on Mar 9, 2007 13:19:52 GMT -5
indeed someone here is LYING, blondie from the original thread in the local section Oh...and as for the debate being 'over'- that global warming is real and definitely caused by humans- you might want to inform these guys: (source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus)The Earth is not warming significantly Scientists in this section hold that the the Earth is not warming or has warmed less than the 0.6 ± 0.2°C estimate given by the IPCC. Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland: "Contrary to the IPCC predictions, global temperature has not risen appreciably in the last 20 years. Most surface temperature data free from the influence of surrounding buildings and roads show no warming. Data from satellites support this." [4] "The Earth’s surface has warmed slightly, but floods, droughts, hurricanes and tornadoes have not changed for the worse. The atmosphere may warm because of human activity, but if it does, the expected change is unlikely to be much more than 1 °C, and probably less, in the next 100 years. ... Warming, from whatever cause, is more likely to produce economic benefits than economic losses." [5] [edit] The Earth is warming but the cause is unknown Scientists in this section accept the observations of rising temperatures, but conclude it is too early to ascribe any cause to these changes, man-made or natural. Claude Allègre, French geophysicist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris): "The increase in the CO2 content of the atmosphere is an observed fact and mankind is most certainly responsible. In the long term, this increase will without doubt become harmful, but its exact role in the climate is less clear. Various parameters appear more important than CO2. Consider the water cycle and formation of various types of clouds, and the complex effects of industrial or agricultural dust. Or fluctuations of the intensity of the solar radiation on annual and century scale, which seem better correlated with heating effects than the variations of CO2 content." (Translation from the original French version in L'Express, May 10, 2006 [6]) Robert C. Balling, Jr., director of the Office of Climatology and an associate professor of geography at Arizona State University: " t is very likely that the recent upward trend [in global surface temperature] is very real and that the upward signal is greater than any noise introduced from uncertainties in the record. However, the general error is most likely to be in the warming direction, with a maximum possible (though unlikely) value of 0.3°C. ... At this moment in time we know only that: (1) Global surface temperatures have risen in recent decades. (2) Mid-tropospheric temperatures have warmed little over the same period. (3) This difference is not consistent with predictions from numerical climate models." (George C. Marshall Institute, Policy Outlook, September 2003 [7]) David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma: "The amount of climatic warming that has taken place in the past 150 years is poorly constrained, and its cause--human or natural--is unknown. There is no sound scientific basis for predicting future climate change with any degree of certainty. If the climate does warm, it is likely to be beneficial to humanity rather than harmful. In my opinion, it would be foolish to establish national energy policy on the basis of misinformation and irrational hysteria." (Testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, December 6, 2006 [8]) Richard Lindzen, MIT meteorology professor and member of the National Academy of Sciences: "We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5°C higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds). But--and I cannot stress this enough--we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future." [9] "[T]here has been no question whatsoever that CO2 is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas — albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in CO2 should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed." (San Francisco Examiner, July 12, 2006 [10] and in Wall Street Journal, June 26, 2006, Page A14) Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville: "We need to find out how much of the warming we are seeing could be due to mankind, because I still maintain we have no idea how much you can attribute to mankind." (George C. Marshall Institute Washington Roundtable on Science and Public Policy, April 17, 2006 [11])
[edit] The Earth is warming but mostly due to natural processes Scientists in this section accept the observations of rising temperature, but conclude that natural causes are likely more to blame than human activities.
Khabibullo Ismailovich Abdusamatov, at Pulkovskaya Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the supervisor of the Astrometria project of the Russian section of the International Space Station: "Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy - almost throughout the last century - growth in its intensity." (Russian News & Information Agency, Jan. 15, 2007 [12]) (See also [13], [14], [15]) Sallie Baliunas, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air." [16] In 2003 Baliunas and Soon wrote that "there is no reliable evidence for increased severity or frequency of storms, droughts, or floods that can be related to the air’s increased greenhouse gas content." [17] Robert M. Carter, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia: "The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown." (Telegraph, April 9, 2006 [18]) George V. Chilingar, professor of civil and petroleum engineering at the University of Southern California, and Leonid F. Khilyuk: "The authors identify and describe the following global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate: (1) solar radiation ..., (2) outgassing as a major supplier of gases to the World Ocean and the atmosphere, and, possibly, (3) microbial activities ... . The writers provide quantitative estimates of the scope and extent of their corresponding effects on the Earth’s climate [and] show that the human-induced climatic changes are negligible." (Environmental Geology, vol. 50 no. 6, August 2006 [19]) William M. Gray, professor of atmospheric science and meteorologist, Colorado State University: "This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential." (BBC News, 16 Nov 2000 [20]) "I am of the opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people." (Washington Post, May 28, 2006 [21]) "So many people have a vested interest in this global-warming thing—all these big labs and research and stuff. The idea is to frighten the public, to get money to study it more." (Discover, vol. 26 no. 9, September 2005 [22]) Zbigniew Jaworowski, chair of the Scientific Council at the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw: "The atmospheric temperature variations do not follow the changes in the concentrations of CO2 ... climate change fluctuations comes ... from cosmic radiation (21st Century Science & Technology, Winter 2003-2004, p. 52-65 [23]) Marcel Leroux, former Professor of Climatology, Université Jean Moulin: "The possible causes, then, of climate change are: well-established orbital parameters on the palaeoclimatic scale, ... solar activity, ...; volcanism ...; and far at the rear, the greenhouse effect, and in particular that caused by water vapor, the extent of its influence being unknown. These factors are working together all the time, and it seems difficult to unravel the relative importance of their respective influences upon climatic evolution. Equally, it is tendentious to highlight the anthropic factor, which is, clearly, the least credible among all those previously mentioned." (M. Leroux, Global Warming - Myth or Reality?, 2005, p. 120 [24]) Tim Patterson [25], paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada: "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?" [26] Frederick Seitz, retired, former solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences: "So we see that the scientific facts indicate that all the temperature changes observed in the last 100 years were largely natural changes and were not caused by carbon dioxide produced in human activities.", Environment News, 2001 [27] Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem: "[T]he truth is probably somewhere in between [the common view and that of skeptics], with natural causes probably being more important over the past century, whereas anthropogenic causes will probably be more dominant over the next century. ... bout 2/3's (give or take a third or so) of the warming [over the past century] should be attributed to increased solar activity and the remaining to anthropogenic causes." His opinion is based on some proxies of solar activity over the past few centuries. [28] Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia: "The greenhouse effect is real. However, the effect is minute, insignificant, and very difficult to detect." (Christian Science Monitor, April 22, 2005) [29] "The Earth currently is experiencing a warming trend, but there is scientific evidence that human activities have little to do with it.", NCPA Study No. 279, Sep. 2005 [30]. “It’s not automatically true that warming is bad, I happen to believe that warming is good, and so do many economists.” (CBC's Denial machine @ 19:23 - Google Video Link) Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]here's increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. The bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then, yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the recent warming. In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed." (Harvard University Gazette, 24 April 2003 [31]) Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center: "Our team ... has discovered that the relatively few cosmic rays that reach sea-level play a big part in the everyday weather. They help to make low-level clouds, which largely regulate the Earth’s surface temperature. During the 20th Century the influx of cosmic rays decreased and the resulting reduction of cloudiness allowed the world to warm up. ... most of the warming during the 20th Century can be explained by a reduction in low cloud cover." [32] Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from University of Ottawa: "At this stage, two scenarios of potential human impact on climate appear feasible: (1) the standard IPCC model ..., and (2) the alternative model that argues for celestial phenomena as the principal climate driver. ... Models and empirical observations are both indispensable tools of science, yet when discrepancies arise, observations should carry greater weight than theory. If so, the multitude of empirical observations favours celestial phenomena as the most important driver of terrestrial climate on most time scales, but time will be the final judge." (In J. Veizer, "Celestial climate driver: a perspective from four billion years of the carbon cycle", Geoscience Canada, March, 2005. [33], [34])
But then I guess ALL of these scientists are on the payroll of Big Oil... Link to Post - Back to Top IP: Logged Let every nation know, whether it wishes us we]l or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.- John F. Kennedy- Inaguration Speech- January 20th, 1961 W.O.M.I Apprentice Cog *** member is offline
[avatar]
[send pm]
Joined: Jan 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 231 Location: Birmingham Karma: 3 [ Exalt | Smite ] Re: James Spann and Global Warming « Reply #52 on Feb 4, 2007, 9:33pm »
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 9, 2007 15:04:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 9, 2007 15:43:48 GMT -5
Here's some great quotes about the guys responsible for the bogus anti-global warming petition: "Robinson is a conservative Christian. North is also a prolific author of doomsday books with titles such as None Dare Call It Witchcraft; Conspiracy: A Biblical View; Rapture Fever; and How You Can Profit From the Coming Price Controls. Following his collaboration with Robinson, North built a web-based marketing empire built around apocalyptic predictions that the Y2K bug would make the dawn of the 21st century "the year the earth stands still." After his Y2K predictions fizzled, North retooled his website to offer internet marketing products and services. The OISM website also offers educational links to a creationist website. <<<<<Bingo"Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" and was printed in the same typeface and format as the official Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. In reality, neither Robinson's paper nor OISM's petition drive had anything to do with the National Academy of Sciences, which first heard about the petition when its members began calling to ask if the NAS had taken a stand against the Kyoto treaty. Robinson was not even a climate scientist. None of the coauthors of "Environmental Effects of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" had any more standing than Robinson himself as a climate change researcher. They included Robinson's 22-year-old son, Zachary The NAS issued an unusually blunt formal response to the petition drive. "The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal, OISM's website enables people to add their names to the petition over the Internet, and by June 2000 it claimed to have recruited more than 19,000 scientists. The institute is so lax about screening names, however, that virtually anyone can sign, only a few dozen, at most, of the signatories were drawn from the core disciplines of climate science UNBELIEVABLE!, Yet you have the audacity to dismiss the EPA out of hand. Do you posses any critical reasoning skills whatsoever?
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on Mar 9, 2007 15:58:38 GMT -5
Blondie. Your arrogance is incredible. You have admitted that you don't know much on the subject of Global Warming by telling us that you didn't invest any interest into the subject until three days ago. You have conceeded that Man-Made Global Warming has not been proven. You have agreed that "dominant (consensus)" really doesn't count for anything when it comes to Science. You have been shown data from many people which disputes what you are so desperately fighting for. Despite all of these things you still have the nerve to come on here and insult people and to act like you have all of the answers when you most definately do not. In honor of your actions I am posting this picture:
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 9, 2007 16:14:58 GMT -5
Blondie. Your arrogance is incredible. You have admitted that you don't know much on the subject of Global Warming by telling us that you didn't invest any interest into the subject until three days ago. You have conceeded that Man-Made Global Warming has not been proven. You have agreed that "dominant (consensus)" really doesn't count for anything when it comes to Science. You have been shown data from many people which disputes what you are so desperately fighting for. Despite all of these things you still have the nerve to come on here and insult people and to act like you have all of the answers when you most definately You don't have a clue do you? Do you think that the global warming deniers are equally as credible as the proponents? Do you think the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine is a legitimate institution? Do you not know that the anti global warming movement is a Rush Limbaugh inspired neo-con creation? Just like the Creationist. Science's open-endedness is misunderstood by the :Ps
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 9, 2007 16:24:52 GMT -5
Blondie. Your arrogance is incredible. You have admitted that you don't know much on the subject of Global Warming by telling us that you didn't invest any interest into the subject until three days ago. You have conceeded that Man-Made Global Warming has not been proven. You have agreed that "dominant (consensus)" really doesn't count for anything when it comes to Science. You have been shown data from many people which disputes what you are so desperately fighting for. Despite all of these things you still have the nerve to come on here and insult people and to act like you have all of the answers when you most definately do not. In honor of your actions I am posting this picture: Oh, now I've got you figured out. You didn't know I wasn't a straw man. You wanted me to say science was based on voting. That a climate science is 100% understood.
|
|