Climate Crisis Fraud -written by a man who shares the Nobel Prize with Al Gore

ccodiane · Dec 18, 2007

Not rude, just adamantly wrong, not willing to listen to any side but his own, and all around foolish in his assumptions/arguments. When people tell me I'm, what was it, full of hate and a bigot, or some other foolishness, and begin misrepresenting my humorous remarks to try and support that assertion then they have peaked my interest in a contest/fight. I believe the topic to be so unsettled, so full of mis-truths, that to firmly take a stance in support of man made-up global warming is just asking to be knocked down. How could I not but oblige? I give the fool this, he keeps getting up. Want to go another round towthelie? Towthelieiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii, come out and playyyyyyeeeeaaaaaaaaaa!!!

towlie · Dec 18, 2007

Closet. Thanks Bro. Sorry I just dont have time for this shit but here we go

First off. Thanks for the great argument. Youve made some good points.

CC: 1) There are plenty of professional scientists and scientifically minded people in the world who see plainly that global warming is a political invention, nothing more.

Point taken. I would hope you would also admit there are plenty of professional scientists and scientifically minded people in the world who see plainly that the 911 terrorist attacks never occurred the towers fell due to detonated explosions (excuse me! Did you see the planes hit them fuckers???) No those were PhotoShoped in... Yep. Those "professional scientists and scientifically minded people."

Shall we go into UFOs, Evolution, Religious Cults, etc. or do you get my point?

CC: What they polititions have to gain, one can only speculate.

Interesting. Ive heard what??? Three conspiracy theories this thread alone Dont get me wrong my friend. All could be valid, but the GW-Antagonists never mention the 400-lb gorilla named Big Oil that made how many tens of billions last quarter?

CC: But the fact is, the SCIENCE behind MAN'S ROLE in global warming is complete rubish.

That may be well and true. Im sure youre aware I believe different, but Ill let you have everything youre claiming. There are intelligent people that believe the GW-man link a myth Agreed. Lets also agree that in the few days weve been posting not a single person pushing this theory can find a single god damn scientific paper substantiating their claim?

I contacted you for a reason. You have a unique opportunity my friend. I do believe the credentials you have stated warrant the GW debate. However, and I have met a good many intelligent people that believe exactly as you do, when I ask your ilk to provide a single scientific paper I always get a blank stare??? Prove me wrong here my friend? Give me the information to approach the next pompous asshole (just like me) that doesnt think one exists.

I posted the science shit to feed the goons while I was waiting for you to reply and because that I believed when presented that way you would admit credible science matters. These are the only two questions Im asking. 1) Do you believe that accepted methods in science should be used when determining credible scientific evidence? 2) Do you have any scientific studies that back your argument?

Michael Crichton: Lets be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.

Thats a pretty god damn good statement! I gave it a 9.5. I had to dock it cuz I should have used it myself. Its what Im asking for. A scientific paper that backs your argument. I keep hearing how the GW science is biased but how do you bias a blind peer reviewed study? (Incidentally May really slammed me on this issue so I tip my hat to you. I probably wont get a chance to respond to you sorry but also, I actually gave the clinical example as a double blind and stated it wasnt possible in this example so, ya good one. You really got me.)

Michael Crichton: In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results.

Holly shit this dude should write or something. Reference to said study please?

Michael Crichton: The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

Bullshit! I can think of none. Newton single handedly achieved the greatest intellectual achievement in the history of mankind. He had a hypotheses (classical mechanics). He tested it Revised the hypotheses Tested it again, then mathematically modeled it. A few of his stumbling blocks were that he had to invent calculus, expound the laws of universal gravitation and the three laws of motion (Oh! But his greatest accomplishment was breaking with consensus.) His work was also published and critically peer reviewed. Will you please show me one of yours? The reason he broke consensus is because the science proved consensus wrong. He didn't set out to brake consensus. WTF is Michael Cricthon talking about? Anybody???

Michael Crichton: And furthermore, the consensus of scientists has frequently been wrong. As they were wrong when they believed, earlier in my lifetime, that the continents did not move.

What! Shit they did? I thought that was fucking ages ago. How old is he? 100?

Well whatever. I think Mr. Crichton is missing a critical point. History seems to repeat itself. The reference he gives is when science and the public were initially in agreement. I can think of no instances when science made a fundamental paradigm shift in thinking and the public didnt correctly follow. Did medicine fuck up when it gave up on the Bleed Out The Demons method of stopping hemorrhaging?

towlie · Dec 18, 2007

Mark Twain: Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.

That was in reference to slavery (if I remember correctly.) Society made a paradigm shift with slavery and I ultimately believe society is doing the same thing on the GW debate. I know you disagree, but Twains with me on this one. Hes my favorite author by the way.

CC: What is needed on global warming is true scientific experiments, not computer climate models, on what CO2 ACTUALLY does in the troposphere. what measurable results occure? what do they predict?

Published scientific data please?

CC: can also be found on one of the best climate skeptics webstes: SEPP - Science & Environmental Policy Project

Thanks for the link. Ill check it out and respond this weekend Where do you guys get the time to do this?

CC: Who are they?- The Science & Environmental Policy Project was founded in 1990 by atmospheric physicist S. Fred Singer on the premise that sound, credible science must form the basis for health and environmental decisions that affect millions of people and cost tens of billions of dollars every year.

I hate to sound like a broken record here but reference please. If you dont have one will you just admit that you dont? Thats all Im asking.

CC: Because it looks like a tax scam and conspiracy to halt global advancements by 3rd world nations, all wrapped up in a 'save the earth' package.

Holly shit. Ive never heard this theory. Do you have a link to a website? Ive got to check it out.

CC: I feel it is my duty to help people see the nature of this scam, by pointing out the scams weakest link: the science.

Amen. Me too bro.

CC: You may attack me for saying these things, but what does that prove?

I hope not. Ive been harping on the others to attack the idea not the person. I called you out because I figured you could hold a discussion rather than a fight. So if I did Im sorry.

CC: Peace & good science, my friends,

You too.

towlie · Dec 18, 2007

CC: towlie, with all due respect, i do not need a science lesson or a science history lesson.

Yes. And I feared that I would come across as condescending when I wrote that. I wanted you to know that my request for a scientific paper was honest and not a repeated mantra.

CC: please respond to this, towlie:
the entire case of man-made global warming hinges on rising CO2, nothing more. do you agree? is there ANYTHING else: chemical, element or heat source which scientists are pointing to as a global warming culprit? the answer is NO.

No. The answer is yes. Rising CO2 is the culprit, but there are certainly other compounding factors that act in a synergistic matter including seawater temperature (both surface and stream). The problem, and this is where the real debate exists, is what is the extent? This is hotly contested. The problem is that many scientific studies conflict with each other meaning the catastrophic worst-case scenarios arent any more reliable than the not so bad scenarios. You started to make this point in your previous thread and I think its a really good one, and if I were you its where Id be making my argument. However its not what youre looking for because what do you do when those are your two choices? Its like Al Gore says Its for the children baby.

CC: It is explained in the first few minutes of the film "What is Normal?" -found on youtube.

Ill check it out I promise.

CC:. but if you make it a point to stop dismissing the dissenting scientists, and really read their case for rational thought regarding this charged issue, you may come away a bit more skeptical of the case for global warming.

Its not the scientists Im dismissing its the lack of science. Give me real science to review and Ill review it open-mindedly.

Regards.

medicineman · Dec 19, 2007

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Final Proof: Global Warming is a Man-Made Disaster http://http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0219-01.htm[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]by Steve Connor[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Scientists have found the first unequivocal link between man-made greenhouse gases and a dramatic heating of the Earth's oceans. The researchers - many funded by the US government - have seen what they describe as a "stunning" correlation between a rise in ocean temperature over the past 40 years and pollution of the atmosphere.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The study destroys a central argument of global warming skeptics within the Bush administration - that climate change could be a natural phenomenon. It should convince George Bush to drop his objections to the Kyoto treaty on climate change, the scientists say.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Tim Barnett, a marine physicist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego and a leading member of the team, said: "We've got a serious problem. The debate is no longer: 'Is there a global warming signal?' The debate now is what are we going to do about it?"[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The findings are crucial because much of the evidence of a warmer world has until now been from air temperatures, but it is the oceans that are the driving force behind the Earth's climate. Dr Barnett said: "Over the past 40 years there has been considerable warming of the planetary system and approximately 90 per cent of that warming has gone directly into the oceans."[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]He told the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington: "We defined a 'fingerprint' of ocean warming. Each of the oceans warmed differently at different depths and constitutes a fingerprint which you can look for. We had several computer simulations, for instance one for natural variability: could the climate system just do this on its own? The answer was no.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"We looked at the possibility that solar changes or volcanic effects could have caused the warming - not a chance. What just absolutely nailed it was greenhouse warming."[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]America produces a quarter of the world's greenhouse gases, yet under President Bush it is one of the few developed nations not to have signed the Kyoto treaty to limit emissions. The President's advisers have argued that the science of global warming is full of uncertainties and change might be a natural phenomenon.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Dr Barnett said that position was untenable because it was now clear from the latest study, which is yet to be published, that man-made greenhouse gases had caused vast amounts of heat to be soaked up by the oceans. "It's a good time for nations that are not part of Kyoto to re-evaluate their positions and see if it would be to their advantage to join," he said.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The study involved scientists from the US Department of Energy, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, as well as the Met Office's Hadley Center.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]They analyzed more than 7 million recordings of ocean temperature from around the world, along with about 2 million readings of sea salinity, and compared the rise in temperatures at different depths to predictions made by two computer simulations of global warming.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Two models, one from here and one from England, got the observed warming almost exactly. In fact we were stunned by the degree of similarity," Dr Barnett said. "The models are right. So when a politician stands up and says 'the uncertainty in all these simulations start to question whether we can believe in these models', that argument is no longer tenable." Typical ocean temperatures have increased since 1960 by between 0.5C and 1C, depending largely on depth. DR Barnett said: "The real key is the amount of energy that has gone into the oceans. If we could mine the energy that has gone in over the past 40 years we could run the state of California for 200,000 years... It's come from greenhouse warming."[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Because the global climate is largely driven by the heat locked up in the oceans, a rise in sea temperatures could have devastating effects for many parts of the world.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Ruth Curry, from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, said that warming could alter important warm-water currents such as the Gulf Stream, as melting glaciers poured massive volumes of fresh water into the North Atlantic. "These changes are happening and they are expected to amplify. It's a certainty that these changes will put serious strains on the ecosystems of the planet," DR Curry said.[/FONT]

medicineman · Dec 19, 2007

Here's one from FOX news, HEY!

.U.N. Report: Global Warming Man-Made, Basically Unstoppable
Friday, February 02, 2007 AP

Feb. 1: The Eiffel Tower, about to go dark for five minutes in recognition of the IPCC report on global warming, officially released the next morning.

PARIS — Scientists from 113 countries issued a landmark report Friday saying they have little doubt global warming is caused by man, and predicting that hotter temperatures and rises in sea level will "continue for centuries" no matter how much humans control their pollution.
A top U.S. government scientist, Susan Solomon, said "there can be no question that the increase in greenhouse gases are dominated by human activities."
Environmental campaigners urged the United States and other industrial nations to significantly cut their emissions of greenhouse gases in response to the long-awaited report by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
• Click here to visit FOXNews.com's Natural Science Center.
"It is critical that we look at this report ... as a moment where the focus of attention will shift from whether climate change is linked to human activity, whether the science is sufficient, to what on earth are we going to do about it," said Achim Steiner, the executive director of the U.N. Environment Program.
"The public should not sit back and say 'There's nothing we can do'," Steiner said. "Anyone who would continue to risk inaction on the basis of the evidence presented here will one day in the history books be considered irresponsible."
Related

• SPEAKOUT! Is global warming a threat, and if so, what should the world's nations do about it?
The 21-page report represents the most authoritative science on global warming as the panel comprises hundreds of scientists and representatives.
It only addresses how and why the planet is warming, not what to do about it.
• Click here to read the report (pdf).
Another report by the panel later this year will address the most effective measures for slowing global warming.
One of the authors, Kevin Trenberth, said scientists are worried that world leaders will take the message in the wrong way and throw up their hands.
Instead, world leaders should reduce emissions and adapt to a warmer world with wilder weather, he said.
"This is just not something you can stop. We're just going to have to live with it," said Trenberth, the director of climate analysis for the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. "We're creating a different planet. If you were to come up back in 100 years time, we'll have a different climate."
The scientists said global warming was "very likely" caused by human activity, a phrase that translates to a more than 90 percent certainty that it is caused by man's burning of fossil fuels. That was the strongest conclusion to date, making it nearly impossible to say natural forces are to blame.
It also said no matter how much civilization slows or reduces its greenhouse gas emissions, global warming and sea level rise will continue on for centuries.
"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global mean sea level," the scientists said.
The report blamed man-made emissions of greenhouse gases for fewer cold days, hotter nights, killer heat waves, floods and heavy rains, devastating droughts, and an increase in hurricane and tropical storm strength — particularly in the Atlantic Ocean.
Sharon Hays, associate director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy at the White House, welcomed the strong language of the report.
"It's a significant report. It will be valuable to policy makers," she told The Associated Press in an interview in Paris.
Hays stopped short of saying whether or how the report could bring about change in President Bush's policy about greenhouse gas emissions.
The panel predicted global average temperature rises of 2 to 11.5 degrees Fahrenheit by the year 2100. That was a wider range than in the 2001 report.
However, the panel also said its best estimate was for temperature rises of 3.2 to 7.1 degrees Fahrenheit. In 2001, all the panel gave was a range of 2.5 to 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit.
On sea levels, the report projects rises of 7 to 23 inches by the end of the century. An additional 3.9 to 7.8 inches are possible if recent, surprising melting of polar ice sheets continues.
The panel, created by the United Nations in 1988, releases its assessments every five or six years, although scientists have been observing aspects of climate change since as far back as the 1960s. The reports are released in phases; this is the first of four this year.
"The point here is to highlight what will happen if we don't do something and what will happen if we do something," said another author, Jonathan Overpeck at the University of Arizona. "I can tell if you will decide not to do something the impacts will be much larger than if we do something."
As the report was being released, environmental activists repelled off a Paris bridge and draped a banner over a statue used often as a popular gauge of whether the Seine River is running high.
"Alarm bells are ringing. The world must wake up to the threat posed by climate change," said Catherine Pearce of Friends of the Earth.
Stephanie Tunmore of Greenpeace said "if the last IPCC report was a wake up call, this one is a screaming siren."
"The good news is our understanding of the climate system and our impact on it has improved immensely. The bad news is that the more we know, the more precarious the future looks," Tunmore said in a statement. "There's a clear message to governments here, and the window for action is narrowing.

ccodiane · Dec 19, 2007

Towenthelie, your an idiot, or very very young(16?). I will tear your weak arguments to shreds, a little later, one at a time. Copernicus, and Michael Crichton is a writer. Or two at a time.

closet.cult · Dec 19, 2007

i'm sorry. but i what is all these request for my references when you all give none? this is not a peer reviewed science website but rather a forum for us to share our BELIEFS. so, i ask you, do you demand the type of scientific studies from EVERY journalist of EVERY artical you read that headlines: New Conclusive Proof that Man-Made Global Warming is real!"

I bet not. I bet you are like myself, and most people for that matter, who read an article which shares our point of view, and it again solidifies our position. This is not science, this is journalism. What I posted in this thread was a journalist stating his interpretation of scientific findings. They fit precisely well with my own views.

Each of us will find many articles which mirror our own views. But Med, when I read:

The panel predicted global average temperature rises of 2 to 11.5 degrees Fahrenheit by the year 2100. That was a wider range than in the 2001 report.
However, the panel also said its best estimate was for temperature rises of 3.2 to 7.1 degrees Fahrenheit. In 2001, all the panel gave was a range of 2.5 to 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit.
On sea levels, the report projects rises of 7 to 23 inches by the end of the century. An additional 3.9 to 7.8 inches are possible if recent, surprising melting of polar ice sheets continues.
The panel, created by the United Nations in 1988, releases its assessments every five or six years, although scientists have been observing aspects of climate change since as far back as the 1960s.

...I think: BULLSHIT! People have been studying the GLOBAL climate for less then 50 years and they think they understand it and all its intracracies, which could be on century or millenium sized cycles?! BULLSHIT!

Just use your imagination to put a hypethical number in your head. How much swing in temperature MIGHT the oceans and atmousphere have IF there was a planetary warming/cooling cycle that lasted for centuries? We only recently discovered and named a cyle called El Nino. What other warm/cold cycles do we not understand? I'm just advocating moderation!

This is alarmist talk. How can people be so fool-hearty to think they've got the oceans or weather figured out after 50 years when a cycle might last 5 or more generations of scientists?!

It is only when you approach science from this mortal, humble position that you can rightfully question all of these scientists making alarmist predictions about catastrophy.

I have been shown the scientific data that you are requesting from believers and non-believers of global warming. BOTH SIDES, which is very important! I feel the dissenters have made a far better case, that's all. But you'll never know if you don't hear them out. They highlight that the areas of unknown still far outweigh the areas of known, in all fields of GLOBAL research. And what is known is still being debated. There is no need to panic the planet like the global cooling scare of the 70's.

There is, however, a need for polution control. That is the real problem from humans. Somehow, that doesn't get any attention. Perhaps because that would require the ones most responsible for the polution to clean up there own act! And theres no way to tax for that, is there? This is my theory. You don't have to believe it.

closet.cult · Dec 19, 2007

towlie said:
It’s not the scientists I’m dismissing it’s the lack of science.

You are not dismissing the lack of science. You don't know if there is a lack of science because you haven't read or listened to those scientist who are dissenting. You have already made up your mind and have shut the dissenting voices out.

towlie said:
Give me real science to review and I’ll review it open-mindedly.

Why do I have to do your research for you? I am writing on this topic to let others know that I am an intelligent, science-minded person who has heard the skeptic's argument, and I think it is a good one.

Check it out for yourselves. If you claim to be interested in peer-reveiwed science, review each side for yourself. What have you got to gain? More knowledge, either way.

medicineman · Dec 19, 2007

Hey, CC,I found a quote that will fit you to a tee, are you ready?

"The only thing man-made about global warming is the name." Mike (North Carolina)

Are you guys related. He sounds like a real intelligent dude,~LOL~.

closet.cult · Dec 19, 2007

medicineman said:
Hey, CC,I found a quote that will fit you to a tee, are you ready?

"The only thing man-made about global warming is the name." Mike (North Carolina)

Are you guys related. He sounds like a real intelligent dude,~LOL~.

typical. is it impossible for you to respond to someone without an insult?

ViRedd · Dec 19, 2007

closet.cult said:
typical. is it impossible for you to respond to someone without an insult?

Are there any Vietnamese in the NBA? :blsmoke:

Vi

towlie · Dec 19, 2007

CC: i'm sorry. but i what is all these request for my references when you all give none?

What should I give references to? Should I reference every time I questioned if you or any of your ilk have ever seen a scientific study supporting your claims? Or should I reference every time you and your ilk avoided the question? This is the only thing Im currently pushing in this debate.

CC: this is not a peer reviewed science website but rather a forum for us to share our BELIEFS.

There are clearly no people on this website that are qualified to debate this topic (you and I included.) There however exist a wealth of people willing to berate and belittle those who believe differently. There also exists a wealth of free scientifically published and reviewed data that we may use for um sharing however I think it is clear to all that you and those who agree with you would have very little if anything to share Nothing from what I have seen.

CC: so, i ask you, do you demand the type of scientific studies from EVERY journalist of EVERY artical you read that headlines: New Conclusive Proof that Man-Made Global Warming is real!"

Closet.Cult. The short answer is yes. This is exactly what I demand. Search my history. I have contributed in only one other GW debate but I never referenced anything other than what I request from you. You have made many self-assured claims regarding this debate, but correctly me if Im wrong here, youve never read a scientific journal on this subject?

If the answer is no, then why should I consider you 1) educated in this subject, and 2) an honest broker in this debate?

If the answer is yes, may I please have a reference???

CC: It is only when you approach science from this mortal, humble position that you can rightfully question all of these scientists making alarmist predictions about catastrophy.

If I wasnt humble, I wouldnt put my opinion behind the experts contributing to the science. How can you possibly be humble if you cant even answer whether or not youve seen scientific data substantiating your claims? This is a simple question, requiring at most 3 key strokes, and you and company have gone to great lengths avoiding it (Keep trying Ccodiane. I know youre looking feverishly. Good job buddy!)

CC: I have been shown the scientific data that you are requesting from believers and non-believers of global warming.

Oh. Sweet. Id love to see it. (drum roll)

CC: They highlight that the areas of unknown still far outweigh the areas of known, in all fields of GLOBAL research. And what is known is still being debated.

Do you realize this is the same argument the anti-evolutionists take? Just out of curiosity, where do you fall in this debate? And for the record, there are no areas of science where the unknowns dont outweigh the known.

CC: You are not dismissing the lack of science. You don't know if there is a lack of science because you haven't read or listened to those scientist who are dissenting. You have already made up your mind and have shut the dissenting voices out.

I dont know if there is a lack of science because you have not provided any, and as I have stated for the umpteenth time now I have never been able to find any, and I would consider myself more the wiser if you could help me! Provide a single quote in this thread where I said I have made up my mind and the debate is closed. I never said it and quite frankly I expected more from you.

CC: Why do I have to do your research for you?

This is a curious question from someone claiming to have already done the research.

CC: I am writing on this topic to let others know that I am an intelligent, science-minded person who has heard the skeptic's argument, and I think it is a good one.

I am writing on this topic to let others know that I am an intelligent, science-minded person who has never heard or seen your argument presented in a scientific manner. Is there anyone who has? Anyone?

This is your thread. This is your debate. And I am only asking the two following questions (now for what? The fourth time?)

Do you agree with basic scientific guidelines that I laid out? If not, what requirements or criteria do you require for a study to be scientific.
Have you ever seen a scientific study corroborating your claims? (Yes. No. Maybe, I cant remember.) This should not take long to answer.

In anticipation of the above two questions being skirted for what feels like the millionth time now, might I suggest this? You suggested The Science & Environmental Policy Project as a reference. I will send them an e-mail requesting scientific peer reviewed studies that corroborate their claim. If they have none, will you admit there probably are none?

P.S. Closet.Cult. I must clarify one thing. I promised to watch your youtube link this weekend. If you cant even answer honestly whether or not you have ever seen or heard of a scientific journal that corroborates your claim Then I wont be wasting my time?

closet.cult · Dec 20, 2007

towlie, quit asking me to provide research. i work 2 jobs and have a family. i am simply directing people to where they can find good research on this issue.

as a rule, i do not have as much time to read journals as i do to listen & watch lectures & debates given by scientists & professors by universities, which i do daily, about many subjects, while i work. streaming internet is a god-send, for me.

so, i have directed you to a few web pages which i found had the clearest message of the falacies in the AGW argument. if you are interested in hearing the oposing side, you must look at them. i have no need to post them because the tendancy is for people to debate the post and the poster. plus, it is wise to hear the best argument, from those who know the science.

i don't nessasarily wish to debate on every sentence; to break the argument down, line by line, the way you do to my replies to you. I am simply directing people to knowledgable information representing a different opinion. rate its reasonableness for yourself. i can only show you the door. you have to open it.

but if i did not, many people might not realize that there is a true dissenting crowd on this issue. they might have the idea that it is settled science. and it is not.

one reason i direct people to sites is: people like you need to see that there are just as many graphs and charts and studies supporting the anti side as there are for the pro. i think you really believe the pro side is the only one doing science. see for yourself.

from you:
Do you agree with basic scientific guidelines that I laid out? If not, what requirements or criteria do you require for a study to be scientific.
Have you ever seen a scientific study corroborating your claims? (Yes. No. Maybe, I can’t remember.) This should not take long to answer.

yes, and yes. i have answered that many times now. one more time: i agree that this, as well as any and every subject, should be appraoched with the time honored scientific method. and yes, i have seen plenty of scientific methodology used to refute the AGW theory. it's you that hasn't seen it because you refuse to give the dissenters an ear. but that's not good science, is it?

jesus, man. don't kill the messenger.

i will always encourage people to see both sides of any debate. as a former ordained minister, i know well all the arguments, grounded on solid faith, for an intelligent designer. the only problem is that faith is all it is grounded on. i have also read exhuastively on evolution and found the case for decent with modification much stronger for it is based on natural science and each new advancement in science continues to support it.

a wise man once said, "only when you can succesfully argue BOTH sides of any debate, can you consider yourself knowledgable enough to give one side your support."

so i ask you: have you given both sides of the global warming debate your full attention? have you heard the scientists who dissent? if not, you have made up your mind prematurely. and arguing with someone who HAS heard both sides, out of a natural and scientific curiousity and fairness doctrin, is a bit fool-hearty.

closet.cult · Dec 20, 2007

as requested: here is a report on one peer-reveiw scientific study which refutes AGW plainly...

August 20, 2007

New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears

Posted By Marc Morano – Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov – 4:44 PM ET
Washington DC – An abundance of new peer-reviewed studies, analyses, and data error discoveries in the last several months has prompted scientists to declare that fear of catastrophic man-made global warming “bites the dust” and the scientific underpinnings for alarm may be “falling apart.” The latest study to cast doubt on climate fears finds that even a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide would not have the previously predicted dire impacts on global temperatures. This new study is not unique, as a host of recent peer-reviewed studies have cast a chill on global warming fears.
“Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming bites the dust,” declared astronomer Dr. Ian Wilson after reviewing the new study which has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research. Another scientist said the peer-reviewed study overturned “in one fell swoop” the climate fears promoted by the UN and former Vice President Al Gore.

UK officially admits: Global warming has stopped!
Recent scientific studies may make 2007 go down in history as the "tipping point" of man-made global warming fears. A progression of peer-reviewed studies have been published which serve to debunk the United Nations, former Vice President Al Gore, and the media engineered “consensus” on climate change.
Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter, who has testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works (LINK), noted in a June 18, 2007 essay that global warming has stopped.
“The accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this eight-year-long temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2. Second, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements, if corrected for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, show little if any global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 %),” (LINK)
In August 2007, the UK Met Office was finally forced to concede the obvious: global warming has stopped. (LINK) The UK Met Office acknowledged the flat lining of global temperatures, but in an apparent attempt to keep stoking man-made climate alarm, the Met Office is now promoting more unproven dire computer model projections of the future. They now claim climate computer models predict “global warming will begin in earnest in 2009” because greenhouse emissions will then overtake natural climate variability.

full story: .: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.

read the whole thing. it's just what you asked for.

closet.cult · Dec 20, 2007

there are 22 studies listed as confirmed thru peer-reviewed literature about the falacy of man-made global warming at the end of the article. did you see them?

they debunk everything from the greenland and the antarctic melting to the 'fact' that there is a concensus. it appears many scientists who were formally global warming believers have now turned skeptic.

dated august 20, this year. you dont find this in the liberal media, do you? funny, huh?

the truth is, i've never seen ANY peer-reveiwed scientific study that 'proves' man is responsible for gloabl warming. i've seen proof that the earth is warming, but man's role has been assumed this whole time. AGW's whole case rest on computer models which ASSUME CO2 will raise the temperature. That is NOT science. There is no peer-reveiwed studies linking man to global warming conclusively. look for yourself. its an assumption. and that theory is falling apart.

closet.cult · Dec 20, 2007

i liked this one:

Update - August 29, 2007: SURVEY: LESS THAN HALF OF ALL PUBLISHED SCIENTISTS ENDORSE GLOBAL WARMING THEORY - Excerpt: "Of 539 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers 'implicit' endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no 'consensus.'" A July 2007 review of 539 abstracts in peer-reviewed scientific journals from 2004 through 2007 found that climate science continues to shift toward the views of global warming skeptics. Excerpt: “There appears to be little evidence in the learned journals to justify the climate-change alarm.”

.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.

closet.cult · Dec 20, 2007

LATEST: ice in greenland and the antarctic are NOT melting, they are growing: (HIGHLIGHTS FROM SAME LINK)

A July 2007 analysis of peer-reviewed literature thoroughly debunks fears of Greenland and the Arctic melting and predictions of a frightening sea level rise. Excerpt: "Research in 2006 found that Greenland has been warming since the 1880’s, but since 1955, temperature averages at Greenland stations have been colder than the period between 1881-1955. A 2006 study found Greenland has cooled since the 1930's and 1940's, with 1941 being the warmest year on record. Another 2006 study concluded Greenland was as warm or warmer in the 1930’s and 40’s and the rate of warming from 1920-1930 was about 50% higher than the warming from 1995-2005. One 2005 study found Greenland gaining ice in the interior higher elevations and thinning ice at the lower elevations. In addition, the often media promoted fears of Greenland’s ice completely melting and a subsequent catastrophic sea level rise are directly at odds with the latest scientific studies." [See July 30, 2007 Report - Latest Scientific Studies Refute Fears of Greenland Melt]

Update - September 11, 2007: Antarctic ice GROWS to record levels. Excerpt: While the news focus has been on the lowest ice extent since satellite monitoring began in 1979 for the Arctic, the Southern Hemisphere (Antarctica) has quietly set a new record for most ice extent since 1979. This can be seen on this graphic from this University of Illinois site The Cryosphere Today, which updated snow and ice extent for both hemispheres daily. The Southern Hemispheric areal coverage is the highest in the satellite record, just beating out 1995, 2001, 2005 and 2006. Since 1979, the trend has been up for the total Antarctic ice extent. < > This winter has been an especially harsh one in the Southern Hemisphere with cold and snow records set in Australia, South America and Africa.

A February 2007 study reveals Antarctica is not following predicted global warming models. Excerpt: “A new report on climate over the world's southernmost continent shows that temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate models." The research was led by David Bromwich, professor of professor of atmospheric sciences in the Department of Geography, and researcher with the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University. [See: Antarctic temperatures disagree with climate model predictions.]

closet.cult · Dec 20, 2007

I think i've made my point. there IS peer-reveiwed studies supporting BOTH sides of the argument. THIS is why moderation is needed regarding decision making. And a willingness to examine both sides of the debate before making up your mind is essential.

watch now, the more you research both sides, you'll find that there is much more common sense in the explanations of scientists who claim that the earth is warming from natural processes, coming down from a recent ice age.

CO2 cannot do to the climate what alarmists think it is doing. the science behind global warming is flawed. the 'proof' is fabricated thru computer simulations at the hands of liberal programers.

medicineman · Dec 20, 2007

Who is Marc Morano?

From SourceWatch

Jump to: navigation, search
Marc Morano is communications director for the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Morano commenced work with the committee under Senator James Inhofe, who was majority chairman of the committee until January 2007. In December 2006 Morano launched a blog on the committee's website that largely promotes the views of climate change sceptics.
Morano is a former journalist with Cybercast News Service (owned by the conservative Media Research Center). CNS and Morano were the first source in May 2004 of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth claims against John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election [1] and in January 2006 of similar smears against Vietnam war veteran John Murtha.
Morano was "previously known as Rush Limbaugh's 'Man in Washington,' as reporter and producer for the Rush Limbaugh Television Show, as well as a former correspondent and producer for American Investigator, the nationally syndicated TV newsmagazine

So CC, is the best source you have against MMGW, HAHAHOHOHEHE~LOL~, Rush limbaughs right hand man, Very enlightening.

Climate Crisis Fraud -written by a man who shares the Nobel Prize with Al Gore

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member