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

I cancelled a long held subscription to Autobon because of their hypocritical silence regarding the slaughter of birds by wind turbines. Let a couple of birds die of poisoning from the run off of a mine and they howl to the heavens but let raptors die in the tens of thousands not to mention miagratory birds and bats and they are as quiet as church mice.

There might be a little point you didn't consider here!

If birds are poisoned by the runoff of a mine, that means that the mine is creating such polution that it can also infiltrate our water and maybe even our food chain. It's not JUST about the "couple of birds," it's about kids and even adults.

If birds fly into wind turbines, it's really too bad, and I hate that that happens. BUT, I don't think KIDS are in danger of "being slaughtered by wind turbines!"
 
Werbung:
So, name a scientific organization that doesn't say:

the average temperature of the Earth is increasing and

human activities are accelerating the change.

Any. Supported by oil companies, by governments, by whatever.

The political heads of organizations write their position statements as I am sure that you know. I can provide lists of thousands upon thousands of scientists, including many nobel prize winners and nominees who make up the bodies of those organizations who disupte AGW while you can only point to the political heads and a few high profile scientists who actually support the claim.

As to the oil companies, they are on the bandwagon as well because there is a great deal of money to be made as a result of regulation. I am surprised that you remain unaware of that fact.
 
It's not that you can't do it any more, it's that you never could name such an organization.

What scientific organization holds the opinion that the Earth is not warming?

What one says that the warming is not being accelerated by human activities?

Or is it really a matter of science vs pundits?

Statements by organizations don't make science. Can you name a physical law that supports and predicts climate change as promoted by those organizations? None of them can which makes their statements highly suspect. If the laws of physics supported the idea that our CO2 emissions could alter the global climate, I would not be a skeptic. The vast numbers of scientists who don't depend on grant money to buy their daily bread know this as well and are also skeptical of the claims.

Can you name a physical law that supports and predicts climate change as a result of our CO2 emissions? If it were possible to name one, I am sure that it would be on the tip of your tongue and large numbers of supporting sites would be at your disposal with which to hammer me, and all skeptics with. So which one(s)?
 
Nice to see that someone can still look at issues in a rational way!
Thanks for keeping your fairness and honesty. . .and your logic!

I do like your sense of humore too! ;):)

But PLC1 doesn't look at the issue in a rational way. He, like you and most believers look at it as a political issue. This is a scientific issue, therefore the only rational way to look at it is in a scientific way. Statements by political bodies that don't include hard science for support are meaningless and amount to nothing more than fallacious appeals to authority.

Those organizations can't lay out a single shred of hard, observed, repeatable evidence that establishes a solid link between the activities of man and the changing climate' or name a single physical law that supports and predicts the catastrophe that they are warning. That being the state of things, why would a rational person believe what they have to say?
 
There might be a little point you didn't consider here!

If birds are poisoned by the runoff of a mine, that means that the mine is creating such polution that it can also infiltrate our water and maybe even our food chain. It's not JUST about the "couple of birds," it's about kids and even adults.

If birds fly into wind turbines, it's really too bad, and I hate that that happens. BUT, I don't think KIDS are in danger of "being slaughtered by wind turbines!"

Think about the place of birds in the food chain before you start claiming that killing birds doesn't represent a threat to humans. That is the problem with you liberal types. Your thinking is very shallow. It is why you are known as the kings of unintended consequences. Taking stands on issues based on how you feel, or how the explanations or solutions make you feel is not a rational way to go through life and leads to unexpected and terrible consequences as we have seen over and over when liberal thinking is put into practice.
 
It amazes me how anyone intelligent enough to be literate CAN STILL BELIEVE THE LIE THAT IS AGW....AMAZING!!! These people can always be counted on to fully accept lies promoted by left wing political opportunists. They are SHEEP and we must realize they are mentally incapable of ACCEPTING the TRUTH. If they are told a lie enough times, they will believe.

Please read this and tell me how you can still believe in AGW. Like ALL things promoted by the left wing elite, AGW is a stinking lie and at its core is merely an effort to impose worldwide communism...which has ALWAYS been the goal of the left elite. Those who still believe in AGW must recognize they are mentally incompetent.

If you read this column completely and carefully today, you will learn about the true state of the scientific debate over global warming. You will not get the truth about that from the Washington Post, the New York Times, or the rest of the self-regarded "establishment" media. They are devoted to the fun and games of play acting as if there is no legitimate scientific debate over whether mankind's use of low cost, reliable energy from oil, coal and natural gas portends catastrophic global warming that threatens life on the planet as we know it.

Recently, the media Knights Templar of the religious orthodoxy of man-caused global warming made a contrived pass at reviving flagging public respect for their fading catechism. The occasion was massively overhyped and misrepresented reporting of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project. But all that was new from that project was the departures from the official catechism.

The project reported only on the recorded temperature history since 1950 from temperature stations on land, which covers less than 30% of the earth's surface. As the project leader Berkeley Professor Richard Muller reported in a Wall Street Journal commentary on October 21, after obtaining and reviewing "more than 1.6 billion measurements from 39,000 [land based] temperature stations around the world... the result showed [drum roll please] a temperature increase similar to that found by other groups." Those are most prominently NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the U.S., and the Met Office and Climatic Research Unit in the United Kingdom.

In other words, that is nothing new. But this review and confirmation of the established land based temperature records that everyone working on the issue is familiar with was widely celebrated in the liberal/left Democrat Party controlled media as definitive new proof of the truth of the man-caused global warming religion.

Muller, however, was more intellectually honest than any of them in confessing in the Journal article that the BEST project involves no independent assessment of the question of "how much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects." But that is the whole issue in the global warming debate.

Muller also honestly admits that "The [land based] temperature station quality is largely awful," noting that "A careful survey of these stations by a team led by meteorologist Anthony Watts showed that 70% of these stations have such poor siting that, by the U.S. government's own measure, they result in temperature uncertainties of between two and five degrees Celsius or more. We do not know how much worse are the stations in the developing world." He adds that, "The margin of error for the stations is at least three times larger than the estimated warming."

He also admits that the land based temperature records are corrupted by urban heat island distortions which are constantly growing over time, building in a warming bias. He recognizes that the established temperature authorities mentioned above today use data from only about 2,000 weather stations, down from 6,000 in 1970, which raises questions about their selections among available sites.

Moreover, Muller admits the recognized temperature authorities try to homogenize the temperature records from the thousands of temperature stations around the globe to come up with a summary statistic of the degree of global warming, and serious questions can be raised as to how to do that, disputing a large portion of the warming attributed to humans. Muller also confesses that one-third of land based temperature stations worldwide show cooling rather than warming.

These concessions are important to recount because of more basic problems with the established land based temperature record that Muller doesn't confess. Weather satellites measuring atmospheric temperatures worldwide, over land and water, which are not subject to the above troubles of land based weather stations, show no warming since their record began in 1979, and before that there was actually global cooling dating back to 1940. The satellite record regarding atmospheric temperatures is independently confirmed by weather balloons. Moreover, the computer based climate models utilized by the UN's own Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the atmospheric theory they rely upon, all insist that if man's use of carbon based fuels was warming the planet, the atmosphere must be warming faster than the surface.

In addition, the scientifically recognized temperature proxy data from tree rings, ice cores, lake and ocean sediments, and stalagmites also show no warming since 1940. Note that the warming before 1940 is attributable to the global recovery of temperatures from the Little Ice Age, and even the land based records show no warming over the last 13 years.

Fred Singer concludes as a result "It is very likely that the reported warming during 1978-97 [from land based weather stations] is simply an artifact -- the result of the measurement scheme rather than an actual warming." When Singer sent a letter to the editor to the global warming cheerleading Washington Post, pointing out the above anomalies and his conclusion, he reports the peculiar response that "they were willing to publish my letter, but not my credentials as emeritus professor at the University of Virginia and former director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service. Apparently, they were concerned that readers might gain the impression that I knew something about climate."

But there is more. Even the land based temperature record is not consistent with the theory of man-caused global warming. That record does not show persistent warming following persistent growth of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Rather, it shows an up and down pattern of temperatures more consistent with natural causes. Those include solar flare and sun spot cycles, and the periodic cycling of warm and cold water in the oceans from top to bottom, particularly the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO).

The truth is a vigorous global scientific debate persists over whether man's use of carbon-based fuels threatens to cause catastrophic global warming, and the media not reporting that is not performing journalism. The most authoritative presentation of this debate can be found in the 856 page Climate Change Reconsidered, published by the Heartland Institute in 2009. This careful, thoroughly scientific volume co- authored by dozens of fully credentialed scientists comprehensively addresses every aspect of global warming, and indicates that natural causes are primarily responsible for climate patterns of the last century. Heartland has just published a follow up 416 page Interim Report updating the debate.

When you run across a Knight Templar threatening you with a lance and a sword unless you confess the truth of catastrophic man caused global warming, ask him for his rebuttal to Climate Change Reconsidered. You will find the effect is like showing a cross to a vampire.

Indeed, the latest and best work actually provides scientific proof that the man-caused global warming catechism is false. Fully documented work by Roy Spencer, U.S. Science Team Leader for the AMSR-E instrument flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, and Principal Research Scientist for the Earth Systems Science Center at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, shows using atmospheric temperature data from NASA's Terra satellite that much more heat escapes back out to space than is assumed captured in the atmosphere by greenhouse effects under the UN's theoretical climate models. This explains why the warming temperature changes predicted by the UN's global warming models over the past 20 years have been so much greater than the actual measured temperature changes.

So the scientific foundation for shutting down our modern, 21st century, industrial economy has been obliterated. But that is not stopping religious crusaders, due to the extremist ideology and special interests driving the global warming charade.

http://townhall.com/columnists/peterferrara/2011/12/06/salvaging_the_mythology_of_mancaused_global_warming/page/full/
 
We should be investing in Weight Watchers. Going after fat people could be the next bandwagon the left elite will be trying to tyrannically impose on us all.

George Will brings it here....

 
We should be investing in Weight Watchers. Going after fat people could be the next bandwagon the left elite will be trying to tyrannically impose on us all.

I'd suggest black market Twinkies and ice creme operations. as the government bans, entrepreneurs will fill the need. remember prohibition ?
 
Fat people, weight watchers, twinkies, politics, everything but a scientific organization that counters global warming theory.

Well, the liberal scientific community must be lying! That pesky carbon dioxide thingy can't possibly have anything to do with global warming. Looky, looky! Wind turbines are killing birds. That proves that global warming theory is wrong. If it were right, then wind turbines would be all good, hydro power wouldn't kill off salmon, all renewable energy would then be totally problem free. See? That proves it.
 
Fat people, weight watchers, twinkies, politics, everything but a scientific organization that counters global warming theory.


NASA counters the purported heat trapping ability of greenhouse gasses. They a scientific organization ?

CERN demonstrates solar activity can produce the effect. How about them ?
 
Fat people, weight watchers, twinkies, politics, everything but a scientific organization that counters global warming theory.

Well, the liberal scientific community must be lying! That pesky carbon dioxide thingy can't possibly have anything to do with global warming. Looky, looky! Wind turbines are killing birds. That proves that global warming theory is wrong. If it were right, then wind turbines would be all good, hydro power wouldn't kill off salmon, all renewable energy would then be totally problem free. See? That proves it.

Oh my....same old same old...do you ever learn?

See my post #66 in this thread. Read the column I attached and may the Force be with you.
 
I cancelled a long held subscription to Autobon because of their hypocritical silence regarding the slaughter of birds by wind turbines. Let a couple of birds die of poisoning from the run off of a mine and they howl to the heavens but let raptors die in the tens of thousands not to mention miagratory birds and bats and they are as quiet as church mice.

Exactly. These organizations start out innocent and focused, but like everything political, corruption sneaks in over time, and then the inconsistent policies take over, and then, like you, they lose support. That's what happens when govt gets involved in things it has no business in, and that is why we are in such deep schit.
 
Fat people, weight watchers, twinkies, politics, everything but a scientific organization that counters global warming theory.

Well, the liberal scientific community must be lying! That pesky carbon dioxide thingy can't possibly have anything to do with global warming. Looky, looky! Wind turbines are killing birds. That proves that global warming theory is wrong. If it were right, then wind turbines would be all good, hydro power wouldn't kill off salmon, all renewable energy would then be totally problem free. See? That proves it.

What caused the earth to cool down for 3 ice ages we know of and then warm up to melt the ice? Man wasn't around. How did it happen?
 
Werbung:
Well, the liberal scientific community must be lying! That pesky carbon dioxide thingy can't possibly have anything to do with global warming. Looky, looky! Wind turbines are killing birds. That proves that global warming theory is wrong. If it were right, then wind turbines would be all good, hydro power wouldn't kill off salmon, all renewable energy would then be totally problem free. See? That proves it.

Can you name a physical law that supports and predicts the effects claimed to be produced by our CO2 emissions? I can name a few that state flatly that no such effect is possible.
 
Back
Top