quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Have you noticed that every "solution" gives governments more control, and most hurt the west more than other countries.

You might have a point about the first, but not the second. At the world climate change conferences it's the developing world countries that argue most that they're the ones who will suffer. This is in part because they won't be allowed to go through the heavily-polluting industrialisation process that all the wealthy, western countries have been through. The world can't afford all these newly industrialising countries to do the sort of environmental damage that was done by e.g. Britain in the 19th century.

Peon...with affection. The reason the third world countries make that argument at every conference is an attempt to get green cash flowing to them. Green is now sociiast run. Here's the cofounder of Green Peace say just that to the US Congress...by the way, an environmental Phd holding founder of Green Peace:

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=415b9cde-e664-4628-8fb5-ae3951197d03

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

and here is something pretty compelling:


Why Would These Scientists Lie?


October 14, 2013 Joseph Bast

The Heartland Institute Replies to Trenberth and Oppenheimer

On September 18, two scientists sent emails to Media Matters for America denouncing a new report from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). Why would two scientists publicly attack a team of nearly 50 of their peers for creating a peer-reviewed report more than 1,000 pages in length and citing nearly 4,000 peer-reviewed articles? Why would they choose to send their criticism to a Web site notorious for being the source of sound-bites for the Democratic Party and groups on the far left?

The two scientists, Kevin Trenberth with the National Center for Atmospheric Research and Michael Oppenheimer of Princeton University, have long histories of being extremists in the debate over climate change. They speak as advocates for a cause and not as scientists. So we ask journalists and the interested public to weigh their intemperate opinions against the following endorsements of NIPCC from more credible climate scientists. Who is more likely to be right? We think the answer is obvious, but we would like to hear from you.

The NIPCC report, titled Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science, can be downloaded for free here (PDF).) A free 20-page summary for policy makers (PDF) that is faithful to the full report is also available at this site.


http://heartland.org/press-releases/2013/10/14/why-would-these-scientists-lie-heartland-institute-replies-trenberth-and-o

http://heartland.org/media-library/pdfs/CCR-II/CCR-II-Full.pdf

You do know that the Heartland institute is infamous for being in the pockets of the oil industry, correct?

in this instance it doesn't matter if they are in rush Limbaugh's back pocket---more or less all they are doing here is providing the reader with information concerning a study produced by 50 scientists, referencing 4000 articles and wondering why two others would criticize it to media matters. and the main point being---its not the heartland institute's work

I disagree, it does matter. It gives these dissenting opinions legitimacy. Do you give legitimacy to the man who claims evolution isn't real? What about if they say gravity wasn't real? Or heliocentrism? The heartland institute has an agenda, and they're willing to legitimize largely incorrect viewpoints and skeptics simply to peddle said agenda. They want to make it seem as though there is a debate, when in fact the vast majority of the research completed so far has settled the debate rather soundly. What remains are the butt hurt sore losers who want to remain relevant and keep the money flowing from big oil into their back pockets.

Actually, I think you'd also better check your facts. In physics, there is a theory competing with string theory that has a lot of problems with gravity. Do you consider evolution as explaining the existence of life? I don't think Darwin made that statement. There's a lot more money flowing from the government to green constiuancy than oil money. Basically, you're stating leftist myth.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


You seem to suggest that there is no reason why they would lie, and therefore they are not.

Lord Lawson calls for public inquiry into UEA global warming data 'manipulation'
One of the emails under scrutiny, written by Phil Jones, the centre's director, in 1999, reads: "I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

Climate Emails Stoke Debate
In another, Phil Jones, the director of the East Anglia climate center, suggested to climate scientist Michael Mann of Penn State University that skeptics' research was unwelcome: We "will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

And here's one that's guaranteed to build your confidence...

Facts won't beat the climate-deniers... We have enough facts now and none of them are good... What we need now is to become comfortable with the idea that the ends will justify the means. ~Rod Lamberts, Deputy Director, Australian National Centre for Public Awareness of Science at Australian National University

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies

quote:

ORIGINAL: usememistress775

Everyone is getting paid for their research. The last scientist who only cared about discovering things for the sake of discovery and not selling his/her ideas for money died penniless after living on catfood for years. Without that mentality all of the research is questionable.

The original research into global warming skipped over the medieval warm period to make the present day temperature spike more startling. The reason we feel the effects of that temperature spike so much more is because we live with all the modern conveniences of air conditioning and heat in the winter. Our bodies have no time to acclimate to the heat outside during the summer so it feels more intense than it did when we spent more time outside than in. The difference between 100 and 99 is not that great, but when we spend 90+% of the time in 70 we cannot bear the regular temperature.

Again, then, why would govs. all over the world be paying scientists to lie about climate change?

Have you noticed that every "solution" gives governments more control, and most hurt the west more than other countries.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

Love how these moronic arguments keep coming back from the dead after they've had their brains blown out. If you want answers to your idiotic arguments, here's a really good place which explains it with links to peer reviewed scientific articles:

http://www.skepticalscience.com

I hate to question your intellectual ability, but I offered no "arguments," only quotes.

And your link doesn't link to anything that "explains" them.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

and here is something pretty compelling:


Why Would These Scientists Lie?


October 14, 2013 Joseph Bast

The Heartland Institute Replies to Trenberth and Oppenheimer

On September 18, two scientists sent emails to Media Matters for America denouncing a new report from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). Why would two scientists publicly attack a team of nearly 50 of their peers for creating a peer-reviewed .


http://heartland.org/press-releases/2013/10/14/why-would-these-scientists-lie-heartland-institute-replies-trenberth-and-o

http://heartland.org/media-library/pdfs/CCR-II/CCR-II-Full.pdf

You do know that the Heartland institute is infamous for being in the pockets of the oil industry, correct?

in this instance it doesn't matter if they are in rush Limbaugh's back pocket---more or less all they are doing here is providing the reader with information concerning a study produced by 50 scientists, referencing 4000 articles and wondering why two others would criticize it to media matters. and the main point being---its not the heartland institute's work

Actually, I think you'd also better check your facts. In physics, there is a theory competing with string theory that has a lot of problems with gravity. Do you consider evolution as explaining the existence of life? I don't think Darwin made that statement. There's a lot more money flowing from the government to green constiuancy than oil money. Basically, you're stating leftist myth.

...So if gravity doesnt exist, why dont you just go and float away?

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA


Ah! The fine tuned mind. Then you understand that physics can't explain anything is three dimension and that's all you are capable of thinking in. So, you make the universe small to fit your mind and everything is certain. Got ya.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Have you noticed that every "solution" gives governments more control, and most hurt the west more than other countries.

You might have a point about the first, but not the second. At the world climate change conferences it's the developing world countries that argue most that they're the ones who will suffer. This is in part because they won't be allowed to go through the heavily-polluting industrialisation process that all the wealthy, western countries have been through. The world can't afford all these newly industrialising countries to do the sort of environmental damage that was done by e.g. Britain in the 19th century.

Peon...with affection. The reason the third world countries make that argument at every conference is an attempt to get green cash flowing to them. Green is now sociiast run. Here's the cofounder of Green Peace say just that to the US Congress...by the way, an environmental Phd holding founder of Green Peace:

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=415b9cde-e664-4628-8fb5-ae3951197d03

It's not a great surprise that people in the newly-industrialising world have got greedy, Hunter. People are always like that. But it still silences western delegates when they say, 'You had your chance to be greedy, so why shouldn't we?'

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA


Ah! The fine tuned mind. Then you understand that physics can't explain anything is three dimension and that's all you are capable of thinking in. So, you make the universe small to fit your mind and everything is certain. Got ya.

Lol, is this the ever receding god argument all wrapped up in a bow? Humans understand gravity on a three dimensional level, yes. But is there more to gravity than what we perceive? Yes, of course. I know you're trying to appear intelligent by suggesting we dont understand something as mundane as gravity, and by extension, make assumptions that we dont understand things about climate change. But you're completely missing the point. The point I was making was if some moron said gravity didn't exist, we wouldn't give them any shred of legitimacy. Humans experience gravity on a daily basis: the phenomenon of being attracted to the ground. Just as we experience climate change over long stretches of time across the planet.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA


Ah! The fine tuned mind. Then you understand that physics can't explain anything is three dimension and that's all you are capable of thinking in. So, you make the universe small to fit your mind and everything is certain. Got ya.

Lol, is this the ever receding god argument all wrapped up in a bow? Humans understand gravity on a three dimensional level, yes. But is there more to gravity than what we perceive? Yes, of course. I know you're trying to appear intelligent by suggesting we dont understand something as mundane as gravity, and by extension, make assumptions that we dont understand things about climate change. But you're completely missing the point. The point I was making was if some moron said gravity didn't exist, we wouldn't give them any shred of legitimacy. Humans experience gravity on a daily basis: the phenomenon of being attracted to the ground. Just as we experience climate change over long stretches of time across the planet.

First off, just so you know, I've worked as an environmental engineer for over thirty years. I actually have Phd level environmental people how work for me. I can tell from your statement that you're more inculcated rather than educated. I think the point being missed is by you, but I've already stated that so I won't belabor it. So do this for me. Without using Google define for me "albedo"

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

I hardly need to prove myself...

Of course not. But you do need to support your claims, if you want to avoid looking like a missionary priest.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA


Ah! The fine tuned mind. Then you understand that physics can't explain anything is three dimension and that's all you are capable of thinking in. So, you make the universe small to fit your mind and everything is certain. Got ya.

Lol, is this the ever receding god argument all wrapped up in a bow? Humans understand gravity on a three dimensional level, yes. But is there more to gravity than what we perceive? Yes, of course. I know you're trying to appear intelligent by suggesting we dont understand something as mundane as gravity, and by extension, make assumptions that we dont understand things about climate change. But you're completely missing the point. The point I was making was if some moron said gravity didn't exist, we wouldn't give them any shred of legitimacy. Humans experience gravity on a daily basis: the phenomenon of being attracted to the ground. Just as we experience climate change over long stretches of time across the planet.

First off, just so you know, I've worked as an environmental engineer for over thirty years. I actually have Phd level environmental people how work for me. I can tell from your statement that you're more inculcated rather than educated. I think the point being missed is by you, but I've already stated that so I won't belabor it. So do this for me. Without using Google define for me "albedo"

Lol, I hardly need to prove myself to you, let alone by defining a a property of light reflecting off surfaces.