So it seem that not "All scientist concur on Global Warming" It is a hoax and it is even getting out at NOAA! Thanks to real scientists! :eek:
Printable View
So it seem that not "All scientist concur on Global Warming" It is a hoax and it is even getting out at NOAA! Thanks to real scientists! :eek:
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papa Bear
A professor of marketing at the Wharton Business School at the University of Pennsylvania, according to the online journal Spiked, Armstrong is an internationally known expert on forecasting methods. In his research on forecasting, he has found that global warming forecasts like those cited by Al Gore and developed by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) frequently violate the principles of forecasting. In fact, as Spiked reports, Armstrong and research partner Kesten Green of Australia's Monash University found that one frequently cited IPCC report "violated 72 of the principles of forecasting."
With climate change forecasts based on such shoddy work, why not bet that global warming is a hoax? That's just what Armstrong has done. According to Spiked, Armstrong has "faxed and posted (to be on the safe side) his ‘Global Warming Challenge’ to Gore. He challenged the former US vice-president to a 10-year bet in which both parties will put forward $10,000. Gore would put his money on his forecasts that temperature will rise dangerously in the coming decade, while Armstrong will put his money on what is referred to as the ‘naïve model’: that is, that temperatures will probably stay the same in the coming years.‘"
It's a safe bet that a decade from now, Armstrong's $10,000 will still be safe and snug in his bank account.
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 HuxleyQuote:
Originally Posted by Papa Bear
I suggest that it the OP refuses to reply to my reasonable request, this thread should be closed.
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.
The High Cost of the Global Warming Scam
Tuesday, November 13, 2007 1:30 PM
“It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global warming; it is a scam. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in allusion (sic) of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environment whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the “research” to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon, they claimed to be a consensus.”
- John Coleman, meteorologist and founder of The Weather Channel.
Coleman goes on to describe what has taken place regarding what he calls the global warming scam.
“Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then team up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalists, [and] journalists to create this wild 'scientific' scenario of the civilization-threatening environmental consequences from global warming unless we adhere to this radical agenda," says Coleman.
"Now, their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and becomes a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic political Party, the governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmentally conscientious citizens.
"Only one [ABC] reporter has been allowed to counter the global warming frenzy with one 15 minute documentary segment,” he says.
Coleman is the latest expert to declare that global warming is a hoax, yet its advocates in Congress and among Democratic candidates for their party's presidential nomination are promising to saddle the American people with laws designed to stop something that is not happening: laws that will have many of us in the poor house.
According to The Washington Post, the Democrats' current global warming proposals "will require a wholesale transformation of the nation's economy and society."
The Post reported that Democrat presidential candidates' climate proposals would "cost billions of dollars," and detailed exactly what the American people will face when it comes to cap-and-trade proposals. Others hiked the price tag into the trillions of dollars.
The Post went on to point out that energy expert Tracy Terry's analysis of a recent Massachusetts Institute of Technology study showed that "under the scenario of an 80-percent reduction in emissions from 1990 levels, by 2015 Americans could be paying 30 percent more for natural gas in their homes and even more for electricity.
"At the same time, the cost of coal could quadruple and crude oil prices could rise by an additional $24 a barrel."
The Wall Street Journal recently warned that: "These new climate proposals come at a time when a "winter-heating crisis looms. As fuel prices surge to new records, lawmakers are trying to limit a potential crisis that could leave many of the Northeast's poor without adequate heating this winter."
According to The (Colorado Springs, Colo.) Gazette, the choices facing the government involve imposing: "costly, probably ineffective government dictates, or concede costs are too great and benefits too little to bother.
"Some are rethinking rash acts. An article in the British environmental journal Nature last month said it's time to dump the Kyoto Protocol because it's the wrong approach and has ‘failed' to cut greenhouse gases. The London School of Economics and Oxford authors also said carbon taxes and so-called cap-and-trade systems won't achieve reductions, either," the paper editorialized.
The Gazette continued: "Meaningful CO2 reductions would negatively affect a large part of the economy, Alan Greenspan writes in his new book, The Age of Turbulence. Any meaningful reduction cap means a ‘large number of companies will experience cost increases that make them less competitive. Jobs will be lost, and real incomes of workers constrained.'"
The paper concluded that, "the Congressional Budget Office says consumers would pay most costs. Of course they would; consumers pay for everything one way or another.
"The Free Enterprise Education Institute think tank forecasts an economic contraction that will cost each U.S. Family $10,800 by 2020. ‘Cap-and-trade systems or carbon taxes are likely to be popular only until real people lose real jobs as their consequence,' Greenspan writes."
According to a spokesman for Sen James Inhofe, R-Okla., other news outlets have detailed how the poor face the most harmful impacts from rising energy costs. A 2006 survey of Colorado homeless families with children found that high energy bills were cited as one of the two main reasons they became homeless.
"The Congressional Budget Office recently looked at the approach taken by most global warming proposals in Congress - known as cap and trade - that would place a cap on carbon emissions, allocate how much everyone could emit, and then let them trade those emissions," Sen. Inhofe writes. "Let me quote from the CBO report:
" 'Regardless of how the allowances were distributed, most of the cost of meeting a cap on CO2 emissions would be borne by consumers, who would face persistently higher prices for products such as electricity and gasoline. Those price increases would be regressive in that poorer households would bear a larger burden relative to their income than wealthier households would.'
"Think about that. Even relatively modest bills would put enormous burdens on the poor," says Inhofe.
"The poor already face energy costs much higher as a percentage of their income than wealthier Americans," Sen. Inhofe continues. "While most Americans spend about 4 percent of their monthly budget on heating their homes or other energy needs, the poorest fifth of Americans spend 19 percent of their budget on energy. Why would we adopt policies which disproportionately force the poor and working class to shoulder the heaviest burdens through even higher energy costs?"
Says astronomer Dr. Ian Wilson after reviewing a new study: “Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth’s Climate System,” authored by Brookhaven National Lab scientist Stephen Schwartz: “Anthropogenic [man-made] global warming bites the dust.” Another scientist said the study overturned “in one fell swoop” the climate fears promoted by the United Nations and former Vice President Al Gore.
“Effectively, this [new study] means that the global economy will spend trillions of dollars trying to avoid a warming of [about] 1 kelvin by 2100 A.D.” Dr. Wilson wrote in a note to the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee in August.
Wilson, a former operations astronomer at the Hubble Space Telescope Institute in Baltimore , was referring to the trillions of dollars that would be spent under such international global warming treaties like the Kyoto Protocol.
If the global warming fanatics have their way, you'll be paying a lot to finance a hoax, a scam, and a covert scheme to impose socialism on the U.S. and the rest of the world.
Phil Brennan is a veteran journalist and World War II Marine who writes for Newsmax.com. He is editor and publisher of Wednesday on the Web (http://www.pvbr.com) and was Washington columnist for National Review magazine in the 1960s.
He also served as a staff aide for the House Republican Policy Committee and helped handle the Washington public relations operation for the Alaska Statehood Committee which won statehood for Alaska.
He is also a trustee of the Lincoln Heritage Institute and a member of the Association For Intelligence Officers.
He can be reached at pvb@pvbr.com.
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)
While a politician might be faulted for pushing a particular agenda that serves his own purposes, who can fault the impartial scientist who warns us of an imminent global-warming Armageddon? After all, the practice of science is an unbiased search for the truth, right? The scientists have spoken on global warming. There is no more debate. But let me play devil’s advocate. Just how good is the science underpinning the theory of man-made global warming? My answer might surprise you: it is 10 miles wide, but only 2 inches deep.
Contrary to what you have been led to believe, there is no solid published evidence that has ruled out a natural cause for most of our recent warmth – not one peer-reviewed paper. The reason: our measurements of global weather on decadal time scales are insufficient to reject such a possibility. For instance, the last 30 years of the strongest warming could have been caused by a very slight change in cloudiness. What might have caused such a change? Well, one possibility is the sudden shift to more frequent El Niño events (and fewer La Niña events) since the 1970s. That shift also coincided with a change in another climate index, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.