[Bowman]

Maybe the better way is, let some of us who are concern about our future do our job to make this place a better world to live in. The rest of us can just keep quiet. But I guess that would be difficult for some of us to do huh.

Sounds good to me just don't expect me to shut up when you keep asking for my money to support your ideas.

They can't tell me if its going to rain in a few weeks.
They have been WAY OFF prediciting the past 2 years hurricane seasons activity.
When we do have a hurricane they can't tell me where it will go tomorrow.

Now please tell me why I should listen to these same people tell me about whats going to happen in 100+ years from now much less pay for their research.

I see it as a research grant free for all and if the scientist can get the politicians on board then they are on the free grant money gravy train. After all the government has my money to give away on such things. Of course the results of the research will be inline with what they want the results to be. Then at the end of the reports it will always say "more research is needed," as it always says. AKA we need more grant money so we can keep our jobs.

Considering how long earth has been here and how miniscule an amount of time they are using to base all their stats on its rather ridiculous. Seems A LOT of ice melted off all on its own long before internal combustion engines were around. If the ice is melting due to rising CO2 emissions soley then we should still be covered in ice from the last ice age. Its kind of big balls to make such claims on such limited timelines when considering the time line of earth itself. If we jump everytime a sensor twitches with new laws and regs we will end up with more of the same that we have now. Stupid laws and regs that do nothing but jack things up and cost us all more that in the end do nothing to stop the problem that was originally supposed to be fixed.

Give a grant to most any scientist and you will get the results you wanted to get, especially if they know more $$$$ is to follow once the initial "results," are in.

The whole carbon credit deal is nothing but a scam of a cottage industry that Al Gore expects to profit from. When people like him and Babs who preach global warming stop flying in private jets exhausting more CO2 than I will in my life on one trip in their plane I might listen. Then again, I could never see me listening to anything those blow hards have to say short of goodbye and good ridence.


Bowman

[mike3701]

I have been a subscriber to "Imprimis", a monthly newsletter from Huillsdale College, the only College in The country that recieves no Gov. money, whatsoever.
Within the last 6 mo. the hahe dedicated an issue to the money trail (power) trail, and largely agrees with you.
Anyone can subscribe to a free monthly paper by requesting such from;
Hillsdale College, 33 E. College St., Hillsdale MI 49242. This is one of the few pubs. that I look for every month. Very best regards to all.
MCP

[NinerSevenTango]

I have been a subscriber to "Imprimis", a monthly newsletter from Huillsdale College, the only College in The country that recieves no Gov. money, whatsoever.
Within the last 6 mo. the hahe dedicated an issue to the money trail (power) trail, and largely agrees with you.
Anyone can subscribe to a free monthly paper by requesting such from;
Hillsdale College, 33 E. College St., Hillsdale MI 49242. This is one of the few pubs. that I look for every month. Very best regards to all.
MCP

One of the few universities remaining that at least strives for intellectual honesty.

[sergizmo]

Polar bears have now been listed as threatened under the endangered species act in the USA.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science...ref=newssearch

Never mind the fact that the population is increasing or at worst steady, and that the number is double what it was in the 60's. What's important is this computer model projection says that global warming will have harmful effects in 50 years. Let's not use actual empirical evidence, but some computer projection on what may happen, assuming our variables are right. Unreal. Now the American government and environmental agencies will be lecturing Canadian Inuit on how to treat polar bear populations...I mean how could they know what's going on with the polar bear, they only live in the actual habitat. Oh, and were the Inuit consulted before coming to this decision? Absolutely not.

There is also talk by one of the political parties in Canada of imposing a carbon tax to largely replace income tax. So, all remaining industry here could be completely wiped out. Not only will this mean massive job losses, but more stuff will be made in Asia where they have no pollution regulation. So the net effect will be more pollution, not less. Let's not let actual facts or reason get in the way of decision making here. At least our income tax will be lowered... Yeah, right.(nuts)

Serge

[jetpig1]

The whole carbon credit deal is nothing but a scam of a cottage industry that Al Gore expects to profit from. When people like him and Babs who preach global warming stop flying in private jets exhausting more CO2 than I will in my life on one trip in their plane I might listen. Then again, I could never see me listening to anything those blow hards have to say short of goodbye and good ridence.


Bowman

How are they gonna profit ? How should they deliver the message to the world, wooden cart ? You've proven it's tough enough to get through using technology like internet. When you look at the facts of the last 100 years of industry, versus the last million years of earth, big difference. Besides, you can be angry all you want, there's plenty of time left to vehemently deny things until the last gasp... hell, cigarettes and liquor aren't bad for you, that's something we learned in the 50's.....

[SSMrob]

How are they gonna profit ? How should they deliver the message to the world, wooden cart ? ..

Wow, you are getting duped pretty good by these tricksters in DC..

(nuts)

You need to do your homework..

How?

How about being on the board of several of these "green" startups? How about huge investments made in many of them?

Even McLame is invested fairly heavily in these "green" companies...

Also, they want to start another dot.bomb situation with the trading of green credits..

Back in the old days, the snake oil salesmen would come and go, now they stay in congress forever.. Poster children for term limits AND extreme late term abortion, all of them..

I still don't understand why we continue to hire the spoiled idiot children of rich politicians over and over again.. There ought to be a "one politico per family" rule put in place RIGHT NOW.

[guylopes]

Bowman and/or Mariss for President!

[Swiss]

The whole carbon credit deal is nothing but a scam of a cottage industry that Al Gore expects to proafit from.

Whenever someone mentions Al Gore in the context of climate change denial, I know they don't know what they're talking about.

Climate change has nothing to do with Al Gore. Don't listen to Al Gore. Ignore him, he's irrelevant. He doesn't even fully understand the science. As with all matters of science, the only place you should be looking is in peer reviewed journals, and the only people you should be listening to are people who understand and reference them and accurately relate the information in them.

That means don't listen to Al Gore, don't listen to Glen Beck, or Bill-O, or Barack Obama, and not me, or anyone else on this forum. And especially don't listen to anyone who has a vested interest in either outcome.

Please, study the science behind it, not the politics. Find out why the scientfic consensus is that humans are affecting the climate. And if you have any questions, I will try to point you in the direction of the science which answers them.

A good video which summarises the science behind climate change is this one: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo"]YouTube- 1. Climate Change -- the scientific debate[/ame]

Swiss

[Mariss Freimanis]

Please, study the science behind it, not the politics. Find out why the scientfic consensus is that humans are affecting the climate. And if you have any questions, I will try to point you in the direction of the science which answers them.

Swiss

So we are back to "the science is settled" ploy again?

1) The New York Times wrote "After examining climate data extending back nearly 100 years, a team of Government scientists has concluded that there has been no significant change in average temperatures or rainfall in the United States over that entire period". The article was written in 1987, before global warming became fashionable. AGW wasn’t a political issue in 1987 so the NYT article was an honest assessment of reality from an objective perspective. I’d give it a lot of weight.

A lot has happened since then, most of it bad science mixed with political hype. These same government scientists later "discovered" global warming in this historical data. A cynic would conclude this "discovery" met the policy needs of their grant money providers.:-)

2) Dr. Phil Jones, the originator of the global warming myth, admitted in a recent interview “there has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995″. All other reputable sources agree with Dr. Jones.

So what do we have? No warming from 1895 to 1987, no warming from 1995 to 2010. We had at most a short (1987 to 1995) interval where temperatures may have gone up (<1degree F). Such a short interval of time is weather and not climate to any reasonable person.

Please show me the error of my ways since you have so graciously offered to give guidance.

Mariss

[dhellew2]

But there is consensus in science... as long as they have consensus in their chose bit of science they will continue to make money.

Most scientists are government employees working on grants, so they will only have a paycheck so long as they can agree and perpetuate their cause, true or not.


So the consensus in science is that as long as they agree, and the more that agree with them, the longer they can collect their ill-gotten paycheck.

Someone once said the love of money is the root of all evil.... Gore is no exception!

[Swiss]

But there is consensus in science... as long as they have consensus in their chose bit of science they will continue to make money.

Most scientists are government employees working on grants, so they will only have a paycheck so long as they can agree and perpetuate their cause, true or not.

So the consensus in science is that as long as they agree, and the more that agree with them, the longer they can collect their ill-gotten paycheck.

Someone once said the love of money is the root of all evil.... Gore is no exception!

So I assume you also disagree with the scientific consensus that life on earth evolved? And the consensus that the earth orbits the sun? And that light is a wave? And that the universe is about 13 billion years old?

These are all consensuses. Or is evilution just a conspiracy too?

Swiss

[dynosor]

is evilution just a conspiracy too?

Swiss

No, just evil...

[ImanCarrot]

Nothing says the cats can't move laterally while they work out their insoluble existential dilemma.

Ah, you've introduced a probelm- there's a chance that the cats could suffocate under the carpet- the cats are paradoxicaly alive and dead at the same time, much as Schrodinger postulated...

http://www.phobe.com/s_cat/s_cat.html

[fizzissist]

. Find out why the scientfic consensus is that humans are affecting the climate. And if you have any questions, I will try to point you in the direction of the science which answers them.

Swiss

Sorry, bub. Your first effort in pointing anyone in a scientific direction was a dismal failure.

One, your comment, and the video, both suggest a scientific consensus that man is causing global warming. It is obvious that you're coming late into this movie. All discussed here before, plenty of URLs to real scientific work.

Second, you haven't got a clue if you even use the words scientific and consensus together. Consensus is not what science is. Science is reproduceable, religion is consensus.

Your video is laughable. Using a balance beam and a ball to prove your "tipping point" argument?? Give me a break. We are not that stupid or naive to buy into such a ridiculous, and inapplicable analogy.

Take your toys and go to a playground, and try to convince some more innocent and naive 9 year old girls with pictures of dead penguins.

We here know about the real facts of the science, and the politics, both separately and together. The IPCC's AR4 is being decimated on a daily basis for its scientific fraud. You oughta know that by now.

[Swiss]

Second, you haven't got a clue if you even use the words scientific and consensus together. Consensus is not what science is. Science is reproduciable, religion is consensus.

You're kidding, right? Sadly, science is about consensus. It's about compelling people's agreement with the weight of evidence.

This is one of the great misunderstandings about science. There are 2 types of science, one deals with experiments which can be re-produced, for example physics experiments. The other type deals with working out what happened in the past, and what might happen in the future. Obviously the same kind of reproducibility is inappropriate here because we cannot reproduce the past or the future. What is reproduced in this case are the measurements, calculations and models.

The evolutionary history of life on earth is not reproducible, but that doesn't mean we can't apply science to it. And in the same way, we can't run lots of experiments on the planet earth, but that doesn't mean we can't apply science to it.

Your video is laughable. Using a balance beam and a ball to prove your "tipping point" argument?? Give me a break. We are not that stupid or naive to buy into such a ridiculous, and inapplicable analogy.

Really? The tipping point is the perfect analogy. There are a whole bunch of feedback mechanisms in the earth's climate, many of which are positive, which is the whole problem here. If all the feedbacks were negative, there'd be no problem. The balance beam is a perfect example of a positive feedback mechanism. Why do you think it's inapplicable?

We here know about the real facts of the science, and the politics, both separately and together. The IPCC's AR4 is being decimated on a daily basis for its scientific fraud. You oughta know that by now.

Fire away. Tell me your first and most compelling piece of evidence which shows that climate change is nothing to worry about, and let's examine it.

Swiss

[fizzissist]

You're kidding, right?
Fire away. Tell me your first and most compelling piece of evidence which shows that climate change is nothing to worry about, and let's examine it.

Swiss

I work in science. With scientists. Actual scientists. Atmospheric physicists even.

No one has said that climate change is not worth worrying about. No one has said the earth is not warming. What I do stand behind is the body of science that says the earth's climate is constantly changing because it is a chaotic system, and that scientists themselves....climate scientists included...concede that we do not know very much about climate in its entirety.

What we do know is that man's contribution to climate is real, and that it has the effect of both warming and cooling the atmosphere. The degree of that effect is what is in question, particularly since, as you seem to be concentrating on the classic AGW CO2 dogma, that man's addition to the atmosphere of CO2 is less than 4% of the total. A total that is .038% of our atmosphere. That's what's known in science as a "trace gas".

The observed temperature changes experienced in the last century are well within the range of natural variability.

The only "science" you have to offer is that which is presented in the IPCC AR4, considered by ALL the "consensus" scientists to be the single most robust presentation of the body of climate research to date.

THAT is going to be your best shot. Period. You've got nothing better than that to use against me. Schmidt, Mann, Alley, Jones, Schneider, Hansen, Briffa, Pachauri (the train engineer), Karl, Santer, ...all of them, those are your assets in a scientific argument/discussion with me, all of them contributing to and hiding behind the IPCC.

Well, I've got IPCC contributors too, contributors who document the lack of validity of the AR4 and the IPCC's previous work. I've also got hard evidence showing falsification of data, false claims made by the IPCC, and hard evidence that claims made by the IPCC were based on non peer-reviewed papers published by special interest groups.

We've gone over all this before, right here in this thread. I will not, for your amusement, repost what is already here for you and everyone else to read and reference.

[markotime]

In "climate science" the climategate affair has shown ME pretty conclusively that the "concensus" peer review process is a lot like a newsgroup or blog moderator blocking articles that disagree with his/her biases, and soliciting articles that agree therewith. Another couple of examples would be wikipedia and realclimate, who most definitely illustrate the very biased censorship.

[jhowelb]

<snip>

Climate change has nothing to do with Al Gore. Don't listen to Al Gore. Ignore him, he's irrelevant. He doesn't even fully understand the science. As with all matters of science, the only place you should be looking is ...........

<snip>


..... the scientfic consensus is ...........


..if you have any questions, I will try to point you .........

Pay no attention to the men behind the curtain......

Listen to the wizard.......

************

A scientific consensus is an oxymoron, there might be a consensus among certain scientists with a political or personal agenda.

Terms like "scientific consensus" or "settled science" only exist in fairy tails.


AGW is an ideology who's time has come and gone. It is deader than the proverbial doornail and deservedly so. It was killed by the greed and deceit of the thugs and gangsters that were behind it.

RIP Chicken Little!

[dufas]

And especially don't listen to anyone who has a vested interest in either outcome.

Swiss

This must include the IPCC scientists, their talking heads and the vast majority of the pro-AGW scientists. Their grants are a huge carrot to further their cooperation. Many of the scientists that have disagreed or questioned the AGW data have lost tenure or have had to find another position.

Maybe Swiss should also take a look at many of the solutions that the IPCC and the United Nations organizations are pushing to stop AGW. Makes Al Gore's profiting from AGW pale in comparison.

[Wade]

If climate warming "scientist" (profiteers) have nothing to hide, then release all the emails from NOAA and NASA.

Funny how someone can hide data from a freedom of information act, and suddenly the whistle blower is the problem. There is no scientific meathod being followed, it's not science, it's politics with lipstick and a wig on, trying to convince people it's science. Peer Review, replaced by Friend Review. Science, replaced by Politics. Public information, replace by Unavailable information. Publication and Reporting, replaced by Acceptance and Propaganda. Starting to sound a lot like World Order politics to me.

Al Gore has profit motives, he can afford to tell the truth.