Grav, re your last quote, "unqualified support" means support without caveat or question. It does not mean "unqualified" as in ignorant or lacking in qualifications in the educational sense. As far as I am aware you do not give the Bush administration "unqualified support" as you have said as much in earlier posts.
Just a sample of Gore's motivation behind the scam ... $$$.
Teller25 Cherokee (3.8 mt)
Joined: Aug 22, 2007
Posts: 254
Location: Spain
Posted:
Mon Nov 12, 2007 11:27 pm
I know I said I’ll permanently end my participation on this issue, but you both took your time so I’ll reply.
In the picture I made reference to Katrina because there are many including me who assume that its incredible MAGNITUDE (in the frame of an extraordinary hurricane season that was so strong that as Grav says didn’t allow to begin rescue efforts after Katrina because another powerful Hurricane came in right after in the same place), is consequence of man made Global warming, FF and Grav just assume its not.
Unfortunately, it’s easy to be mislead by “scientific groups” who are financed by big oil companies and other industries, which deny Global Warming, although thousands and thousands of scientists around the world agree that climate change is linked to greenhouse gases. For example Exxon was responsible of financing no fewer than 29 climate change denial front groups in 2004 alone.
I don’t like to act as Grav, and discredit sources, but those sites are just false. Sites that diminish or deny Global Warming are just a part of the public relations department of oil industries and they spend millions of dollars in them.
In the video kindly suggested by FF, the “professors” come from climatology departments that have never existed, and all of them are just lying about their credentials, what they say is as valid as a $17 dollars bill.
That paid “Scientific Propaganda” is so intense that has led U.S. senators from both parties to ask these companies to stop financing and end its dangerous support of the "deniers", which are only blocking the way for immediate and crucial action in the U.S.
Err....don't you think many of these "scientists" who obtain megabuck grants of research dollars by vast Government and inter-Government bureaucracies have an interest in keeping the gravy train flowing?
This is what philosopher Jamie Whyte calls the "motive fallacy". The idea that if you have some particular interest, financial or otherwise, in holding an opinion this must render it untrue.
Even more dishonestly, it presupposes that any organisation not funded by big business is therefore completely impartial when in fact the opposite is true.
In the 10 years to 2006, the US Government spent $20Bn on researching man's impact on global warmin; considerably more than has been invested by the energy industry trying to prove no connection. This bare fact goes a long way towards explaining why "scientists" tend, on balance, to be in favour of theories claiming that climate change is man made and its a serious danger - coz that's where the BIG BUCKS are!
You need to read SCARED TO DEATH: From BSE To Global Warming - Why Scares Are Costing Us The Earth by Christopher Booker and Richard North
And try to be generally less credulous about every media scare story that you come across. Don't worry, this gets easier with age....
FF
Teller25 Cherokee (3.8 mt)
Joined: Aug 22, 2007
Posts: 254
Location: Spain
Posted:
Tue Nov 13, 2007 12:11 am
Maybe it is a conspiracy made by solar panel manufacturers to scare the hell out of people…
Graviton Mike (10.4 mt)
Joined: Sep 03, 2006
Posts: 1307
Location: USA
Posted:
Tue Nov 13, 2007 1:00 am
Teller, you are an ideologue.
Yes, I will discredit sites that are blatantly dishonest.
I have also presented reasons for human global warming being a lie. I can also find evidence that there is not a scientific concensus on human global warming. Scientists have been shocked by the bureaucrats taking their studies and then changing them to meet the agenda of global warming scare among the bureaucrats. There is no such thing as 2500 scientist signing the opening IPCC report, despite what the alarmists claim, and all names have been suppressed until a so-called final report. Very fishy.
It's also blatantly dishonest to ignore solid evidence presented by anti-scammers as simply "oil-funded," especially when there are concrete reasons listed at Icecap that state scientifically WHY human global warming alarmism is not science.
Here is more evidence that there is no human global warming problem, showing scientific data.
It's humorous that CO2 concentration is ranged in the hundreds of parts per million volume are willed into dominating global climate change. Yet this data is considered to be among the most used for pressing human global warming.
Here is an example of dissent among many against the IPCC, controlled by bureaucrats who cherrypick likeminded, biased parrots of their UN agenda.
Quote:
[An open letter to community colleagues]
Dear colleagues,
After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.
With this open letter to the community, I wish to explain the basis for my decision and bring awareness to what I view as a problem in the IPCC process. The IPCC is a group of climate researchers from around the world that every few years summarize how climate is changing and how it may be altered in the future due to manmade global warming. I had served both as an author for the Observations chapter and a Reviewer for the 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, primarily on the topic of tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons). My work on hurricanes, and tropical cyclones more generally, has been widely cited by the IPCC. For the upcoming AR4, I was asked several weeks ago by the Observations chapter Lead Author Dr. Kevin Trenberth to provide the writeup for Atlantic hurricanes. As I had in the past, I agreed to assist the IPCC in what I thought was to be an important and politically-neutral determination of what is happening with our climate.
Shortly after Dr. Trenberth requested that I draft the Atlantic hurricane section for the AR4's Observations chapter, Dr. Trenberth participated in a press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic "Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity" along with other media interviews on the topic. The result of this media interaction was widespread coverage that directly connected the very busy 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as being caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming occurring today. Listening to and reading transcripts of this press conference and other media interviews, it is apparent that Dr. Trenberth was being accurately quoted and summarized in such statements and was not being misrepresented in the media. These media sessions have the potential to result in a widespread perception that global warming has made recent hurricane activity much more severe.
I found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting hurricane activity today. To my knowledge, none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin. The IPCC assessments in 1995 and 2001 also concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the hurricane record.
Moreover, the evidence is quite strong and supported by the most recent credible studies that any impact in the future from global warming upon hurricanes will likely be quite small. The latest results from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (Knutson and Tuleya, Journal of Climate, 2004) suggest that by around 2080, hurricanes may have winds and rainfall about 5% more intense than today. It has been proposed that even this tiny change may be an exaggeration as to what may happen by the end of the 21st Century (Michaels, Knappenberger, and Landsea, Journal of Climate, 2005, submitted).
It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming. Given Dr. Trenberths role as the IPCCs Lead Author responsible for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the assessment on hurricane activity. My view is that when people identify themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements far outside current scientific understandings thatthis will harm the credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish our role in public policy.
My concerns go beyond the actions of Dr. Trenberth and his colleagues to how he and other IPCC officials responded to my concerns. I did caution Dr. Trenberth before the media event and provided him a summary of the current understanding within the hurricane research community. I was disappointed when the IPCC leadership dismissed my concerns when I brought up the misrepresentation of climate science while invoking the authority of the IPCC. Specifically, the IPCC leadershipsaid that Dr. Trenberth was speaking as an individual, even though he was introduced in the press conference as an IPCC lead author. I was told that that the media was exaggerating or misrepresenting his words, even though the audio from the press conference and interview tells a different story (available on the web directly); and that Dr. Trenberth was accurately reflecting conclusions from the TAR, even though it is quite clear that the TAR stated that there was no connection between global warming and hurricane activity at this time. The IPCC leadership saw nothing to be concerned with in Dr. Trenberth's unfounded pronouncements to the media, despite his supposedly impartial important role that he must undertake as a Lead Author on the upcoming AR4.
It is certainly true that "individual scientists can do what they wish in their own rights," as one of the folks in the IPCC leadership suggested. Differing conclusions and robust debates are certainly crucial to progress in climate science. However, this case is not an honest scientific discussion conducted at a meeting of climate researchers. Instead, a scientist with an important role in the IPCC represented himself as a Lead Author for the IPCC and has used that position to promulgate to the media and general public his own opinion that the busy 2004 hurricane season was caused by global warming, which is in direct opposition to research written in the field and is counter to conclusions in the TAR. This becomes problematic when I am then asked to provide the draft about observed hurricane activity variations for the AR4 with, ironically, Dr. Trenberth as the Lead Author for this chapter. Because of Dr. Trenberth's pronouncements, the IPCC process on our assessment of these crucial extreme events in our climate system has been subverted and compromised, its neutrality lost. While no one can "tell" scientists what to say or not say (nor am I suggesting that), the IPCC did select Dr. Trenberth as a Lead Author and entrusted to him to carry out this duty in a non-biased, neutral point of view. When scientists hold press conferences and speak with the media, much care is needed not to reflect poorly upon the IPCC. It is of more than passing interest to note that Dr. Trenberth, while eager to share his views on global warming and hurricanes with the media, declined to do so at the Climate Variability and Change Conference in January where he made several presentations. Perhaps he was concerned that such speculation though worthy in his mind of public pronouncements would not stand up to the scrutiny of fellow climate scientists.
I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth's actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4.
I have to take issue with the use of the phrase "excellent" to describe this article.
Note the rest of the screen surrounding the story is full of links to apocalyptic stories relating to man made climate change, reflective of the overt bias of the BBC in this matter.
Note also that the heretics and non-believers of the default BBC position have now been given a label. They are now called "climate sceptics".
Labelling the non-believer is the first step to dismissing their lack of belief in the One True Theory with the second step being persecution and the third banishment (or death in more religious times; and let's face it, this is religion being born here).
It is very short step from "climate sceptic" to "holocaust denier" in the topsy-turvy world of BBC NewSpeak. These articles need to be read from the perspective of what the author is trying to achieve. Which is to discredit any opposition to the default BBC position.
March 5, 2009, 10:46 am
Do C.F.L.’s Increase Greenhouse Gases?
By John Lorinc
For those wondering if the benefits of the increasingly ubiquitous compact fluorescent lightbulb (see our logo above) have been overstated, a report last night from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation offers a little something to chew on. The report suggested that the energy savings associated with the bulbs — which use far less electricity than their incandescent predecessors — may be offset by higher heating bills, and more greenhouse emissions.
CBC News has found that in some cases compact fluorescent bulbs (C.F.L.’s) can have the adverse effect of increasing greenhouse gas emissions, depending on how consumers heat their homes.
Physics professor Peter Blunden at the University of Manitoba said C.F.L. bulbs are certainly more energy efficient than older incandescent bulbs.
But in cold-weather climates such as Canada’s, Blunden said older incandescent bulbs do more than just light our homes. During the long winter months, they also generate heat. The new C.F.L. bulbs, on the other hand, produce minimal heat so the loss has to be made up by fossil-fuel burning gas, oil or wood to heat your home.
“To some extent, the case [in favor of C.F.L.'s] has been oversold” because of the offset in higher heating costs, he said.
This curious side-effect of the efficient bulb received official acknowledgment in a recent filing by B.C. Hydro, the third largest utility in Canada, before the British Columbia Utilities Commission, which regulates energy rates.
From The Vancouver Sun two weeks ago:
The issue came up in a utilities commission hearing … when the Independent Power Producers association of B.C. asked Hydro about the impact of plans by the provincial and federal governments to tighten regulations concerning the energy efficiency of lighting.
By 2017, Hydro said, it anticipates efficient lighting could annually save 480 gigawatt hours of electricity.
However, Hydro also states that lighting regulations “will increase GHG emissions in Hydro’s service territory by 45,000 tons due to cross effects” of a switch to cool-burning bulbs.
Environmental groups have been quick to dismiss the findings as absurd:
“It’s not a real-world number — it’s a statistician’s number, of relevance only for bookkeeping,” Guy Duncey, the president of the British Columbia Sustainable Energy Association, told The Sun.
“Whenever someone installs efficient bulbs, BC Hydro needs to import less dirty power, resulting in reduced GHGs, the overall effect of which should be far greater than the possible slight increase in GHGs from the loss of the heat from the inefficient bulbs in oil or gas-heated homes.”
Who knows? Maybe there is some reason to rethink a lot of these "ideas". It seems like most of the things we try, end up doing more harm than good. But, what the hell do I know.............right.
Just a sample of Gore's motivation behind the scam ... $$$.
I agree with you. Teller and the other slaves of the GW scam are hypocrites. One interesting thing I read in a magazine is that "The current concentrations of CO2 gas in the atmosphere vastly exceed those of the last 650,000 years".
If CO2 gases have such a profound impact on the climate, how come that the Earth was substantially warmer around 8000-2000 years ago, when there were no cars, or the likes, around? Most glaciers that we have here in Scandinavia (if not all) were formed around 2,500 years ago, when the planet got cooler. There are clear remains of ancient forests in the mountains, 500 meters above the current tree line.
Graviton Mike (10.4 mt)
Joined: Sep 03, 2006
Posts: 1307
Location: USA
Posted:
Thu Sep 03, 2009 3:21 am
Sing along with me about bloated socialism.
Truth!
Graviton Mike (10.4 mt)
Joined: Sep 03, 2006
Posts: 1307
Location: USA
Posted:
Thu Sep 03, 2009 6:56 pm
This is overwhelmingly symptomatic example of academically accomplished socialists, who feel innately superior to others, and feel they need to plan the economy for others, with micromanagement intrusion policies, since others are just too stupid to know how to do things -- in their view.
Socialism never turns into a grassroots movement in action with such elitist incompetents who are inevitably elevated as political darlings within imbalanced political machinery ruling in many voting districts.
Truthfully, in balance, the same phenomenon happens with FAR RIGHT politicians as well, when any political machinery lacking moderacy promotes foolish people to power, without merit of sensibility of ideas.
Socialist Congressman Stark has an MBA from Berkeley ... yet is totally without common sense to make any rational use of his education in this issue of economics ... and likely in other areas where his ideology clouds rational thinking.
Keep careful notice that the interviewer was never once rude or condescending to the California politician.
Keep in mind that most so-called elite schools are heavily networked between alumni, despite the intensely imbalanced ideology that rules them in social, economic, and political issues.
Listen to the screaming elitism berating the interviewer as innately inferior, despite the interviewer's superior arguments relating to the common sense and intensely supported data conflicting with Stark's failed yet elitist ideas.
WARNING: Stark makes a fool of his self with PROFANITY-LADEN, condescending, insulting dialog.
In his political sway, also see that his district borders on far lefty, limousine liberal socialist Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi's. Pelosi's district is at the top of the peninsula, and includes the island northeast of it in the bay.
View next topic View previous topic
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
