Global Warming?

FreeEnterprise wrote: in case you were wondering, peter is currently out looking to find a way to discredit this blogger as his findings shed light on this discussion...   http://climaterealist.blogspot.com/2008/09/ipcc-2500-scientists-myth.html   If he can't find anything, he will go after me again, or just call everyone who disagrees with him, ignorant, uneducated and dumb...

Peter Parker wrote:    Not one original thought, not one new piece of data, not one piece of useful anything.  My post was a total piece of crap.

Personally, I love global warming.  I hate snow, and I live in the mountains, global warming needs to speed it's ass up.  I start off every day the same way;  I wake up in the morning, grab two cans of hairspray, and spray them maliciously into the Ozone layer. 

Sometimes I leave my car running all day out in the drive way too.


Edited by usafpilot07 - 22 July 2009 at 12:00pm

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/26/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5117890.shtml

 

 

So the "era" of transparency, actually means, "we look at facts that we like". Then ignore all others, while stifling them...

 

I don't bother with "debating" with you peter, as your debates are always the same. I just put out the facts that prove your opinion is so jaded that it is pretty much a religion for you. You have to believe, and anyone who speaks out against it, you claim must be a bumpkin with no intelligence. (really, find a new argument, that one is VERY stale).

 

Peter Parker wrote: but I find the evidence overwhelmingly conclusive.  When scientists shift their debate, I pay attention.  Scientists love nothing more than proving their colleagues wrong - when they stop trying it means that they can't.

 

Or it means they are being silenced... As my article that I posted clearly points out. As well as my other links that I posted, also pointing out the "blacklisting" of anyone who speaks out against the "global warming religion/ideology".

 

 

I also find funny your attacks on other groups, because you don’t like them…

 

Peter Parker wrote:   The real problem with CEI is the crap they spout. But the main reason you should dismiss CEI, of course, is because they spout lies.

 

Peter Parker wrote: oldsoldier wrote: Funding of any agenda based research from either side of the issue has credibility issues. Absolutely true, and an extra skeptical read should always be applied when the conclusions align with funders' interests. But not all interest-funded research is bad - most of it is good.  Scientists as a rule are actually looking for the truth - that's why they became research scientists. More importantly, we cannot simply lump all claims of science together as "research."  The IPCC reports are scientific research projects.  What the CEI puts out is NOT science of any kind, but pure propaganda. I will listen to scientists with a contrary view - in fact, I seek them out - regardless of their funding source.  But propaganda is just that.  It is not new knowledge, or even knowledge at all, but intentional spin. So yes, consider the source of funding, but most of all consider the nature of the information being presented.

 

Nice statements, too bad you don’t follow them… If you truly were interested in looking at “science” then you would have a problem with gore spouting off about the 2,500 “scientists” that signed off on his “findings”…

 

When they all don’t actually agree…

 

http://www.sltrib.com/business/ci_12854537

 

I copy pasted the parts of the article that were interesting.

 

Tripp, a member of the IPCC since 2004, is listed as one of 450 IPCC "lead authors"

"It shows what the IPCC touts as a consensus is less than a consensus. Even within that group not everyone is in total agreement,"

He said there is so much of a natural variability in weather it makes it difficult to come to a scientifically valid conclusion that global warming is man made. "It well may be, but we're not scientifically there yet."

He also criticized modeling schemes to evaluate global warming, but stopped short of commenting on climate modeling used by the IPCC, saying "I don't have the expertise."

But meteorologist Thomas Reichler did just that. He was involved in a University of Utah study that the IPCC models "are quite accurate and can be valuable tools for those seeking solutions on reversing global warming trends."

Neal Briggs, who farms nearly 300 acres in Syracuse, said he's comfortable that the Farm Bureau presents only one side of the climate debate because "the science behind it isn't sound. From what I've researched, we are not a large contributor to global warming."

 

 

Facts are, IPCC is representing government funded sciences, and based on your so called “skepticism” of following the money… Seems like you would be less likely to follow their “biased” science that is now wanting to tax us at a higher rate to pay for supposed “harm” that we caused… Which hasn’t been proven…

 

Ok, that's it.  I am not responding to any more FE posts that consist entirely of links.

FreeEnterprise wrote: [false propaganda]

Darur wrote: Friggin accidental refresh . . .

However, I do think that the general public is sliding towards that mindset, and worse I feel they are also taking the view Gore presented to heart: The sky is falling. Historically, panicking people about a threat, even a confirmed one, does nothing to help. Sadly, I think its a little too late to fix that perception. I didn't mean to insinuate that the science is faulty, its not. We definitely know a great deal more about climate then we did 50 years ago, or even 5 years ago. Historically, however, whenever we think we know a lot about climate, we discover we know very little. I am saying that much much more research needs to be done on the impact of our involvement, and, more importantly, how our entire ecosystem affects climate. Until we understand how the environment works, we can't begin trying to affect climate change. Even cutting back CO2 emissions could have unforeseen results. Some scientists and historians believe that the Little Ice Age in Europe was due to the lack of Greenhouse gases after the plague (other explanations include sunspots and regional climate patterns, a prime example of how little we understand). We need to invest in understanding how each element in an ecosystem affects each other element, how each ecosystem affects another in each Biome, how each Biome affects each other in the Biosphere, and how the Biosphere and Atmosphere and Sun affect climate. We have a huge amount we have yet to learn, and much much more money needs to go into research in these areas.

Clean energy works.

Not to mention the power requirements of actually building wind turbines, the damage they do to the fauna and the HAZMAT left over from broken solar pannels.

KBK

Peter Parker wrote: And WTH is a "stance?"

Written and published by a silent (read, no byline) and collective (using the royal "we,") voice, meant to represent not just the opinions of one writer (If that were so, it would be a column written by a columnist) but rather stating the opinion of the entire staff of the newspaper.

In short, it is declaring the newspaper's stance on something — as an entity.

Even more short = The things on the opinion page with no byline. Where political endorsements and such go.



Edited by agentwhale007 - 22 July 2009 at 1:03am

I really have only skimmed this thread, so what I am saying may already have been said.

To comment on Whale's post, I agree for the most part. I don't like how muddled in politics the issue has become, and I'm just as guilty as most people for being swayed by that.

The trouble is, climate change was introduced to the general public NOT by scientists, but by political groups.  Al Gore, Greenpeace and everyone else who jumped on the issue instantly made it a political issue.  AIT almost directly said the world is screwed by climate change because Gore lost the election.  Republicans didn't help the issue at all by immediately going on the defensive and questioning the science for political, rather then scientific reasons.  What should  have been a presentation of a potential threat to the current climate snowballed into one side yelling the Conservatives are going to burn down the world for money and the Liberals are lying.

The fact of the matter is the science is still not fully understood.  A lot more research needs to be done and more money should be going in climate change research without this political backdrop.  Fortunetely, that seems to be coming along.  Theres renewed interest in research from industry and with proper funding hopefully we can understand the issue better. Frankly I think Michael Chriction made a few good points in "State of Fear" about how we really need to do more research and understand the enviornment and the issue better before policy is made.

Science should never be made political, and it looks like we are finally starting to get out of the rut politics created.