Hell freezes over: Koch's scientists confirm that climate change is REAL!

[Gipper]

claim you have an idea for a gravity windmill that runs perpetually, is made of sand and emits cancer curing rays and eats ocean garbage while pooping tofu hotdogs. should get you half a billion in loan guarantees you never have to pay back like Solyndra etal.

or just hoard Twinkees to sell on the black market when they're banned.

Very funny...I like that!!!

 

[palerider]

claim you have an idea for a gravity windmill that runs perpetually, is made of sand and emits cancer curing rays and eats ocean garbage while pooping tofu hotdogs. should get you half a billion in loan guarantees you never have to pay back like Solyndra etal.

or just hoard Twinkees to sell on the black market when they're banned.

I saw yesterday that Hostess, the maker of twinkies, ho ho's and ding dongs filed chapter 11. Let the hoarding begin.

 

[Gipper]

I saw yesterday that Hostess, the maker of twinkies, ho ho's and ding dongs filed chapter 11. Let the hoarding begin.

And why are they in bankruptcy? The same sad story is the answer. Their unions have negotiated very lucrative benefits for both workers and retirees, which the business is now unable to sustain...just like the Big Three.

I guess we can be assured BO will not be bailing out Hostess, since Mrs. BO 'claims' to be a health nut.

Unlike GM and Chrysler, Hostess in bankruptcy protection can dump those crazy union contracts and hopefully come out of bankruptcy a viable entity and continue to employ many people.

Capitalism works, but only when it is actually put into effect.

 

[dogtowner]

I saw yesterday that Hostess, the maker of twinkies, ho ho's and ding dongs filed chapter 11. Let the hoarding begin.

yeah I saw that not long after the post

 

[palerider]

So I guess that no hard, observable, repeatable evidence that establishes a hard link between the activities of man, and the changing global climate is forthcoming.

 

[Gipper]

So I guess that no hard, observable, repeatable evidence that establishes a hard link between the activities of man, and the changing global climate is forthcoming.

Well of course, you are being factious.

You know very well that NO such evidence exists as do most people capable to thinking logically. Sadly, many fall prey to the lies of the left if they are repeated enough times.

 

[dogtowner]

Near as I can tell the AGW idea is keyed to:
a) the greenhouse gas effect
b) the "Hockey Stick" graph

The former is a presumption widely accepted but seems to have some issues that some are having problems with. The latter purports to show a relationship between increased CO2 in the atmosphere and temperature change. This seems to have issues based on an arbitrary timeline, undefined massaging of data and revelations of internal shenanigans among it's proponents.

Seems at the very least we don't have very solid ground to stand upon as evidence of any need of dramatic change. Seems at the very worst we have a serious problem with the relationship between science and government.

Maybe The Gipper was right to note that government is the problem, not the solution.

 

[palerider]

Well of course, you are being factious.

You know very well that NO such evidence exists as do most people capable to thinking logically. Sadly, many fall prey to the lies of the left if they are repeated enough times.

Yeah, but I like to try and keep that fact out there in the faces of the faithful. I believe some of them actually do believe that AGW is based on hard, observable fact. Most though, I believe just see AGW as a means to an end and could care less about whether it is based on science, pseudoscience, or fairy dust.

 

[palerider]

Near as I can tell the AGW idea is keyed to:
a) the greenhouse gas effect
b) the "Hockey Stick" graph

The former is a presumption widely accepted but seems to have some issues that some are having problems with. The latter purports to show a relationship between increased CO2 in the atmosphere and temperature change. This seems to have issues based on an arbitrary timeline, undefined massaging of data and revelations of internal shenanigans among it's proponents.

Seems at the very least we don't have very solid ground to stand upon as evidence of any need of dramatic change. Seems at the very worst we have a serious problem with the relationship between science and government.

Maybe The Gipper was right to note that government is the problem, not the solution.

Yeah, it is always interesting to note how many people believe, or appear to believe that the greenhosue effect as described by climate science is an established fact. Many believe it to be a legitimate theory. And very few indeed know the truth that the greenhouse effect is little more than a very poor hypothesis based almost entirely on some quaint 19th century science that was shown to be false very shortly after it was presented at the royal academy.

 

[Gipper]

Yeah, but I like to try and keep that fact out there in the faces of the faithful. I believe some of them actually do believe that AGW is based on hard, observable fact. Most though, I believe just see AGW as a means to an end and could care less about whether it is based on science, pseudoscience, or fairy dust.

Most believe AGW is based on scientific fact because the leftist media keeps telling them that lie and they aren't intelligent enough to overcome the lie.

And, without doubt many see AGW as a means to and end. The end is worldwide communism. And, anyone who desires communism is a complete and utter fool who needs to be denigrated at every turn.

 

[dogtowner]

Most believe AGW is based on scientific fact because the leftist media keeps telling them that lie and they aren't intelligent enough to overcome the lie.

And, without doubt many see AGW as a means to and end. The end is worldwide communism. And, anyone who desires communism is a complete and utter fool who needs to be denigrated at every turn.

damn Gip, ALGORE said it was fact and he certainly wouldn't lie about it to further his business interests. no way that would happen, right ?

 

[Gipper]

damn Gip, ALGORE said it was fact and he certainly wouldn't lie about it to further his business interests. no way that would happen, right ?

Fat Albert Gore may be the biggest hypocrite that ever lived and yet, he has made millions lying to people about AGW. It is truly amazing how some people can be so easily fooled. But it also shows the true nature of most of the media. They have gone along with and promoted the hoax.

Not only are some Americans terribly uninformed about AGW, but many still believe the MSM has no political agenda and is unbiased. They do not believe or are ignorant of the fact that most of the MSM is a leftist enterprise. Just as Hollywood, unions, p-schools, the arts, and academia have become.

 

[Gipper]

Yeah, but I like to try and keep that fact out there in the faces of the faithful. I believe some of them actually do believe that AGW is based on hard, observable fact. Most though, I believe just see AGW as a means to an end and could care less about whether it is based on science, pseudoscience, or fairy dust.

Here is but one interesting article proving the idiocy of AGW. Of course, this article and its contents will not be published in the MSM because it refutes AGW. Yet, one only has to search the internet for a short time to find numerous credible sources refuting AGW. Why is it the believers of AGW fail to do their homework and sheepishly go along with the AGW hoaxers?

Skeptic Wins Global Warming Bet

Ronald Bailey | January 13, 2012

In 2008, Research Institute for Global Change climate modeller James Annan and David Whitehouse, an astrophysicist who is a scientific advisor with the Global Warming Policy Foundation in Britain bet a £100 that, using the HadCrut3 data set, there would be no new global temperature record set by 2011. The HadCrut3 data set is put together by the Hadley Centre's Climatic Research Centre in Britain. The bet was made at the instigation of the BBC radio program "More or Less." The result?
Whitehouse has won.
Over at the GWPF website, Whitehouse offers his view on global temperature trends and his take on the bet:

Back in 2007 many commentators, activists and scientists ... said the halt in global temperatures wasn’t real. It is interesting that the Climategate emails showed that the certainty some scientists expressed about this issue in public was not mirrored in private. Indeed, one intemperate activist, determined to shoot my New Statesman article down but unable to muster the simple statistics required to tackle the statistical properties of only 30 data points, asked the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit and the Met Office, to provide reasons why I was wrong, which they couldn’t.
What was true in 2007 is even more so in 2012. Since 2007 the reality of the temperature standstill has been accepted and many explanations offered for it, more than can possibly be true! We have seen predictions that half of the years between 2009 and 2014 would be HadCrut3 records (a prediction that now can’t possibly come to pass) which was later modified to half of the years between 2010 and 2015 (likewise.) The Met Office predict that 2012 -16 will be on average 0.54 deg C above the HadCrut3 baseline level, and 2017 -2021 some 0.76 deg C higher. Temperatures must go up, and quickly.
So how long must this standstill go on until bigger questions are asked about the rate of global warming? When asked if he would be worried if there was no increase in the next five years James Annan would only say it would only indicate a lower rate of warming! Some say that 15 years is the period for serious questions.
In a now famous (though even at the time obvious) interview in 2010 Prof Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia confirmed that there was no statistically significant warming since 1995. There was an upward trend, but it was statistically insignificant, which in scientific parlance equates to no trend at all. In 2011 Prof Jones told the BBC that due to the inclusion of the warmish 2010 there was now a statistically significant increase between 1995 and 2010. Since 2011 was cool it doesn’t take complicated statistics to show that the post 1995 trend by that method of calculation is now back to insignificant, though I don’t expect the BBC to update its story.
The lesson is that for the recent warming spell, the one that begins about 1980, the years of standstill now exceed those with a year-on-year increase. It is the standstill, not the increase, that is now this warm period’s defining characteristic.
http://reason.com/blog/2012/01/13/skeptic-wins-global-warming-bet#comments​

 

[TheJPRD]

I have an open mind on this subject, but I insist upon proof. The claims of the global-warming or climate-change fanatics have not been proven by any stretch. IF undeniable proof is presented that the climate is warming, that's just the first step in the scientific investigation. Climate has always changed, and the climate in various areas of the globe has reversed itself time and time again throughout the life of the planet. IF there is warming occuring now, is it a natural occurence? What variables are involved to cause it? How much of that warming if any is human-caused? What constitutues a "safe environment"? The left likes to tell us doubters that we're unscientific. I suggest that it's those who are willing to bet trillions of dollars to reverse a trend that may or may not be real, may or may not be human caused, and may or may not be reversable for any amount of money who are unscientific, not those of us who demand proof!

 

[dogtowner]

I have an open mind on this subject, but I insist upon proof. The claims of the global-warming or climate-change fanatics have not been proven by any stretch. IF undeniable proof is presented that the climate is warming, that's just the first step in the scientific investigation. Climate has always changed, and the climate in various areas of the globe has reversed itself time and time again throughout the life of the planet. IF there is warming occuring now, is it a natural occurence? What variables are involved to cause it? How much of that warming if any is human-caused? What constitutues a "safe environment"? The left likes to tell us doubters that we're unscientific. I suggest that it's those who are willing to bet trillions of dollars to reverse a trend that may or may not be real, may or may not be human caused, and may or may not be reversable for any amount of money who are unscientific, not those of us who demand proof!

right on all counts. lots of good information buried in this thread.
and welcome !