...tends to happen by the third date :rolleyes: ;)
Printable View
The guy who started the Weather Channel. Mr. Colman, is going to sue Algore for fraud! I love the way they shut up anyone with facts! I hope he takes his NPP and he ends up in tent wishing for GW!:D
See my post in another thread about the ocean temps that NOAA is now saying has been declining since 1993! I want my Nobel Prize for being right about global warming being a hoax! WAKE UP! It's about control! Taxes! More government!
The founder of the Weather Channel wants to sue Al Gore for fraud, hoping a legal debate will settle the global-warming debate once and for all.
John Coleman, who founded the cable network in 1982, suggests suing for fraud proponents of global warming, including Al Gore, and companies that sell carbon credits.
"Is he committing financial fraud? That is the question," Coleman said.
"Since we can't get a debate, I thought perhaps if we had a legal challenge and went into a court of law, where it was our scientists and their scientists, and all the legal proceedings with the discovery and all their documents from both sides and scientific testimony from both sides, we could finally get a good solid debate on the issue," Coleman said. "I'm confident that the advocates of 'no significant effect from carbon dioxide' would win the case."
In a paper published in 2006 it was incorrectly reported that ocean temperatures had dropped. (Johnson, G. C., S. Levitus, J. M. Lyman, C. Schmid, and J. K. Willis (2006), Ocean heat content variability, in Annual Report on the State of the Ocean and the Ocean Observing System for Climate: FY 2005, edited by J. M. Levy D. M. Stanitski, and P. Arkin, pp. 74-84, NOAA Climate Program Office, Silver Spring, MD)
Last year that report was revised. (Correction to “Recent Cooling 1 of the Upper Ocean” Josh K. Willis, John M. Lyman, Gregory C. Johnson and John Gilson, Revised and Resubmitted 10 July 2007 to Geophysical Research Letters.)
In that revision it was noted by the authors that: "Most of the rapid decrease in globally integrated 18 upper (0–750 m) ocean heat content anomalies (OHCA) between 2003 and 2005 reported by Lyman et al. [2006] appears to be an artifact resulting from the combination of two different instrument biases recently discovered in the in situ profile data. Although Lyman et al. [2006] carefully estimated sampling errors, they did not investigate potential biases among different instrument types. One such bias has been identified in a subset of Argo float profiles. This error will ultimately be corrected. However, until corrections have been made these data can be easily excluded from OHCA estimates (see Link for more details). Another bias was caused by eXpendable BathyThermograph (XBT) data that are systematically warm compared to other instruments [Gouretski and Koltermann, 28 2007]. Both biases appear to have contributed equally to the spurious cooling."
Bottom line: There was a problem in the data and in the latest analysis, the cooling has disappeared.
When you make sweeping claims it is usually considered to be a good idea to keep up on the field. Failure to do so leaves one operating in a mindset that shares more with those who believe that you can turn lead to gold and that the Sun revolves around the Earth rather than with modern science.
"The discovery of truth is prevented more effectively, not by the false appearance things present and which mislead into error, not directly by weakness of the reasoning powers, but by preconceived opinion, by prejudice." - Arthur Schopenhauer
Mountain snowpack exceeded 150 percent of average in large parts of Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, and Oregon at the end of February. Spring run-off from the above average snowpack in the West is expected to be beneficial in drought plagued areas.
It was the 54th coolest winter since national records began in 1895.
Snowfall was above normal in northern New England, where some locations posted all-time record winter snow totals. Concord, N.H., received 100.1 inches, which was 22.1 inches above the previous record set during the winter of 1886-87. Burlington, Vt., received 103.2 inches, which was 6.3 inches above the previous record set during the winter of 1970-71.
Please, before you force us to present the facts that have lead virtually all of the scientists on earth to reach a consensus, deal with the claim you made that I debunked.
You said that:
Do you stand by that post? Am I correct and were you way off base or not?
NOAA: Coolest December-February Since 2001 for U.S., Globe
The average temperature across both the contiguous U.S. and the globe during December 2007-February 2008 (climatological boreal winter) was the coolest since 2001, according to scientists at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. In terms of winter precipitation, Pacific storms bringing heavy precipitation to large parts of the West produced high snowpack that will provide welcome runoff this spring.
Yep, it sounds like we are getting warmer! What a joke and they will ride this pony until you give up every penny in your pocket and the UN is in charge! The sky has stopped falling and only UN paid so called scientists are preaching Man Made Global Warming! Take the children from in front of the train and lets all move on! Anyone spewing "The line" has a motive, Money, Control, and the loss of American Jobs!
Welcome to the ever changing world we wobble on around the Nuclear Furnace we call the Sun! We have nothing to do with it!
Posting unreferenced and out of context snippets, with exclamation pointed remarks, does not make up for your unwillingness to acknowledge the inaccuracy of your initial posts. Do you think that anyone reading any of your posts could see them as intellectually honest?
In the contiguous United States, the average winter temperature was 33.2°F (0.6°C), which was 0.2°F (0.1°C) above the 20th century average - yet still ranks as the coolest since 2001. It was the 54th coolest winter since national records began in 1895.
Winter temperatures were warmer than average from Texas to the Southeast and along the Eastern Seaboard, while cooler-than-average temperatures stretched from much of the upper Midwest to the West Coast.
Not too bad since we have only kept records starting in the late 1800s and the equipment was far from accurate!
Folks it is called weather and we now have politicians that aren't going to talk about they are going to tax you about it!:eek:
Sea Ice Extent
February's Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice extent
February's Northern Hemisphere
Sea Ice Extent plot
According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, the February 2008 Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent, which is measured from passive microwave instruments onboard NOAA satellites, was below the 1979-2000 mean, but greater than the previous four years. This was the fifth least February sea ice extent on record. Including 2008, the past five years had the least February sea ice extent since records began in 1979. Sea ice extent for February has decreased at a rate of 2.8%/decade (since satellite records began in 1979) as temperatures in the high latitude Northern Hemisphere have risen at a rate of approximately 0.37°C/decade over the same period.
February's Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice extent
February's Southern Hemisphere
Sea Ice Extent plot
Meanwhile, the February 2008 Southern Hemisphere sea ice extent was much above the 1979-2000 mean. This was the second largest sea ice extent in February (27% above the 1979-2000 mean) over the 30-year historical period, behind 2003. Sea ice extent for February has increased at a rate of 3.4%/decade.
For further information on the Northern and Southern Hemisphere snow and ice conditions, please visit the NSIDC News page, provided by the NOAA's National Snow and Ice Data center (NSIDC).
Again not bad considering that Mars is warming as well! We are talking point this and point that and mean variations that have been with us since man has roamed the earth! Change is normal and natural and we are not the cause!
The amazing thing the records have only been measured and kept since 1979! We are expected to believe them?
Free Republic
Articles · Comments · Search News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
The global warming scam
Asia Times ^ | 02.25.05 | Derek Kelly, PhD
Posted on 02/25/2005 12:02:42 AM PST by Dr. Marten
The global warming scam
By Derek Kelly, PhD
Scam, noun: a swindle, a fraudulent arrangement.
A chronology of climate change
During most of the last billion years the Earth did not have permanent ice sheets. Nevertheless, at times large areas of the globe were covered with vast sheets of ice. Such times are known as glaciations. In the past 2 million to 3 million years, the temperature of the Earth has changed (warmed or cooled) at least 17 times, some say 33, with glaciations that last about 100,000 years interrupted by warm periods that last about 10,000 years.
The last glaciation began 70,000 years ago and ended about 10,000 years ago. The Earth was a lot colder than it is now; snow and ice had accumulated on a lot of the land, glaciers existed on large areas and the sea levels were lower.
15,000 years ago: The last glaciation reaches a peak, with continental glaciers that cover a lot of the sub-polar and polar areas of the land areas of Earth. In North America, all of New England and all of the Great Lakes area, most of Ohio, Indiana, Minnesota and the North Dakotas, lie under ice sheets hundreds of meters thick. More than 37 million cubic kilometers of ice was tied up in these global sheets of ice. The average temperature on the surface of the Earth is estimated to have been cooler by approximately 6 degrees Celsius than currently. The sea level was more than 90 meters lower than currently.
15,000 years ago to 6,000 years ago: Global warming begins. The sheets of ice melt, and sea levels rise. Some heat source causes approximately 37 million cubic kilometers of ice to melt in approximately 9,000 years. Around 9,500 years ago, the last of the Northern European sheets of ice leave Scandinavia. Around 7,500 years ago, the last of the American sheets of ice leave Canada. This warming is neither stable nor the same everywhere. There are periods when mountain glaciers advance, and periods when they withdraw. These climatic changes vary extensively from place to place, with some areas affected while others are not. The tendency of warming is global and obvious, but very uneven. The causes of this period of warming are unknown.
8,000 years ago to 4,000 years ago: About 6,000 years ago, temperatures on the surface of Earth are about 3 degrees warmer than currently. The Arctic Ocean is ice-free, and mountain glaciers have disappeared from the mountains of Norway and the Alps in Europe, and from the Rocky Mountains of the United States and Canada. The ocean of the world is some three meters higher than currently. A lot of the present desert of the Sahara has a more humid, savannah-like climate, with giraffes and savannah fauna species.
4,000 years ago to AD 900: Global cooling begins. The Arctic Ocean freezes over, mountain glaciers form once more in the Rocky Mountains, in Norway and in the Alps. The Black Sea freezes over several times, and ice forms on the Nile in Egypt. Northern Europe gets a lot wetter, and the marshes develop again in previously dry areas. The sea level drops to approximately its present level. The temperatures on the surface of the Earth are about 0.5-1 degree cooler than at present. The causes of this period of cooling are unknown.
AD 1000 to 1500: This period has quick, but uneven, warming of the climate of the Northern Hemisphere. The North Atlantic becomes ice-free and Norse exploration as far as North America takes place. The Norse colonies in Greenland even export crop surpluses to Scandinavia. Wine grapes grow in southern Britain. The temperatures are from 3-8 degrees warmer than currently. The period lasts only a brief 500 years. By the year 1500, it has vanished. The Earth experiences as much warming between the 11th and the 13th century as is now predicted by global-warming scientists for the next century. The causes of this period of warming are unknown.
1430 to 1880: This is a period of the fast but uneven cooling of Northern Hemisphere climates. Norwegian glaciers advance to their most distant extension in post-glacial times. The northern forests disappear, to be replaced with tundra. Severe winters characterize a lot of Europe and North America. The channels and rivers get colder, the snows get heavy, and the summers cool and short. The temperatures on the surface of the world are about 0.5-1.5 degrees cooler than present. In the United States, 1816 is known as the "year with no summer". Snow falls in New England in June. The widespread failure of crops and deaths due to hypothermia are common. The causes of this period of cooling are unknown.
1880 to 1940: A period of warming. The mountain glaciers recede and the ice in the Arctic Ocean begins to melt again. The causes of this period of warming are unknown.
1940 to 1977: Cooling period. The temperatures are cooler than currently. Mountain glaciers recede, and some begin to advance. The tabloids inform us of widespread catastrophes due to the "New Glaciation". The causes of this period of cooling are unknown.
1977 to present: Warming period. The summer of 2003 is said to be the warmest one since the Middle Ages. The tabloids notify us of widespread catastrophes due to "global warming". The causes of warming are discovered - humanity and its carbon-dioxide-generating fossil-fuel use and deforestation.
Anyone else find something fishy about the final sentence?
Comments
The above chronology of recent (geologically speaking) climate changes should place global-warming catastrophists (such as those who developed the Kyoto treaty) in an awkward position. Their fundamental assumption is that Earth's climate was stable and was doing just fine before the Industrial Revolution started interfering with climate's "natural" state. It is the Industrial Revolution, and in particular the use of fossil-fuel-burning machines, that has led us to the brink of environmental catastrophe due to global warming caused by increasing amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere.
But it is plain to see that both warming and cooling occurred numerous times before the Industrial Revolution. Similarly, all the dire predictions of global-warming consequences - sea-level rise, for example - have happened in the past. In fact, the greatest warming period was when dinosaurs walked the land (about 70 million to 130 million years ago). There was then five to 10 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere as there is today, and the average temperature was 4-11 degrees Celsius warmer. Those conditions should have been very helpful to life, since they permitted those immense creatures to find an abundance of food and they survived.
The Cretaceous was an intense "greenhouse world" with high surface temperatures. These high temperatures were due to the much higher level of CO2 in the atmosphere at the time - four to 10 times as much as is in our air today. The biota was a mixture of the exotic and familiar - luxuriant green forests of now-extinct trees flourished within the Arctic Circle and dinosaurs roamed. The global sea level was at its highest ever during this period, peaking during the Late Cretaceous around 86 million years ago. It is certain that the global sea level was well over 200 meters higher during this time than it is today. The Earth was immensely hotter, the CO2 vastly more plentiful, and the sea levels much higher than they are today.
The Earth has also been immensely colder, the CO2 much less plentiful, and the sea levels much lower than today. Fifteen thousand years ago, the sea level was at least 90 meters lower than it is today. The land looked bare because it was too cold for beech and oak trees to grow. There were a few fir trees here and there. No grass grew, however, just shrubs, bushes and moss grass. In the northern parts of North America, Europe and Asia there was still tundra. The animals were different from today too. Back then there were woolly mammoth, woolly rhinos, cave bears (the former three now extinct), bison, wolves, horses, and herds of reindeer like modern-day reindeer.
The major "sin" for the global warmists is CO2. The Kyoto treaty is meant to reduce the amount of this gas so as, they say, to reduce the degree of warming and eventually return us to some stable climate system. If we look at the historical situation, however, this is cause for alarm. For one thing, there has never been a stable climate system. For another, the level of CO2 in our atmosphere is near its historic low. In the long run, the greatest danger is too little rather than too much CO2. There has been a long-term reduction of CO2 throughout the 4.5-billion-year history of the Earth. If this tendency continues, eventually our planet may become as lifeless as Mars.
Glaciation has prevailed for 90% of the last several million years. Extreme cold. Biting cold. Cold too intense for bikinis and swimming trunks. No matter what scary scenarios global-warming enthusiasts dream up, they pale in comparison with the conditions another ice age would deliver. Look to our past climate. Fifteen thousand years ago, an ice sheet a kilometer and a half thick covered all of North America north of a line stretching from somewhere around Seattle to Cleveland and New York City.
Instead of reducing CO2, we should, perhaps, be increasing it. We should pay the smokestack industries hard dollars for every kilogram of soot they pump into the atmosphere. Instead of urging Chinese to stop using coal and turn instead to nuclear-generated electricity, we should beg them to continue using coal. Rather than bringing us to the edge of global-warming catastrophe, anthropogenic climate change may have spared us descent into what would be the most serious and far-reaching challenge facing humankind in the 21st century - dealing with a rapidly deteriorating climate that wants to plunge us into an ice age. Let's hope Antarctica and Greenland melt. Let's hope the sea levels rise. All life glorifies warmth. Only death prefers the icy fingers of endless winter.
What do you think?
Derek Kelly, who has been an American university teacher and a computer-software developer, is now trying to help Chinese university students speak English.
TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Germany; Government; Japan; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; Russia; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: climatechange; globalwarming; scam Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-50, 51-100, 101-103 next last
1 posted on 02/25/2005 12:02:43 AM PST by Dr. Marten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]
To: Dr. Marten
Doc, this is a truly GREAT post. This is a great one by all measures. I love that line about "we should be paying the Chinese to burn coal." Lol.....that is really funny because of its ring of truth and classic irony. I agree with the author that global cooling is a much greater danger than global warming. IIRC, there was a very cold century not too long ago when a large percentage of the European population died from hunger and disease brought on by the cold. I think it was the 15th century.
The science behind the global warming theory is really weak as I've stated numerous times on FR. It's all based on inadequately research assumptions that are used by elaborate computer models which crank out essentially meaningless forecasts. The forecasts are meaningless because they are based on soft, unproven assumptions. One factor the forecasters always seem to forget is that the rate of any chemical reaction increases with concentration of the reactants. Therefore, the more CO2 we add to he atmopshere, the faster plants consume CO2 in photosynthesis reactions and the faster the CO2 reacts with compounds in the soil.
The effect of C02 on temperature is also highly debateable. Just a few months ago, I heard about new research indicating that CO2 helps to radiate heat AWAY from the earth in the upper atmosphere. The global warming theory is just classic bureaucratic group think--people in government supported organizations believe in global warming because this expressed belief is good for their careers and their department budgets. I've never seen a better example of mass stupidity by smart people than the "consensus" that global warming is actually happening and it is caused by increasing CO2 levels.
2 posted on 02/25/2005 12:22:11 AM PST by carl in alaska (Blog blog bloggin' on heaven's door.....Kerry is a liar and rotten to the core)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]
To: Dr. Marten
I don't believe in a 2 to 3 million or older earth but this guy makes sense about global climate change. Can't say the same for those who claim we are heading into doomsday from global warming.
3 posted on 02/25/2005 12:24:49 AM PST by taxesareforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]
To: farmfriend
Environment
4 posted on 02/25/2005 12:33:46 AM PST by Brian328i
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]
To: Dr. Marten
See this for another good piece on the scam ( Fonts are large ):
PERSPECTIVES: RISING CO2 LEVELS - THE REASON WHY ~~The earth has a cycle
And this web site:
Not by Fire but by Ice
THE NEXT ICE AGE - NOW!
5 posted on 02/25/2005 12:35:45 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (This tagline no longer operative....floated away in the flood of 2005 ,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]
To: Dr. Marten
bump good post. Thanks for the info.
6 posted on 02/25/2005 12:39:23 AM PST by Captain Beyond (The Hammer of the gods! (Just a cool line from a Led Zep song))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
From the second link:
**********************************************
Precession of the Equinoxes
Not by Fire but by Ice
THE NEXT ICE AGE - NOW!
Pacemaker of the Ice Ages
Changes in global ice volume during the last 500,000 years, as determined from CLIMAP isotopic measurements. Chart is from John and Katherine Imbrie's book Ice Ages: Solving the Mystery, by permission of Enslow Publishers. Data from J. D. Hays et al., 1976, by permission J. D. Hays.
BACK TO HOME PAGE
* In 1976, scientists at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory spearheaded a project called CLIMAP (Clint: Long-range Investigation Mapping and Prediction) to map the history of the oceans and climate.
* They discovered that ice ages begin or end, almost like clockwork, every 11,500 years. It's a dependable, predictable, natural cycle. Pacemaker of the Ice Ages, they called it.
* They drew up a chart of the cycle (above).
* See the sharp peaks every 100,000 years or so? Each peak marks the abut end of a period of warmth similar to today's and the catastrophic beginning of a new ice age.
* See where we are today? (At the far right side of the chart?) We're at the tip of the highest peak ever, teetering on the knife-edge of disaster. We haven't been that high on the chart for half a million years.
* And do you see what happened--without exception--every time we got that high on the chart?
* Instantaneous ice age.
* The next ice age could begin any day.
7 posted on 02/25/2005 12:44:08 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (This tagline no longer operative....floated away in the flood of 2005 ,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]
To: Dr. Marten
The "green" fanatics may be able to fool a majority of the public however they will never be able to fool Mother Nature.
Mother Nature has her own agenda and is not in a position to have to kowtow to human intervention! ; )
8 posted on 02/25/2005 1:02:37 AM PST by EGPWS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]
To: Dr. Marten
1940 to 1977: Cooling period. The temperatures are cooler than currently. Mountain glaciers recede, and some begin to advance. The tabloids inform us of widespread catastrophes due to the "New Glaciation". The causes of this period of cooling are unknown.
One of those "tabloids" was the Weekly Reader. They had a picture with vast tundras and two domed cities miles apart.
Scared the Hell out of me when I saw that. Scared me so much that when this "Global Warming(TM)" fad started, it caused me to question everything I was ever taught in the public school system.
I don't believe a word of anything unless I can prove it too myself. If I can't prove, for example, Big Bang, then it isn't important enough to worry about.
Seems to me, unless you are a scientist, you have to take almost any thing an alleged expert says on faith.
I simply don't have that much faith.
9 posted on 02/25/2005 2:13:24 AM PST by Duke Nukum (King had to write, to sing the song of Gan. And I had to read. How else could Roland find the Tower?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]
To: carl in alaska
>>CO2 helps to radiate heat AWAY from the earth in the upper atmosphere.
Actually, the original scientist who sounded the global warming alarm....later retracted when he calculated that the reflectance of CO2 couteracts warming.
10 posted on 02/25/2005 3:29:32 AM PST by The Raven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]
To: taxesareforever
Believe it or not, it does not make any difference. This planet is 4,000,000,000+ years old. Your beliefs will not change that FACT.
11 posted on 02/25/2005 4:27:16 AM PST by nuke rocketeer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]
To: Dr. Marten
bttt
12 posted on 02/25/2005 4:47:06 AM PST by secret garden (Go Spurs Go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]
To: taxesareforever
How old do you thing earth is?
13 posted on 02/25/2005 4:49:58 AM PST by Sam Cree (Democrats are herd animals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]
To: Sam Cree
Hahahaha! Its warm in the day, cold at night. I don't see any warming!
14 posted on 02/25/2005 5:20:47 AM PST by 1FASTGLOCK45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]
To: 1FASTGLOCK45
"The Polar Ice Caps are Melting" story comes out every few months. Some expedition goes out and measures the sea ice at some location they already have data from 5, 10 years ago for example and surprise, they announce with much fanfare, that the ice is 20% thinner than it was
(Sometimes these guys are just kooks by the way. One highly noted study comes from a zoology professor who was working on a cruise ship lol.)
Anyway, here is a link to the latest animation from NASA's ICESat satellite of the North Pole sea ice (the best you will see) 1979 to 2004.
The polar ice moves back and forth so much and moves so much with the seasons that only a long-long-long-term satellite study with radar measurements can tell you anything at all.
http://www.nasa.gov/mpeg/103496main_...4_320x240.mpeg
15 posted on 02/25/2005 5:33:13 AM PST by JustDoItAlways
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]
To: Dr. Marten
What do you think?
I dunno...call me crazy...but I'm thinking the temperature on our planet has an awful lot to do with that thing in the sky that we call the Sun! The way these people talk, you'd think that the Sun was a constant.
If these people really wanted to isolate CO2 as the culprit, they'd first need to do an energy balance on the whole, and weed out any variability from bigger contributors like the Sun. Draw a box around the Earth and find out how much of the Sun's energy hits the earth in a given year. It ain't gonna be constant: the sun experiences cycles; some years it burns hotter than others. You've got to eliminate this variability from the equation before we can talk about such minor causes as fossil fuels.
16 posted on 02/25/2005 6:27:06 AM PST by Fredgoblu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]
To: taxesareforever
I don't believe in a 2 to 3 million or older earth
You have a better estimate and if so, how did you arrive at it?
17 posted on 02/25/2005 6:37:31 AM PST by Protagoras (" I believe that's the role of the federal government, to help people"...GWB, 7-23-04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]
To: nuke rocketeer
This planet is 4,000,000,000+ years old. Your beliefs will not change that FACT.
Facts are NORMALLY established by observation. What was the name of the individual who you would quote lived 4 billion years ago? And by the way, your beliefs WILL establish that FACT?
18 posted on 02/25/2005 10:36:08 AM PST by taxesareforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]
To: The Raven
If you can find a link to that retraction you'll be a hero around here.
19 posted on 02/25/2005 10:37:06 AM PST by carl in alaska (Visit downtown Chicago on a cold windy January day and you'll find that global warming is a myth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]
To: Sam Cree
Somewhere in the vicinity of 8 to 10 thousand years old.
20 posted on 02/25/2005 10:37:30 AM PST by taxesareforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]
To: Protagoras
Geneology of the Bible establishes that the earth is in the vicinity of 8 to 10 thousand years old.
21 posted on 02/25/2005 10:39:18 AM PST by taxesareforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]
To: carl in alaska
I've never seen a better example of mass stupidity by smart people than the "consensus" that global warming is actually happening and it is caused by increasing CO2 levels.
LOL, very true and well put. "Mass stupidity" is a great way to describe the whole gorebull warming issue.
22 posted on 02/25/2005 10:44:55 AM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]
To: taxesareforever
Geneology of the Bible establishes that the earth is in the vicinity of 8 to 10 thousand years old.
Not literally of course. Numbers in the bible are explained. To God one day is like a thousand years. And visa versa.
23 posted on 02/25/2005 10:49:58 AM PST by Protagoras (" I believe that's the role of the federal government, to help people"...GWB, 7-23-04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]
To: taxesareforever
Radioactive decay products in different rocks. The same 'theory' that runs nuke plants and makes bombs go boom also enables one to detrmine the decay products and determine how long they were there. Based upon these observations, the age of rocks are established. Also see all the articles on the natural reactor found in Africa. This planet is very, very old and no amount of biblical literalism can erase that fact. I also speak as a christian conservative. Until you can disprove nuclear theory, you will have absolutely no basis for stating that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.
and BTW....measurement error and assumptions gives an uncertainty of 10% or so. Heck even at 50% uncertainty it would still be at least 2,000,000 yrs old at minimum.
24 posted on 02/25/2005 11:01:30 AM PST by nuke rocketeer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]
To: Always Right
LOL, very true and well put. "Mass stupidity" is a great way to describe the whole gorebull warming issue.
I have no doubt that some proponents of the warming scam are stupid, but the vast majority of them are democrats and this "issue" is one of the collection of democrat issues used for garnering votes for the rest of their agenda. This agenda was the one Kerry never quite seemed able to spell out for us. (World wide socialism, with democrats in charge? Is that is Mr. Kerry?)
No most global warmers are hot for political power and are warming up for the next election. On hot days you will hear its warming all over, on cold days and stormy days you will hear that the warming has created more severe weather. All this will stop once democrats get their way. Conservatives will do well to do more than laugh at their efforts.
25 posted on 02/25/2005 11:02:57 AM PST by KC_for_Freedom (Sailing the highways of America, and loving it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
What does the "Precession of the Equinoxes" have to do with it? I will buy into the obliquity of the ecliptic, which is changing and which certainly is one of the "astronomical driving functions" of global climate.
26 posted on 02/25/2005 11:23:45 AM PST by Lonesome in Massachussets (Deadcheck the embeds first.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]
To: Dr. Marten
[ Anyone else find something fishy about the final sentence? ]
I do....
Obviously the author believes republicans will only remember, after reading all that, the last sentence and democrats will only remember the last half of the last sentence..
Pretty sneaky.. them left wing scientologists.. The follow up expected is on the dread poison di-hydrogen oxide.. It'll kill you if you get too much of it.. and it is also produced by them pesky glaciers melting..
27 posted on 02/25/2005 11:26:37 AM PST by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]
To: nuke rocketeer
Believe it or not, it does not make any difference. This planet is 4,000,000,000+ years old. Your beliefs will not change that FACT.
Who do you know that has been around to verify that FACT?
Some Scientists believe the earth is that old. There are some that don't...
... In contrast to the narrow specialization of present-day scientists some great physicists in the nineteenth century made significant contributions to numerous branches of science. England recognized this breadth and depth in Sir William Thomson and elevated his title to Lord Kelvin. It was Kelvin's brilliant thermodynamic analysis that gave us the absolute temperature scale that bears his name. When the Atlantic cable was laid it took the ingenious electromagnetic developments of Kelvin to make it a workable device. His best papers are to be found in a six volume set, Mathematical and Physical Papers, Lord Kelvin, (Cambridge University Press, 1911). Many of those papers employed physics to expose the errors inherent in the long-age concepts held by uniformitarian geologists. One paper was entitled: "The 'Doctrine of Uniformity' in Geology Briefly Refuted"; another was entitled: "On the Age of the Sun's Heat". Many of his papers dealt with the age of the earth... -PHYSICS: A CHALLENGE TO GEOLOGICAL TIME
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-016.htm
28 posted on 02/25/2005 11:37:53 AM PST by pageonetoo (you'll spot their posts soon enough!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]
To: Protagoras
Not literally of course. Numbers in the bible are explained. To God one day is like a thousand years. And visa versa.
However, days were made for man and not for God. To be in God's presence a day is like a thousand years. We are not in God's presence until we die or the end of the world comes. The account of creation to the presence is not literal, it is truth. Add it up.
29 posted on 02/25/2005 11:40:38 AM PST by taxesareforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies ]
To: nuke rocketeer
And of course science is infallible. Wouldn't want to make so-called scientists appear to be wrong. How could they make money on their teachings and books and government grants?
30 posted on 02/25/2005 11:45:16 AM PST by taxesareforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]
To: taxesareforever
So you are saying that the universe was created in six sessions which were defined by the amount of time the earth spun on it's axis in relation to the star called the sun?
And dinosaurs and men walked together? And a year is 365 days and Methusla lived nine hundred earth years?
It takes all kinds.
We are not in God's presence until we die or the end of the world comes.
Nonsense, where did you get that fable? God is everywhere in his creation.
31 posted on 02/25/2005 11:54:10 AM PST by Protagoras (" I believe that's the role of the federal government, to help people"...GWB, 7-23-04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies ]
To: Protagoras
We are not in God's presence until we die or the end of the world comes.
Nonsense, where did you get that fable? God is everywhere in his creation.
So, does a day seem like a thousand years to you?
So you are saying that the universe was created in six sessions which were defined by the amount of time the earth spun on it's axis in relation to the star called the sun?
And dinosaurs and men walked together? And a year is 365 days and Methusla lived nine hundred earth years?
No, I'm not saying, all I am doing is citing what God says in the Bible. If you dispute this, take it up with God.
32 posted on 02/25/2005 12:05:20 PM PST by taxesareforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]
To: Lonesome in Massachussets
Don't have a really good answer but from :
Precession of the Equinoxes
I find this:
Since planetary precession due to perturbations from Jupiter and Saturn causes the perihelion of the Earth's orbit to precess, the precession of the Earth's axis relative to the Sun has a period of 21,000-22,000 y.
11,500 is aproximately half of 22,000
33 posted on 02/25/2005 12:10:14 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (This tagline no longer operative....floated away in the flood of 2005 ,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]
To: All
PRECESSION OF THE EQUINOX
The Earth's rotation axis is not fixed in space. Like a rotating toy top, the direction of the rotation axis executes a slow precession with period of 26,000 years for the entire ecliptic of our planetary bodies to travel around our sun, a trip of 360 degrees. Each one of the 12 signs of the zodiac takes about 2100 years for our solar system to pass through. Every 72 years we actually move backward 1 degree. After 2100 years we move out of one age and into another.
The precession is like a star clock that helps us date the rotations of earth in our solar system through our galaxy.
At the time of the birth of Christ we were moving out of the Age of Aries which was the Roman Empire into the Age of Pisces. That happened around 60 BC. The early Christians were aware of this and used as their symbol the 2 fishes going in opposite directions.
Since the rotation axis is precessing in space, the orientation of the Celestial Equator also precesses with the same period. This means that the position of the equinoxes is changing slowly with respect to the background stars. This precession of the equinoxes means that the right ascension and declination of objects changes very slowly over a 26,000 year period. This effect is negligibly small for casual observing, but is an important correction for precise observations.
34 posted on 02/25/2005 12:14:30 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (This tagline no longer operative....floated away in the flood of 2005 ,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]
To: taxesareforever
No, I'm not saying, all I am doing is citing what God says in the Bible.
Actually you are making up your own interpretations of what God says.
Centuries and centuries of theological study by people who actually understand what is being said have thankfully prevailed over the kind of nonsense that would have surely resulted in the end of faith if adopted by anyone other than a few people in obscure cults.
Does your cult have a name?
35 posted on 02/25/2005 12:17:17 PM PST by Protagoras (" I believe that's the role of the federal government, to help people"...GWB, 7-23-04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies ]
To: Protagoras
Does your cult have a name?
I don't call it a cult, but I do call it Christianity.
36 posted on 02/25/2005 12:35:09 PM PST by taxesareforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]
To: Protagoras
Does your cult have a name?
I don't call it a cult, but I do call it Christianity.
37 posted on 02/25/2005 12:35:11 PM PST by taxesareforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]
To: taxesareforever
Thanks.
38 posted on 02/25/2005 12:35:16 PM PST by Sam Cree (Democrats are herd animals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]
To: taxesareforever
This planet is 4,000,000,000+ years old.
That assumes that the parameter 'time' has remained the same over time. But Einstein established that 'time' is itself an equation that depends upon the velocity of the observer relative to 'zero velocity' in the universe. We don't know how fast we're traveling through the universe relative to that 'zero velocity'. Very recent evidence suggests that expansion of the universe is SLOWING, while at the original 'big bang' creation moment, the mass that now makes of our Earth would have been moving at phenomenal speed.
Many physicists now believe that the ultimate 'end of the world' will actually be a humongous FIZZLE, with atoms ultimately moving so slowly, they will not be able to maintain their particulate integrity.
Thus, carbon dating may be subject to enormous error to an Earth-bound observer, especially during the first milliseconds of the 'big bang'.
The future with God is much brighter, so bright in fact I'm gonna need shades....
39 posted on 02/25/2005 12:39:45 PM PST by O Neill (Aye, Katie Scarlett, the ONLY thing that lasts is the land...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]
To: taxesareforever
I don't call it a cult, but I do call it Christianity.
You can call it what you like, but so did the Branch Davidians.
Don't you have name for your little group?
40 posted on 02/25/2005 12:42:54 PM PST by Protagoras (" I believe that's the role of the federal government, to help people"...GWB, 7-23-04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]
To: taxesareforever
"So, does a day seem like a thousand years to you?"
Yes, sometimes a work day seems like a thousand years to me.
41 posted on 02/25/2005 12:46:25 PM PST by CarryaBigStick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies ]
To: Protagoras
Don't you have name for your little group?
Yes, Christian. "Many are called but few are chosen".
42 posted on 02/25/2005 1:03:02 PM PST by taxesareforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies ]
To: Dr. Marten
bookmarking
43 posted on 02/25/2005 1:04:05 PM PST by riri
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]
To: taxesareforever
Please don't pretend that all Christians believe in your cult's bizarre tenets.
And the fact that you seem to think you are a chosen one speaks volumes.
How many people in your cult? And please don't pretend all Christians are in your cult.
Why are you so timid about the name of your group? You must be embarassed.
44 posted on 02/25/2005 1:08:05 PM PST by Protagoras (" I believe that's the role of the federal government, to help people"...GWB, 7-23-04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies ]
To: Protagoras
...so did the Branch Davidians.
Known to some as 'Clinton's Kindling'...
C'mon, baby, light my fire....
45 posted on 02/25/2005 2:17:38 PM PST by O Neill (Aye, Katie Scarlett, the ONLY thing that lasts is the land...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies ]
To: Protagoras
What do you mean by what is the name of my group? What is the name of your group because so many of YOUR group have different opinions on age of the earth. So, who do you espouse to be wiser than the God of the Bible?
I am not embarassed to be called a Christian. Name a Christian group which says the earth is millions of years old.
46 posted on 02/25/2005 2:36:55 PM PST by taxesareforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies ]
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Precession of the perihelion is unrelated to precession of the equinox. I think you are saying that the phasing of the equinox and perihelion passage are important. Currently the Earth passes through the perihelion about 6 January, near the winter solstice in the Northern Hemisphere. This has the salutary effect of moderating both Summer and Winter temperature extremes in the Northern Hemisphere, where most the land mass that can accrete snow is.
47 posted on 02/25/2005 2:43:21 PM PST by Lonesome in Massachussets (Deadcheck the embeds first.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]
To: Dr. Marten
It's so warm, I'm freezing. I just scraped one inch of global warming off of my car's windshield.
48 posted on 02/25/2005 2:48:13 PM PST by corlorde (Without the home of the brave, there would be no land of the free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]
To: taxesareforever
Actually, if the geneologies in the Bible establish anything at all, it would be that man has been present on the earth for 8 to 10 thousand years.
There is considerable debate on how long the five "days" of creation that went on before that actually lasted. For instance, how long was the night before God said "Let there be light."? The Bible says that there was evening, and there was morning, one day. So, do you think that He started time exactly 12 hours before He created light?
49 posted on 02/25/2005 5:33:28 PM PST by TwoWolves (The only kind of control the liberals don't want is self control.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]
To: Dr. Marten
Amusing that the global-warming naysayers don't realize how negative such thinking is.... it basically says, "we don't have any effect, so we can't stop the climate change that's occurring!"
50 posted on 02/25/2005 6:27:26 PM PST by Gondring (They can have my Bill of Rights when they pry it from my cold, dead hands!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-50, 51-100, 101-103 next last
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
Free Republic
Articles · Comments · Search News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
The Global Warming Tax Scam Kicks In
Fresh studies, polls conclude climate change being used as revenue raising tactic
Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
The British government is raising almost double the revenue in so called "green taxes" that it needs to offset the social cost of CO2 emissions according to a new report. An accompanying opinion poll also reveals that nearly two-thirds of people think politicians are using the green issue as an excuse to tax more.
The conclusion of a report by the TaxPayer's Alliance watchdog, states that "In many cases, individual green taxes and charges are failing to meet their objectives, are set at a level in excess of that needed to meet the social cost of CO2 emissions, and are causing serious harm to areas of the country and industries least able to cope."
The study found that the social cost of Britain’s entire output of CO2 was £11.7 billion in 2005 but in the same year, the total net burden of green taxes and charges was £21.9 billion. Meaning that even two years ago taxes were £10.2 billion in excess of the level agreed to meet the Britain’s CO2 emissions. The Alliance calculates this excess is equivalent to over £400 for each household in Britain.
"We need more honesty about the costs of extra green taxes when British taxpayers already pay some of the highest pollution charges in the world," said Matthew Elliott of the TaxPayers' Alliance.
(Article continues below)
The report also reveals that the main “pollution taxes” of fuel duty; vehicle excise duty (road tax); the Climate Change Levy; Air Passenger Duty; the Landfill Tax and the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, each have serious flaws which indicate that the government is less concerned about the environment and more concerned with raking in excessive revenues.
In addition a second study by accountants UHY Hacker Young backs up this claim by revealing that the Government gives back in tax breaks just two per cent of the money it collects through environmental taxes.
UHY Hacker Young tax partner Roy Maugham said: "It's surprising just how lopsided the Government's approach to green taxes has been over the last ten years.
"At the moment it's all stick and very little carrot."
If the government were really concerned about climate change then they would be offering incentives not punishments for reducing CO2 emissions in the form of tax breaks. But tax breaks aren't a giant cash bonanza for our exalted guardians of Mother Earth, the loving government, who are going to tax the living hell out of us for our own good and for the very survival of mankind, while lining their own pockets.
The Treasury has said the claims in the studies are "ridiculous" and has dropped the green bomb on the TaxPayers Alliance, reminding it that climate change is a justification to do anything.
A spokesman said: "In arguing against these taxes, the Taxpayers' Alliance are being doubly dangerous - it would mean cuts to public services, schools and hospitals, as well as higher carbon emissions leading to accelerated climate change."
Meanwhile Corin Taylor, research director of the TaxPayers' Alliance, has reminded the government that over vamped green charges, far from being a solution, are a primary cause of cuts in public services. "Green taxes and charges impose substantial costs on, amongst others, the National Health Service." Taylor commented.
Released alongside the TaxPayers' Alliance study, a new YouGov poll of more than 2,000 adults (double the usual sample) was commissioned into public attitudes towards green taxes.
When asked what they thought the primary motivation was for new green taxes, 63 per cent agreed with the statement: “Politicians are not serious about the environment and are using the issue as an excuse to raise more revenue from green taxes.” Only 20 per cent thought that “Politicians are serious about the environment and are bringing in new green taxes to change people’s behaviour to help reduce carbon emissions.”
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/a...2006forWeb.pdf
This is very good ready and if you still believe then it is your religion and no matter what anyone says you will be taxed to death believing your feeling the heat!
Global warming theory is hooey. I believe the whole darn solar system is getting warmer because of an increase in the sun's radiant output.
I wrote an essay on this topic six years ago entitled "If You Can't Stand the Heat, Don't Blame Global Warming." In this paper published by the Independence Institute, I warned that wild assumptions were fueling the theory that human energy consumption was causing measured but slight increases in the Earth's average atmospheric temperature.
The worst wild assumption, I argued, is "that the modern Earth is a steady state, unchanging planet receiving a constant, invariable amount of heat from the sun."
The Earth has been warming since the end of the Pleistocene Ice Age about 18,000 years ago, and there's nothing to indicate that 130 years of Industrial Man has accelerated the warming trend. In fact, geocraft.com says we're more likely to start experiencing a cooling trend leading to another Ice Age in about 2,000 to 10,000 years.
As recently as 1715, Europe was experiencing a mini-Ice Age caused by a decrease in sunspots and total solar output. Peaking between 1645 and 1715, the Maunder Minimum caused glaciers to move southward, rivers to freeze more frequently and longer, and many reported crop failures.
Gary Rottman, a senior research associate at the Boulder-based Laboratory for Atmospheric Science and Physics, speculated in 2000 that the sun's visible spectrum output may have decreased by only .03 percent during the Maunder Minimum, but that was enough to cause dramatic climate change on Earth.
The sun's measurable output has increased by .01 percent since accurate measurements began in 1978, Rottman said.
According to one research organization, the warming trend on Earth ended in 1998. The Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia reports that for the years 1998-2005, the global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).
Climate change 'is the norm'
Viewpoint
By Dr Martin Keeley
Geologist, and a Visiting Professor at University College London
Scientists use "proxy data" to reconstruct the ancient climate
More details
Even as climate experts and politicians meet in Buenos Aires to mark the entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol, many sceptical scientists will still be arguing that the international consensus on "global warming" has got it wrong.
Those of us who study the pre-human history of the Earth find the current debate over global warming difficult to fathom. Climate changes - this is what it does.
To expect permanent stability in climate patterns displays a fundamental lack of understanding of the complexity and instability of weather.
If the global climate were not getting warmer, it would be getting cooler; stasis is not an option.
Ice caps either advance or retreat, and thank goodness. Following the last Ice Age, the climate is warming, and sea-level is rising - but well within their historical ranges.
As environments alter, so fauna and flora either adapt or die out; nature is very unsentimental.
But for the now-infamous and discredited "hockey stick" temperature curve for the last millennium, used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to add body to the case for Kyoto, most observers would not have suspended belief over claims that today's weather is the "mostest" "on record".
Time dependent
This expression is simply a lie. We know from the geological (and archaeological) record that weather variations and extremes are the norm.
Such extremes occur gradually and rapidly, and obviously were not human-induced (anthropogenic). How then can they represent a threat greater than that of terrorism, as the UK's chief scientist, Professor Sir David King, maintains, except to minds unwilling to accept the inevitability of planetary change?
Polar bear (AP)
On thin ice: "Fauna and flora either adapt or die out"
The factors influencing climate and sea-level change are multiple and complex, whether slow or rapid. I still cannot comprehend how anyone can hope to model even present day phenomena, never mind into the future; we still cannot predict next week's weather with any accuracy.
The real question then is not whether climate and sea level changes are occurring and are good or bad things; they have been occurring naturally for billions of years. Nor is the question whether these changes are actually taking place; a moot point at best, as there are conflicting data, but the question is utterly dependent on the time frame.
Rather, environmentalists ask whether climate change is anthropogenic, and if so, can it be stopped. I have come across no rigorous proof that wasteful human pollution has caused any significant climate change.
The accusation is that the hockey stick-shaped temperature track is built from selective data sets
More details
One would be better off asking the question whether volcanic eruptions alter the weather; there at least we can answer "yes".
The only proof of anthropogenic climate change ever offered, which to my mind is fallacious, is that temperature has increased with Western industrialisation; before industrialisation, the hockey stick would negate the Medieval Climate Optimum and Little Ice Age.
There is a closer correlation between this latest warming and universal suffrage. In science, temporal coincidence between events is no proof of a causal link.
Media 'scare'
So, as we enter the third millennium, we should preoccupy ourselves not with the silly question of whether at outrageous expense we could predictably influence the weather, least of all by focusing on just a single component. Instead, we should consider how to adapt ourselves to the inevitability of natural climate and sea-level change.
The issue thus framed would completely alter the capital expenditure question facing policy makers, away from tinkering with the emissions from the cleaner, industrialised nations (thereby delaying modelled anthropogenic global warming by little more than a decade), and towards more pragmatic solutions.
Farm aid Soeren Ludvigsen with this year's potato crop in Eqaluit Ilua, southern Greenland (AP)
With further warming, crop production can move to higher latitudes
These might include the abandonment of sub-sea level lands condemned to flooding (including the Netherlands), shifting to Mediterranean crops in northern Europe, the re-cultivation of cold terrains (eg Greenland), and the aggressive reforestation as a microclimate control strategy to rehabilitate dry lands.
As for oil, it will almost certainly be too expensive to use as a mass energy source within 25 years.
Global warming is indeed a scam, perpetrated by scientists with vested interests, but in need of crash courses in geology, logic and the philosophy of science.
It provides the media with a new scare story, which has been picked up by the focus groups and turned into the new religion, offering us hell if we don't all change our ways. However, believing in anthropogenic global warming is not enough, but that is all it can offer.
The author, Dr Martin Keeley, is Visiting Professor in Petroleum Geology, at University College London, UK.
http://climate-skeptic.typepad.com/p...0920pirate.gif
How is it possible that a model that accurately represents the past fails to accurately predict the future? Financial modelers, like climate modelers, look to history in building their models. Again, like climate modelers, they rely both on theory (e.g. higher interest rates should generally mean lower stock prices) as well as observed correlations in the historic data set. The problem they meet, the problem that every modeler meets but most especially the climate modeler, is that while it is easy to use various analysis tools to find correlations in the data, there is often nothing that will tell you if there is really a causal relationship, and which way the causality runs. For example, one might observe that interest rates and exchange rates move together. Are interest rate changes leading to exchange rate adjustments, or vice versa? Or, in fact, are they both caused by a third variable? Or is their observed correlation merely coincidence?
It was once observed that if an old AFL football team wins the Superbowl, a bear market will ensue on Wall Street in the next year, while an NFL team victory presaged a bull market. As of 1997, this correlation held for 28 of the last 31 years, a far better prediction record than that of any Wall Street analyst. But of course this correlation was spurious, and in the next 4 years it was wrong every time. Had someone built a financial model on this indicator, it would have looked great when he ran it against history, but he would have lost his shirt using it.
Want a better prediction record? For seventeen straight US presidential election cycles, from 1936 to 2000, the winner of the election was accurately predicted by…the Washington Redskins. In particular, if the Redskins won their last home game before the election, the party that occupies the White House holds it in the election. Otherwise, if the Redskins lose, the opposition party wins. Seventeen in a row! R-squared of one! Success against odds of 131,072:1 of guessing all 17 right. But of course, the input was spurious, and in 2004, soon after this relationship made the rounds of the Internet, the algorithm failed.
Note that the historic relationship between football and elections is much stronger than the historic relationship between global warming and CO2. In the last 12 decades, CO2 levels and temperatures have only moved in the same direction in half the decades.
Deal with the question on the table, then we can move on to other things. Do you currently see the following post as true or false?
Sit down before fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abysses nature leads, or you shall learn nothing.
Thomas Huxley
I suggest that it the OP refuses to reply to my reasonable request, this thread should be closed.
I, Papa Bear, do harrrrrr-by establish this here Pirate thread by request of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, in hope that we can reduce or reverse global warming. But first, there be rules, maties:
1. You must always dress like a pirate when posting in this thread.
2. You must always use your best Pirate voice when posting here.
3. You may select a pirate name, if you wish.
4. You must comply to all wishes of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, unless those wishes violate the first 3 rules.
5. You must drink copious amounts of rum.
6. You must hide the rum if a fundamentalist enters the conversation.
7. You must laugh, be merry, and say things like "Yarrrrrr" and "Avast!" a lot.
8. You must always stay focused on slowing, stopping, or reversing global warming, and realize that living your life as a pirate is the best way to accomplish such a thing.
Studies show that the decrease in pirates is directly related to the increase in global warming. Thus, we the members of this thread, have decided to live out our days as pirates, and bask in the glory of the Flying Spaghetti Monster forever and ever. RAmen!
Now, get up here and swab the deck, you lazy curs!
I think my point has been made. PB's lack of response demonstrates his refusal to admit that which is perfectly clear, he is advancing a political, social, and economic view under the guise of science. Anyone who was participating in a rational discourse would have said, thanks for the new information, I was not aware of that and moved on.
Mods, please put these threads out of their misery.
There is an SEO contest for the phrase “GlobalWarming awareness2007.” I don’t really care too much about the contest, but there is something I have wanted to write About Global Warming for a while now and this GlobalWarming Awareness2007 contest is the perfect excuse. It’s this:
Claims of significant anthropogenic global warming due to CO2 emissions are either overblown or completely unfounded. The greatest scientific fraud in the history of mankind is this “Global Warming / Climate Change” tandem. Any doomsday scenarios concocted on these theories are a scientific embarrassment that have as much credibility as Creationism, Refrigerator Gnomes, or the Late Iraqi Information Minister.
Iraqi Information Minister says global warming will kill us all
The Global Warming scam was designed to
1. Scare people into giving time, money and power to charlatan scientists and sham politicians
2. Dramatically increase the size and scope of government and proliferate a worldwide socialist agenda
3. Oppress developing Nations
Sadly, the scam is working.
This fraud was dreamed up by intellectually dishonest scientific professionals coveting government grant money: Was latched on to by politicians and political groups that seek to expand their own influence as well as the size and scope of government and is perpetuated by the ignorant masses who do not have the capacity to refute what Hitler coined the “The Big Lie.”
Billions of dollars in taxes, private donations and political contributions are raised every year to fight the global warming boogieman. This sham has taken many otherwise intelligent and good intentioned people and turned them into quasi-religious zealots on a crusade for a bigger, more intrusive, more powerful world government.
The path to hell is paved with good intentions.
* Al Gore is trying to resurrect his political life with Global Warming Scare Mongering.
* Virgin CEO Richard Branson has pledged $3 Billion to fight global warming.
* Billions of Taxpayer and education dollars are wasted each year in the name of global warming.
* People like to believe in significant anthropogenic global warming because it makes them feel good and lulls them into a sense of intellectually superiority.
When you follow the money and politics, it’s easy to see why this charade of smoke and mirrors is occurring. The “why” of the scam is a thesis in and of itself. However, it’s more important for Global Warming Awareness 2007 to shed the light of truth on the debate to dispel many of the myths surrounding the climate change debate. Grab your popcorn or delicious this for later, because we have a few “incontinent Truths” of our own to cover and this is gonna take a while.
Global Warming Awareness 2007, Here comes the Science . . .
GlobalWarming Awareness2007 Myth Buster 1.
The Earth is 1, 2, 5 or 10 degrees warmer than it was 100 years ago.
Truth: At most we’ve had an average 0.6 degree C (and probably closer to 0.3 degree C) increase over the last 100 years.
GlobalWarming Awareness2007 Myth Buster 2.
“I know Anthropogenic Global Warming is occurring because it’s warmer here in _____. I know it’s warmer, I can feel it.”
Truth: Just because it may be warmer where you are, doesn’t mean that the Earth’s temperature is changing globally; and it certainly does not mean that any climate change is occurring because of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Anecdotal testimonials in a microcosm are not scientifically valid.
As we pointed out, the average global temperature increase has been between 0.3-0.6 degrees over the last hundred years. That works out to 0.003-0.006 degrees per year; a change that is certainly imperceptible without instruments.
GlobalWarming Awareness2007 Myth Buster 3
CO2 levels and the average Global Temperatures are near all time highs in Earths history.
Truth: We have records of CO2 and temperatures going back *millions* of years, and we presently have some of the lowest CO2 levels in the same amount of time; before now, CO2 levels have been several orders of magnitude higher… all without human intervention. Also, the earth’s temperature was dramatically warmer. Guess what, doomsayers? The earth has natural CO2/temperature cycles and climate science is only just now starting to put some of the bigger pieces of the puzzle together.
Check out Milankovitch Cycles to learn more about these natural cycles.
GlobalWarming Awareness2007 Myth Buster 4.
There is evidence that a rise in CO2 has led to a rise in Global Temperatures throughout millions of years of the Earth’s history.
Truth: Here is the graph of Temperature levels and CO2 Levels.
CO2 vs Temperature
The double graph, reproduced below lists CO2 concentration above temperature: but, if the two graphs were superimposed at sufficient scale, as is customary when comparing such similar curves, changes in temperature would be seen to precede changes in CO2 concentration by 400 to 4,000 years.
Can anyone explain to me why CO2 level rising lags about 800 years behind the temperature rises?
While correlation does not equal causation (contrary to what these global warming shysters would have you believe) the logical conclusion is NOT that higher CO2 Levels cause an increase in Global Temperatures, but rather that global temperature increases cause a rise in CO2 levels. These graphs also show that CO2 in and of itself is incapable of sustaining temperature growth.
If their “CO2 causes significant global warming” theories were correct we should see temperature levels increasing after rising CO2 levels - not the other way around.
It looks more like CO2 is what the planet uses stunt temperature upsurges and cool back off after an interglacial period.
GlobalWarming Awareness2007 Myth Buster 5
Receding Ice Sheets is proof that anthropogenic Global Warming is occurring.
Truth: Here are some photos showing the shrinking of Glacial Ice Sheets.
They sure look like they are shrinking, don’t they? Problem is, those are pictures of the Glacial Ice Caps on Mars. Yes, they are shrinking, but one could hardly argue it’s because of some US soccer mom driving an SUV. There are no humans on Mars.
Caltech planetary scientists have been keeping a close eye on the dozens of deep, wide pits in the southern martian ice caps. These pits have been growing larger every year, but they never get any deeper.
The scientists believe this means that there is a layer of dry ice that is evaporating off of a thicker layer of water ice. The yearly increases in evaporation may be caused by
A global warming trend happening on Mars (Source NASA)
The residual martian south polar cap is changing. The fact that it is changing suggests that Mars may have major, global climate changes that are occurring on the same time scales as Earth’s most recent climate shifts, including the last Ice Age.
If both Mars and Earth are experiencing global warming, then perhaps there is a larger phenomenon going on in the Solar System that is causing their global climates to change.
Yea – like maybe the sun is a little bit hotter and brighter?
So, we know the sun is getting hotter. We know that it is warmer on Mars. It is also warmer on Earth. How does one look at those facts and come up with “I think the Earth is warmer because Jane drives a Hummer”? Get a grip people!
If there is Global Warming on Mars, doesn’t that indicate that a significant portion, if not all, of the 0.3-0.6 degree C increase in the Earth’s average temperature over the last 100 years is being caused by the sun or other cosmic forces that have nothing to do with humans?
Oh and by the way, Earth’s Antarctic Ice sheet is actually growing.
GlobalWarming Awareness2007 Myth Buster 6
CO2 is the most significant Greenhouse Gas in Earth’s Atmosphere.
Truth: More than 95% of the “Greenhouse Gas” effect comes from water vapor.
Water vapor constitutes Earth’s most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth’s greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many “facts and figures’ regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.
Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC’s, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).
GlobalWarming Awareness2007 Myth Buster 7
Only Bible Banging Creationist and big oil lobbyist deny anthropogenic CO2 emissions are causing significant global warming.
I am an Atheist leaning agnostic. Evolution is as good as fact in my book; there is no missing link. I don’t own a dime in oil stocks and have never worked for nor received any money from any lobbying group. I’m neither anti-environment nor against renewable energy ideas like Biodiesel or Solar Tower power stations. The world could go 100% solar powered tomorrow and I’d stay just as happy as a pig in ****.
GlobalWarming Awareness2007 Myth Buster 8
So and so says it’s true so it must be
Truth: Follow the money. In Science there is a saying “No Problem, no funding.”
I’ve read what the Royal Society has published about anthropogenic global warming. It’s an embarrassment: nothing but conjecture, glad-handing, postulates and guesses. Where is the Science?!? Where is the evidence that concretely demonstrates that an X increase in atmospheric CO2 leads to a temperature increase of FunctionX on a planetary scale? Nowhere! Because this type of evidence simply does not exist. All we have are rigged computer models that fail at even the most rudimentary attempts to predict climate or weather changes and “scientists” referencing those models as if they were somehow bastions of truth and authority.
GlobalWarming Awareness2007 Myth Buster 9
Human caused C02 emissions will cause a temperature increase that will melt the ice caps and flood all coastlines in the next 50-100 years.
I call Bull****.
When someone can predict the temperature range (high and low) for the 50 largest cites in the world 30 days out to within a half of a degree of accuracy, then maybe I’ll listen to what they have to say about the average global temperature 50 years from now. Until then, we’ll just have to agree to disagree about whether or not these climatologists and meteorologist know what the hell they’re talking about.
You think these scientists can see 100 years into the future? 100 years ago, there was a different environmental concern. People worried that we needed to come up with a solution for all the horse **** from the increase in the number of horse and buggy carriages in major cities. Here are some of the great predictions of the past.
Trying to predict what’s going to happen even this year is an exercise in futility. Remember how 2006 was supposed to be the biggest hurricane season on record? How’d that prediction turn out? Thinking that one can predict 100 years into the future goes beyond the wildest stretches of absurdity into pure insanity. Alas! Fools seem to love giving these psychics their money; nothing I say is going to stop them.
For me, I’ll put my money where my mouth is and buy some nice beachfront property. Why don’t you global warming zealots put your money where your mouth is and buy a nice cabin in the mountains somewhere? Then in 50 years we’ll look at whose property is worth more to see who was right.
GlobalWarming Awareness2007 Myth Buster 10
If real we can do something about it
According to NASA, the average global temperature has risen only 0.3-0.6 degrees over the past 100 years. Even if 100% of this warming could be attributed to mankind’s CO2 emissions (which, as we have demonstrated, it cannot), none of the proposed “solutions” would decrease worldwide CO2 levels, none of them would stop or significantly curb this alleged cause of anthropogenic global warming (if it is occurring) and most of these big government “solutions” would dramatically degrade the quality of life for the poorest and most impoverished people on Earth.
Indeed, the risks of handing power over to politicians who clad themselves in the global warming cloak to spread their socialist agendas far out ways any danger associated with anthropogenic global warming or “climate change.”
GlobalWarming Awareness2007 Myth Buster 11
Global Warming is bad for the human race.
Truth: The Warming of the earth has coincided with prosperity and development. Periods of frost or cold have caused global famine, periods of stagnation and economic recession. A warmer earth and more CO2 means more plant life, greater farm yields and worldwide prosperity. It’s quite amazing how closely economic cycles have tracked increases and decreases in the average global temperature.
More interesting thoughts on Global Warming include Apocalypse canceled its referenced pdf, and Extra Terrestrials Caused Global Warming.
And before you throw out your ad hak attacks, the one thing I can say for those two intelligent people is that are not chasing Global Warming Funding Dollars or coveting political influence. Can the same be said for whomever you site?
GlobalWarming Awareness2007 Conclusion:
The overwhelming evidence is that manmade CO2 emissions account for only a fraction of the mere 0.3-0.6 degree rise in temperature over the last 100 years – if at all. Even if mankind accounted for all of it (we don’t) and we could accurately predict (we can’t) that mankind would quadruple that temperature increase over the next 100 years (we probably couldn’t even if we wanted to), it would not be cause for concern. History has demonstrated time and time again that a warmer Earth will mean greater prosperity for mankind. So in fact, the best we can hope for is that these doomsday prophets are correct and that we will somehow raise the Earth’s temperature for the sake of our great grandchildren. Unfortunately for them, the bulk of the genuine scientific evidence suggests that these Global Warming charlatans are spouting nothing but hot air.
This is more evidence than we got from the UN and you didn't have to pay 3 billion dollars for it!
AIM Report: Media Promote Global Warming Fraud - March A
AIM Report | March 8, 2007
This document, which blames global warming on people, had no published science to back it up.
MEDIA PROMOTE GLOBAL WARMING FRAUD
When it comes to Iraq, our media have been preoccupied with the issue of whether there was adequate intelligence to justify the invasion and if policy-makers made up evidence before the war. But on the matter of global intervention to stop global warming, there seems to be no need for scientific evidence to justify what is shaping up as a global carbon tax of 35 cents a gallon of gas on the American people.
Our media want the public to believe that the same organization that gave us the oil-for-food scandal can be trusted on its dire predictions of calamity from alleged man-made global warming.
The media's conflict of interest can be seen in the fact that Jeffrey Immelt, the chairman and CEO of General Electric, which owns MSNBC and NBC News, has joined with environmental pressure groups in the United States Climate Action Partnership in promoting an international U.N.-style bureaucracy to reduce the emissions blamed for the warming.
They claim evidence for their view in the recent much-publicized United Nations climate change report. But this document, which blames global warming on people, had no published science to back it up.
A front-page Washington Post story about the report waited until the 20th paragraph of a 21-paragraph story to mention that the "detailed scientific documentation" for the claim is not yet available and won't be released "for a few months." A New York Times account waited until the 40th paragraph of a 44-paragraph story to disclose that "thousands of pages of technical background," supposedly the basis for the alarming conclusions, would be released later in the year.
Faith-Based Science
Now how many people read until almost the end of these articles to discover that the scientific evidence is not yet available?
The odds are that many people didn't get past the sensational New York Times headline, "Science Panel Calls Global Warming 'Unequivocal.'"
Clearly, we are supposed to accept all of this on faith.
In fact, the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is officially sponsored by the U.N. Environmental Program, which once organized an Environmental Sabbath project so people could pay homage to the planet. The program included an exercise for children to sit around a tree, hold hands, and meditate.
The coverage of the IPCC report demonstrates how mainstream journalists have abandoned even a pretense of objectivity.
This reflects the influence of such figures as Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders, who, at the recent so-called National Conference on Media Reform, said that the media should not cover both sides of the global warming debate.
Dissenters
However, some scientists are raising the alarm.
The IPCC's decidedly unscientific approach has come under attack from Harvard University physicist Lubos Motl, who declared, "In the past, scientists had to do their research before the implications for policymaking could have been derived from this research." Mocking the U.N. process, he commented, "Today, the vastly superior postmodern scientific method of the IPCC members allows them to publish the summary for policymakers first."
A Google search of current news, however, turned up only two places where Motl's criticism of the IPCC was mentioned—a story carried by Fox News and attributed to Brit Hume and a CNSNews.com story. Hume cited the CNSNews.com report, which also quoted Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric science at MIT, as saying that issuing a conclusion before producing the evidence for that conclusion is completely improper and that a business which issued a report in such a fashion would be investigated by the government for fraud.
Senator James Inhofe, ranking Member of the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee, called the IPCC report "the corruption of science for political gain" and said the process is completely lacking in scientific integrity. He noted that page 4 of "Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC World" includes the following: "Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter."
This means that the scientific data may be altered to conform with what has already been published.
Instead of highlighting the lack of scientific data to support the man-made global warming assertions, our media are trying to discredit critics of the report by trying to tie them to oil companies. Such stories never mention the billions of federal dollars being showered on advocates of the man-made global warming theory.
Pandering to the alarmists, Samuel Bodman, the Secretary of Energy in the Bush Administration, accepted the IPCC report and urged "global solutions" to the alleged problem.
One such "global solution" is a global carbon tax, in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, administered and even collected by the U.N. One U.N.-sponsored report suggests a global tax amounting to 35-cents a gallon.
An international conference to promote global taxes, dubbed "solidarity levies," was held in Oslo, Norway, from February 6-7. An international tax on airline travel is already being implemented. One of the biggest state delegations to the conference came from South Korea, whose foreign minister, Ban Ki-moon, took over in January as U.N. Secretary-General.
A Global Carbon Tax
A supporter of "solidarity levies" to fund global causes before he became U.N. chief, Ban thinks the IPCC report requires an immediate response from the international community. A special climate change summit, where President Bush could be pressured to endorse a global carbon tax, may be held later this year.
The mass hysteria that passes for coverage of global warming infected Anne Applebaum, who used to be a moderate voice on the Washington Post's editorial page. She wrote a column endorsing a "simple" carbon tax to hike energy prices and added that "If a future American president wants to rally the nation around a patriotic and noble cause, then he or she has the perfect opportunity." Is this a plug for Al Gore?
She wrote that a carbon tax "should be applied across the board to every industry that uses fossil fuels, every home or building with a heating system, every motorist, and every public transportation system. Immediately, it would produce a wealth of innovations to save fuel, as well as new incentives to conserve. More to the point, it would produce a big chunk of money that could be used for other things," such as balancing the budget or fixing Social Security.
Did it ever occur to her that taking a "big chunk of money" out of the economy would slow economic growth and throw people out of work? That it would hurt the poor?
Her column included such gems as, "If the Chinese see that such a tax has produced unexpected benefits in America and Europe, they'll follow." But Applebaum, being a scholar and writer on the evils of communism, has to know that the communist Chinese government is pursuing its own national self-interest economically and militarily and that the regime's increasing production of greenhouse gasses is among the least of its worries.
This kind of analysis goes beyond silly. It reflects emotion, not reason, and wishful thinking, not serious argument. But that is what is driving much of the coverage of this issue.
She tips her hand when mentioning the "apocalyptic climate change rhetoric" that she accepts and believes should spur action at the national and global levels. These people really believe that we are on the verge of the apocalypse. For the acolytes of Al Gore, the apocalypse will come not because an Islamic terrorist or nation will use a nuclear bomb on the U.S. or the world, it will occur because Americans and Chinese are driving too many cars. They believe that a carbon tax, preferably at a global level, has the potential to save the world.
Media Support Carbon Tax
A new website, from an organization devoted to promoting a carbon tax, the Carbon Tax Center, points out that the New York Times and Washington Post are among the leading news organizations in the country in promoting higher energy prices through carbon taxes. "The Times has six regular editorial columnists, four of whom have supported a carbon tax," it says. At the Post, the paper has editorialized in favor of a carbon tax, and columnist Sebastian Mallaby has endorsed it. Applebaum can now be added to the list.
One of the co-founders of the Carbon Tax Center is a leader of a "bike-advocacy" organization.
We will be anxiously waiting for Applebaum, Mallaby, Washington Post editorial writers and those New York Times columnists to announce that they are personally combating global warming by riding bikes to and from work. But like Al Gore, whose "big fat carbon footprint" and frequent airplane travels have been thoroughly documented by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, we doubt that we'll see the global warming alarmists cutting back on their luxurious lifestyles.
Exposing their hypocrisy won't stop them because while this is a political movement that wants to control our lifestyles through government taxes, it is also religious in nature. Though presented to the public as a Southern Baptist, Gore wrote a book entitled Earth in the Balance, in which he wrote sympathetically about the Gaia hypothesis of an earth spirit. One chapter is entitled, "Environmentalism of the Spirit." Gore believes the Gaia concept is able to "evoke a spiritual response in many of those who hear it." In this context, he adds that "...the simple fact of the living world and our place on it evokes awe, wonder, a sense of mystery—a spiritual response—when one reflects on its deeper meaning."
The Earth Spirit
Some of the leading global warming "scientists" involved with the U.N. also believe in this approach. Gore endorsed a book by Dr. Stephen H. Schneider, a climatologist who cited the Gaia theory in his own book on global warming. Schneider asked, "...is there a Goddess of the Earth?" He is one of several scientists who contributed to the 2004 book, Scientists Debate Gaia. A description of the book declares, "Despite initial dismissal of the Gaian approach as New Age philosophy, it has today been incorporated into mainstream interdisciplinary scientific theory, as seen in its strong influence on the field of Earth System Science."
This "Gaian approach" demonstrates why the "science" behind the man-made global warming theory, if it exists, has to be considered extremely questionable. What is driving the acceptance of the theory is not science but a mystical or "New Age" view of the world. It is their religion.
LIBERAL TV PERSONALITY ATTACKS AIM
General Electric's slogan used to be that it "brings good things to life." But under GE chairman and CEO Jeffrey Immelt, that has changed. GE owns a low-rated cable network, MSNBC, which features a wise guy former sportscaster, Keith Olbermann, who has made a spectacle of himself by insulting people, acting like a clown, and consciously imitating famous journalist Edward R. Murrow.
Last October, taking on President Bush as an unprecedented threat for the umpteenth time, Olbermann mimicked one of Senator Joe McCarthy's critics by saying, "Have You No Sense of Decency, Sir?" Olbermann was upset that Bush had given a speech identifying the enemy and its apologists as defenders of a form of fascism, and had mentioned an Osama bin Laden letter in which he talked of "a media campaign to create a wedge between the American people and their government."
Olbermann was outraged, having convinced himself that Bush was impugning the patriotism of the news media. And who would entertain such a thought? It's just that the New York Times has done its best to undermine the U.S. Government's most effective counter-terrorism programs. What's more, an NBC military analyst, William Arkin, wrote a column for the Washington Post web site attacking U.S. soldiers in Iraq as mercenaries. He eventually apologized for the smear.
On February 6, Olbermann used his show to identify Accuracy in Media editor Cliff Kincaid as "The Worst Person in the World" for drawing attention to the racist comments of Democratic Senator Joseph Biden, who has been leading the opposition to the Bush Administration's troop surge in Iraq, and the media's failure to hold him up to the same standard they apply to Republicans.
Olbermann Attacks AIM
It is tempting to dismiss Keith Olbermann's labeling of various people as "The Worst Person in the World" as a harmless and infantile prank. But AIM discovered that some people watch his show because they think they are getting legitimate news and information on current events. Olbermann has authored a book, cut-and-pasted from his show, on this topic. Most of his high-profile targets are conservatives.
From the point of view of the far-left, this clownish routine might somehow serve a purpose if there was some truth behind the charge. But the attack on Kincaid was based on a deliberate deception.
Kincaid was attacked because he had co-authored a column with AIM writer Andy Selepak drawing attention to the media double-standard on Senator Joseph Biden's racist comments about Senator Barack Obama. Biden had said that "you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy." The AIM column said that "If a Republican had condescendingly referred to a black person as 'clean,' 'bright' and 'articulate,' he or she would have been branded as a racist and banished from public life."
Olbermann claimed to have uncovered a double-standard on AIM's part, commenting that, "Same day as Biden's comments came out, President Bush said about Senator Obama, 'He's an attractive guy. He's articulate.' So Mr. Kinkaid [sic], you're saying the president should be branded as a racist and banished from public life? Yikes!"
Olbermann concluded, "Cliff Kinkaid [sic] of Accuracy in Media, it's a brand name, not a description. Today's Worst Person in the World."
The Facts
Here's the background to Olbermann's false claim: On Fox News, Bush was asked by Neil Cavuto, "How do you think the troops would feel about a President Obama?" His response was, "Oh, I don't know. He hasn't gotten elected yet. He hasn't even gotten the party's nomination. He's an attractive guy. He's articulate. I've been impressed with him when I've seen him in person, but he's got a long way to go to be president."
Anybody familiar with the facts knew that Bush had not referred to Obama being the "first" mainstream black candidate to be articulate, attractive and "clean." That is how Biden described him, and that is why Biden, not Bush, had to apologize. Bush had not made the comments in a condescending manner, drawing a contrast with other blacks.
Nevertheless, several people had fallen for Olbermann's misleading attack, thinking that AIM was somehow guilty of failing to hold Bush to the same standard that it had applied to Biden.
One blogger, insisting that Olbermann had made a profound observation, said that "Olbermann pointed out that George Bush made similar comments about Obama the same day as Biden and wondered if Kincaide [sic] meant Bush should be labeled a racist." Another told me in an email that Olbermann was "promoting true accuracy in the media when he showed that Bush said the same thing as Biden."
It turns out that Olbermann was not the first to raise this phony comparison. New York Times blogger Kate Phillips had done a story about the Bush comments, saying that Bush "obviously had not been told about the controversy surrounding Senator Joseph R Biden Jr.'s take on Mr. Obama…"
This was an attempt to falsely suggest that Bush's remarks about Obama were similar to those of Biden, and that Bush, therefore, should be subject to the same kind of criticism leveled at Biden.
Biden's comments were significant not only because he singled out Obama, comparing him favorably to other black candidates, but because his comments were not the first racist remarks he had had made. Last year he made a disparaging comment about Indian-Americans, saying, "you cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent."
As AIM noted in the commentary that provoked Olbermann's ire and false attack, Biden's rhetoric suggests that he pays close attention to how members of minority groups look, smell or sound. However, it is also important to note that Biden did not really suffer politically for what he said. He apologized for the remarks but retained his position as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
By contrast, when then-Republican Senator and candidate George Allen called an Indian-American a "macaca" during a campaign rally, he was hounded by the media to the point where the controversy contributed to his eventual defeat. Republican Senator Trent Lott's joking comments that one-time segregationist Strom Thurmond would have been a good president were covered so extensively by the media that Lott was forced to step down from his post as Senate majority leader.
This was really the main point of our column—that Biden was NOT going to suffer the same fate as Allen or Lott because Biden was organizing opposition to the Bush Administration's policy in Iraq and his position had to be protected and maintained. For our media, destroying the Bush policy in Iraq takes precedence over making an issue of Biden's racism.
In attacking Kincaid for drawing attention to this double-standard, Olbermann was practicing damage control for one of the leading lights of the national Democratic Party.
Blog: Science Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling
Michael Asher (Blog) - February 26, 2008 12:55 PM
World Temperatures according to the Hadley Center for Climate Prediction. Note the steep drop over the last year.
Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming
Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.
No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.
A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.
Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. While the data doesn't itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it.
Let's hope those factors stop fast. Cold is more damaging than heat. The mean temperature of the planet is about 54 degrees. Humans -- and most of the crops and animals we depend on -- prefer a temperature closer to 70.
Historically, the warm periods such as the Medieval Climate Optimum were beneficial for civilization. Corresponding cooling events such as the Little Ice Age, though, were uniformly bad news.
I'll see your right wing hack and stupid jokes and raise you the National Academy of Sciences' 2008 Edition of "Understanding and Responding to Climate Change."
At a time when responding to climate change is one of the nation's most urgent and complex endeavors, reports from the National Academies provide analysis and direction for policymakers and stakeholders. This booklet highlights recommendations from those reports in an easy-to-read format. Now in its third edition, the booklet includes an expanded section on impacts and updated figures and graphics.
http://dels.nas.edu/basc/climate-cha...limate_cov.jpg
Download Booklet PDF (3.3 MB)
Here is a really simple concept for those who think it is real science that is claiming GW is real!
Reports by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that the earth is experiencing unprecedented global warming are flawed and cannot be supported, investigators now report.
In a study reported in the Washington Times, a panel of statisticians, chaired by Edward J. Wegman of George Mason University, found significant problems with the methods of analysis used by the researchers and with the IPCC's peer review process.
According to the Times, "IPCC reports have predicted average world temperatures will increase dramatically, leading to the spread of tropical diseases, severe drought, the rapid melting of the world's glaciers and ice caps, and rising sea levels." The Times notes, however that "several assessments of the IPCC's work have shown the techniques and methods used to derive its climate predictions are fundamentally flawed." :eek:
Al Gore's Global Warming Campaign Gains Another Detractor
Dennis Avery, Best-selling Author, Disagrees with Gore's Global Warming Conclusions
By Jason Bauer, published Aug 08, 2007
Published Content: 50 Total Views: 19,320
The Heartland Institute on Monday announced that Dennis Avery is the next prominent figure to challenge the facts Al Gore is promoting related to global warming. Avery is the co-author of a book titled "Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years." In this book, he reached conclusions that are opposite to those Al Gore reaches concerning the consequences of global warming.
Al Gore and Dennis Avery both have books that are featured as New York Times best-sellers. The authors, however, disagree about the causes and consequences of global warming. Al Gore has gained many supporters over the last several years as he has promoted behavioral change to prevent a global disaster that he argues is sure to come. Avery and other Gore detractors disagree. Many prominent figures disagree with Gore, including Lord Christopher Monckton (former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher advisor), Bjorn Lomborg (Danish economist), author Michael Crichton, Prof. S. Fred Singer (former director of the U.S. National Weather Service), Tim Ball, Ph.D. (historical climatologist), Prof. Ian Clark (University of Ottawa), and Prof. Richard Lindzen (MIT).
These scientists, economists, and other researchers have argued that Gore's claims are faulty. In Avery's book, he reports on the analysis of physical evidence from past warming/cooling cycles and experimental evidence demonstrating variations in solar activity that affects our planet's varying temperatures.
Avery states, "My book says our warming is natural, unstoppable-and not very dangerous anyway." He further says concerning his book and Gore's book, "These books represent the two leading explanations for the Earth's recent temperature changes-and they conflict. If global warming truly is the most important public policy issue of our day, then it is high time the public got to hear the arguments from both sides matched up against each other."
So who is Dennis Avrey and why should anyone listen to him?
Dennis Avery is the "Director" of the Center for Global Food Issues at the Hudson Institute (a radical right-wing front group), where he edits Global Food Quarterly. Avery crusades against organic agriculture claiming that modern industrial agriculture and biotechnology will save the world from starvation and disaster. He is the originator of a misleading claim that organic foods are more dangerous than foods sprayed with chemical pesticides. Avery also disputes the scientific consensus on global warming. He is the author of "Saving the Planet With Pesticides and Plastic" and similar right-wing tracts
Basically Dennis Avery is well know as an idiot and no mainline scientists take him or his quackery seriously. He is another one of those strawmen that the right wing creates and pretends is an authority. The Hudson Institute is a menagerie, disguised as an academic institution that chock full of shills just like him.
Global Warming: An Examination of the Sun's Layers
An Overview of the Sun's Layers and the Implication on the Earth
By Chrissy & Company, published Nov 30, 2006
Published Content: 3,087 Total Views: 1,358,027
Font
Font
With global warming commonly studied in child science classrooms, many children are struggling to understand the dynamics of the sun and the mechanism by which heat is released into the atmosphere. The following is a general overview for parents in the description of the process by which the sun provides light and heat to the Earth.
Within the sun lies a gaseous core center, estimated to be approximately 27 million degrees Farenheit, this core provides all heat and light to the solar system. Through the development of gamma rays, at the core of the sun, heat and light is transmitted from this extremely hot core to the outer layer of the sun. Let's examine the travel of the gamma rays from the core to the sun's outer layer.
From the core, the next sun layer is commonly referred to as the envelope, or solar envelope. Although significantly cooler than the core, the solar envelope primary function is to maintain pressure against the core so as to stimulate the continual production of gamma rays, thereby producing heat and light.
From the solar envelope, we move to the next outer layer which is a thin low pressure gas layer known as the photosphere. It is from this layer that the light we receive, on Earth, is emitted. From the photosphere,the next layer we move to isthe chromosphere and then outer layer which is known as the corona. Although heat is emitted from the sun, at varying temperatures, the corona emits temperatures at one million degrees Farenheit.
For parents, understanding the essential elements of the solar system is crucially important to providing support and guidance to young children working to understand the solar system. Following these basic facts of the sun's layers, will provide parents with a more educated basis on which to build the knowledge of the solar system. For more information regarding solar systems and the Earth, visit www.nasa.gov.
Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the indicted former Chief of Staff of Vice President Dick Cheney, found himself a new home at the Hudson Institute. But at the same time Michael Fumento, a longtime Hudson Institute "Senior Fellow", became the latest right wing 'scholar' outed for being payed by corporations for writing columns without disclosing that fact.
BusinessWeek Online's revealed that Fumento had been fired by SHNS for not disclosing he had taken payments in 1999 from agribusiness giant Monsanto. SHNS Editor and General Manager Peter Copeland said that Fumento "did not tell SHNS editors, and therefore we did not tell our readers, that in 1999 Hudson received a $60,000 grant from Monsanto" Copeland added: "Our policy is that he should have disclosed that information. We apologize to our readers. ... The Jan. 5 column by Michael Fumento about new biotechnology products from Monsanto should have included more information. We believe the column should have disclosed a $60,000 grant from Monsanto that Fumento received in 1999 for a book about biotechnology. Fumento's column will no longer be distributed by Scripps Howard News Service, but is available from Michael Fumento..."
When BusinessWeek Online's Eamon Javers asked Fumento about the payments, Fumento described himself as "extremely pro-biotech." According to Javers, Fumento "said that he solicited several agribusiness companies to finance his book, which was published by Encounter Books (note: Encounter is essentially a project of the Bradley Foundation, another right-wing front). 'I went after everybody, I've got to be honest,' Fumento says of his fund-raising effort. 'I told them that if I tell the truth in this book, the biotech industry is going to look really good, and you should contribute.'" Fumento also allowed that the grant from Monsanto went from the company to the Hudson Institute and was aimed at supporting his work. While part of it went to the Institute's overhead, "most of it" was earmarked for his salary.
Between 1987 and 2003 the Hudson Institute received nearly $15 million from a several right wing foundations which includes the Carthage Foundation, Sarah Scaife Foundation, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, and the John M. Olin Foundation.
The Hudson Institute is the same special interest advocacy group that was hired by the tobacco lobby decades ago to write and publish articles that would create confusion over the negative health care effects of cigarette smoking. Now, the Hudson Institute employs the same strategy of public misinformation to discredit affordable generic medicines in order to increase the sale of patented drugs to the benefit the US pharmaceutical industry. Recent tobacco-related litigation has uncovered key insider documents detailing the interaction and close relationship between the tobacco industry and US policy research/advocacy organizations. As early as 1971, the Philip Morris Corporation hired the Hudson Institute to create and promote "junk science" in an attempt to "debunk" the negative health effects of tobacco. One recently uncovered hand written document discussed strategies for fending off critics, including using "politicized science" designed to "create doubt in the eyes of the public -- in science; in politics; in risks," of cigarette smoking. A Hudson Institute report was one of two reports that were recommended for commissioning in the tobacco industry's secret document to promote it junk science. For decades, joint projects between Philip Morris and the Hudson Institute were often made-to-order. Characterized as "scientific lobbying", the Hudson Institutes's strategic model of influencing public policy is intended to "communicate with scientists," to "work the 'walls' of scientific meetings," and to "influence protocols of new research." The special interest group is even known to have used this same strategy on behalf of the agri-chemical lobby (another major funder of the Institute) to discredit the safety of organic food... Since 2000, the Hudson Institutes' Annual Reports show major funding from pharmaceutical corporations including Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and the powerful lobby group, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhARMA). Other large financial supporters ... have included major oil and agro-chemical corporations and ultra-right-wing family foundations. The Hudson Institute's program areas and policy initiatives overlap with its corporate donors' financial interests.
According to IRS forms, the Institute's Senior Fellows are paid between $100,000 - $200,000 for their "pseudo scientific" research and advocacy.
The communists and left wing radicals have a new home and it is GREEN! It everything to them including a religion witch ignores facts, science, and the truth for a position putting MAN last! How many children must die on their alter to a false god? The press is in bed with them because they're left wing as well! When will we learn the trouble and the lies that these people will tell to take away what you have?
Will Media Report Global Warming 'Carbon Credit' Fraud?
Photo of Noel Sheppard.
By Noel Sheppard | April 25, 2007 - 22:54 ET
It’s conceivable that years from now, America’s media will be reporting one of the biggest frauds in history: the idea that a wealthy person, for instance, soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore, can purchase “carbon credits” to offset his lavish lifestyle making him quote “carbon neutral.”
Given the media’s love affair with the former vice president as well as advancing man-made global warming hysteria, few American press members have dared to expose this hoax for what it is.
However, on Wednesday, an impeccably reputable publication, the Financial Times, published an article that is a deliciously inconvenient truth for folks like Gore, Laurie David, Sheryl Crow, and all the rest of the alarmists that are actively involved in what years from now will be considered one of the biggest scams ever: Companies and individuals rushing to go green have been spending millions on "carbon credit" projects that yield few if any environmental benefits.
A Financial Times investigation has uncovered widespread failings in the new markets for greenhouse gases, suggesting some organisations are paying for emissions reductions that do not take place.
Others are meanwhile making big profits from carbon trading for very small expenditure and in some cases for clean-ups that they would have made anyway.
Yikes. Think Charlie, Brian, or Katie might report this anytime soon?
Regardless of the answer, FT outlined its findings:
■ Widespread instances of people and organisations buying worthless credits that do not yield any reductions in carbon emissions.
■ Industrial companies profiting from doing very little – or from gaining carbon credits on the basis of efficiency gains from which they have already benefited substantially.
■ Brokers providing services of questionable or no value.
■ A shortage of verification, making it difficult for buyers to assess the true value of carbon credits.
■ Companies and individuals being charged over the odds for the private purchase of European Union carbon permits that have plummeted in value because they do not result in emissions cuts.
Amazing. Now, imagine for a moment that these companies were in either the oil, electricity, or healthcare industry committing such a fraud. Do you think this would be headline news?
If your answer is "Yes," why do you think this will be totally ignored?
I know; it's a rhetorical question.
—Noel Sheppard is an economist, business owner, and Associate Editor of NewsBusters.