Climategate!

[sgreger1]

Global Warming, Not Asteroids Caused Planet's Mass Extinct..
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog...e-experts.html


Global warming is an integral part of the cyclical nature of Earth. Both global warming and global cooling have happened several times in the past and has dramatically affected the inhabitants of Planet Earth.

Even if we eliminated our carbon footprint to 0, it would still occur. That is, unless dinosaurs had SUV's and factories.

Global warming and terrorism are government wet dreams -- nebulous, endless threats that can only be fixed by more government power.


EDIT: Now Glenn Beck, infamous for flip flopping on every subject, is even on the AGW train.

http://www.usaweekend.com/article/20...k-by-his-cover

[truthwolf1]

Not just because of Glenn switching sides on the GW issue but just how he did such a extreme flip to the Ron Paul side always made me weary of the guy. I dont think he is a original thinker and is being spoon fed his info from higher producers who are trying to manipulate what people are starting to wake up to.

[sgreger1]

Not just because of Glenn switching sides on the GW issue but just how he did such a extreme flip to the Ron Paul side always made me weary of the guy. I dont think he is a original thinker and is being spoon fed his info from higher producers who are trying to manipulate what people are starting to wake up to.

Glenn Beck is just in it for ratings nowadays, he is completely different from a few years ago.
He switches from "I hate taxes" to, "We need a new value added tax", and from "im a conservative to "im a libertarian" (he then screams "both sides are bad, so vote republican")

And now he is on board with global warming, despite the fact he spent the last 365 days trying to debunk it.

Everyone at Fox is controlled by the editors Murdoch appoints. All the networks are like this, and just like the two party system, they have one network that caters to a certain demographic, while another network caters to the other. But like dem/rep, it's all the same. Just propaganda.

[sgreger1]

Over 700 dissenting scientists from around the globe challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 231-page U.S. Senate Minority Report -- updated from 2007’s groundbreaking report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” -- features the skeptical voices of over 700 prominent international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC.
This updated report includes an additional 250 (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the initial release in December 2007.

The over 700 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 report

There has always been concensus, and we have always been at war with Eurasia.




Do not tell me that the science is settled:

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”



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



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



“So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming.” - Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace member.



“Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.” - Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth.

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

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.
“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.


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


“The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact,” Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher.


“I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken...Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science.” - Award Winning Physicist Dr. Will Happer, Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and Former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy, who has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences.



“Nature's regulatory instrument is water vapor: more carbon dioxide leads to less moisture in the air, keeping the overall GHG content in accord with the necessary balance conditions.” – Prominent Hungarian Physicist and environmental researcher Dr. Miklós Zágoni reversed his view of man-made warming and is now a skeptic. Zágoni was once Hungary’s most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol.


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


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


“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil... I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” - South Afican Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.


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


“All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead.” - Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut, served as staff physicist at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)


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


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


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



“Whatever the weather, it's not being caused by global warming. If anything, the climate may be starting into a cooling period.” Atmospheric scientist Dr. Art V. Douglas, former Chair of the Atmospheric Sciences Department at Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska, and is the author of numerous papers for peer-reviewed publications.



“But there is no falsifiable scientific basis whatever to assert this warming is caused by human-produced greenhouse gasses because current physical theory is too grossly inadequate to establish any cause at all.” - Chemist Dr. Patrick Frank, who has authored more than 50 peer-reviewed articles.

“The ‘global warming scare’ is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making. It has no place in the Society's activities.” - Award-Winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack Schmitt who flew on the Apollo 17 mission and formerly of the Norwegian Geological Survey and for the U.S. Geological Survey.

“Earth has cooled since 1998 in defiance of the predictions by the UN-IPCC….The global temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade and the coldest of the millennium…which is why ‘global warming’ is now called ‘climate change.’” - Climatologist Dr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado.

“I have yet to see credible proof of carbon dioxide driving climate change, yet alone man-made CO2 driving it. The atmospheric hot-spot is missing and the ice core data refute this. When will we collectively awake from this deceptive delusion?” - Dr. G LeBlanc Smith, a retired Principal Research Scientist with Australia’s CSIRO.

[cj]

read this.... http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...t=va&aid=17769

[sgreger1]

read this.... http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...t=va&aid=17769

All true. As congress and other government bodies from around the world threaten the scientists themselves with criminal and civil action, you will start seeing lots more people come out to blow the whistle on this thing.

I knew it was a farce from the beginning when I heard that all scientists came together and agreed on AGW, and that there were few if any skeptics. This is not a common occurence in science, especially regarding a branch of science that is so young, That and the issue of what they were using as a data set. The tree rings data showed one thing, then 150 years ago we started measuring things differently, and as thermometers came along, suddenly the thermometers were showing much higher temperatures as soon as they started taking readings. They then say that the tree ring data is no good, and impose a "trick" on the charts to show the warming as observed by the thermometers.

This doens't work, you can't say the tree ring data is bunk and then use data from only the last few decades and make assumptions about long term climate trends.

According to the United States Historical Climatology Network (USHNC,) 90% of US climate-monitoring surface stations have been found to be "poorly situated," meaning that they have a margin of error greater than 1°C, more than the global warming in the entire 20th century. (The US surface data is generally considered the best surface data in the world):

I wonder why the thermometer readings show such a dramatic increase in temperatures as opposed to the tree ring data? Could it be because:

* Temperature measurements from climate-monitoring surface stations are collected by hand. At one surface station in California, Anthony Watts found that only data from 14 out of 31 days had been completed in a month

* If a surface station is missing data for a particular day, data from surrounding surface stations is used to fill-in. Since 90% of all surface stations are poorly situated, even if a surface station itself is not poorly situated, if its data is missing for a day, there is a very good chance its temperature will be calculated using data from surface stations that are poorly situated

* In April 1978, there were 6,000 climate-monitoring surface stations. There are now about 1,200

As the oil dries out, the powers that be will be looking for the next big market to maintain their profits in. Global warming is that market.

* Bart Chilton, a CFTC commissioner, said "carbon markets could be worth $2 trillion in transaction value – [...]within five years of trading (starting). [...]That would make it the largest physically traded commodity in the US, surpassing even oil"

* In the court case Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education and Skills, a British judge ruled that there were nine "inaccuracies" in An Inconvenient Truth, including Gore's claim that sea level could rise by up to 20 ft. The IPCC's own report predicted a maximum rise of 59cm in sea level over 100 years. The Science and Public Policy Institute has taken issue with thirty five of Gore's claims in An Inconvenient Truth

[justintempler]

Global Warming, Not Asteroids Caused Planet's Mass Extinct..
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog...e-experts.html

.....

Did you even bother to read the article :?:
or
did you just read the headline and jump to your own conclusion? :roll:

..We are already in the middle, not the beginning, of an anthropogenic global warming, caused by agriculture and deforestation, which began some 10,000 years ago but which is now accelerating exponentially; though the earliest wave of anthropogenic warming has been stabilizing and beneficial to human development, it appears to have the potential for catastrophic effects within a lifetime or two...

...It will also cover earth's most productive farmland, the author warns, adding, "It will happen if we do not somehow control CO2 rise in the atmosphere."...

...if emissions of greenhouse gases are not abated, the planet could be committed during this century to a level of warming sufficient to trigger this outcome....

...Ward is encouraged that we are beginning to make changes in their daily lives and demanding action from their leaders -"that we are on a planet that has violent convulsions, and that we humans are playing with nature in such a way that we could recreate what were some really awful times in earth's history, that we really tinker with the earth's atmosphere at our peril."..."

It's a nice example of someone reading the headline and mistakenly assuming it's proof for his point of view.

[sgreger1]

Did you even bother to read the article :?:
or
did you just read the headline and jump to your own conclusion? :roll:

Yes I read the article, it is pro AGW. I was using it to say that there has been warming in the past, and that it was not caused by SUV's.

[justintempler]

Did you even bother to read the article :?:
or
did you just read the headline and jump to your own conclusion? :roll:

Yes I read the article, it is pro AGW. I was using it to say that there has been warming in the past, and that it was not caused by SUV's.

Well that's nice.

And I can point to forest fires that were started by lightning strikes that were not started by someone tossing a lit cigartte butt.

And I can point to all kinds of cancer that were not caused by someone smoking cigarettes.

So what was the point of posting the article?

non se·qui·tur  –noun
1.Logic. an inference or a conclusion that does not follow from the premises.
2.a statement containing an illogical conclusion.

[sgreger1]

And I can point to forest fires that were started by lightning strikes that were not started by someone tossing a lit cigartte butt.

And?

And I can point to all kinds of cancer that were not caused by someone smoking cigarettes.

I don't follow. Are you making the claim that all cancer is tobacco related? I'm missing the point of your statement here clearly.

So what was the point of posting the article?

It talked about past warming and how major climate changes have happened before. I am saying that that is common sense, the climate will change very dramatically in both directions, even if we cut our emmissions to 0. Plus the link between C02 and warming is flimsy.

non se·qui·tur  –noun
1.Logic. an inference or a conclusion that does not follow from the premises.
2.a statement containing an illogical conclusion.

I love how you accuse climate change deniers of finding one thing wrong with something the IPCC puts out and using it to dismiss all the other evidence as inherintly false, yet you do that with me. You occassionaly come to rebuttal 1 out of 20 of my assertions and then say everything else I am saying must be inherintly incorrect also.

Main Entry: hyp·o·crite
Pronunciation: \ˈhi-pə-ˌkrit\
Function: noun
Visual Representation:
Etymology: Middle English ypocrite, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin hypocrita, from Greek hypokritēs actor, hypocrite, from hypokrinesthai
Date: 13th century
1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

EDIT: Sorry, I don't mean to make a personal attack or come off as rude. Just saying that I think I am posting some legitimate concerns here regarding the issue and you seem to only address the ones you feel you can use to make an attack on me for being stupid. Maybe you are right but I, like all people, see things a certain way.

[justintempler]

So what was the point of posting the article?

It talked about past warming and how major climate changes have happened before. I am saying that that is common sense, the climate will change very dramatically in both directions, even if we cut our emmissions to 0. Plus the link between C02 and warming is flimsy.

You're not making any sense.

1, Global warming causes extinctions.

We got that much from the headline........

The problem is the rest of the article (that you provided) argues against the rest of your points.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog...e-experts.html

We are already in the middle, not the beginning, of an anthropogenic global warming, caused by agriculture and deforestation, which began some 10,000 years ago but which is now accelerating exponentially; though the earliest wave of anthropogenic warming has been stabilizing and beneficial to human development, it appears to have the potential for catastrophic effects within a lifetime or two.

Ward is encouraged that we are beginning to make changes in their daily lives and demanding action from their leaders -"that we are on a planet that has violent convulsions, and that we humans are playing with nature in such a way that we could recreate what were some really awful times in earth's history, that we really tinker with the earth's atmosphere at our peril."

You are making one argument... and the article you provided argues against it.

[justintempler]

You occassionaly come to rebuttal 1 out of 20 of my assertions and then say everything else I am saying must be inherintly incorrect also.
.

Sorry man, I'm not getting paid to sit here all day on the internet and argue over the latest cut and paste list from some blog site. That's a big part of the problem, you're attacking peer reviewed science with assertions with no peer review to back them up. It's a hell of a lot easier to sit there all day and sling mud against the wall than it is to clean up the mess.

[Roo]

Sorry man, I'm not getting paid to sit here all day on the internet and argue over the latest cut and paste list from some blog site.

Well then I, for one, am a fool

[sgreger1]

You occassionaly come to rebuttal 1 out of 20 of my assertions and then say everything else I am saying must be inherintly incorrect also.
.

Sorry man, I'm not getting paid to sit here all day on the internet and argue over the latest cut and paste list from some blog site. That's a big part of the problem, you're attacking peer reviewed science with assertions with no peer review to back them up. It's a hell of a lot easier to sit there all day and sling mud against the wall than it is to clean up the mess.

Rofl, okay then. I understand your a man of science so i'll keep it slim and play it like the IPCC; selective use of articles that are peer reviewed, non peer reviewed, and from activist organizations like the world wildlife foundation. No time now but I will post them another time, as I know you, unlike me, probably have better things to do.

[sgreger1]

Cap-and-Trade benefits biggest polluters in Europe:

Europe's system for industrial carbon quotas has enriched the continent's biggest polluters, with ten firms together reaping permits for 2008 alone worth 500 million euros, a new report revealed.

Dominated by steel and cement makers, the same "carbon fat cats" stand to collect surplus CO2 permits that -- at current market rates -- could be worth 3.2 billion euros (4.3 billion dollars) by 2012, it said.

This is roughly equivalent to the entire EU investment in renewable energy and clean technology under its economic recovery plan, according to Sandbag, a non-profit group in Britain that analyses carbon market policy.

"Emissions trading is meant to be the central policy for cutting CO2 levels," said Anna Pearson, Sandbag's top policy analyst.

"The fact that companies are able to make large sums of money for doing nothing highlights that the trading scheme must be reformed and EU climate change target strengthened."

Most of the permits were generated simply because the companies were allocated more free permits than they wound up using, according to the report.

"Little or no actual 'effort' toward emissions reductions need have taken place, yet these companies will be able to literally bank the profits," it said.

Surely we need to bring this to America, for the good of the planet.