Help, our country is drowning in all of this conservative rhetoric

[noproblems]

It started with Rush. Then came O'Reilly. Sean Hannity. Laura whatsherface. Glen Becker. Especially that neo-nazi extremist Savage.

There is no doubt our nation was long overdue for a change from that entitlement philosophy of the 1960's. Our states and our federal government were drowning in debt because of excesses in welfare programs and othersuch government handouts.

What I can't understand is why there aren't more 'sensible' Democrats to counteract the extremist Republican banter. It seems like the only voice of the Democratic Party is fairly extremist in nature. They cling to failed big government programs and spending. . . and they continually lose in the battle for the hearts and minds of the American people. And, meanwhile, you know who gets away with murder?

The Republicans, who can win over the multitudes with their argument against big government spending, while at the same time whispering and muttering and lieing and stealing and silencing what should be a top priority for the future of our nation: The Environment. Just ask many of the more popular Republican spokespersons(who sputter enough pollution out of their mouths about the environment to create a future catastrophe) about global warming. They will lie to you as easily as they lie to themselves, telling you that the whole concept of global warming is 'controversial' and probably is just a bunch of hullabaloo.

My God, WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON HERE?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

You answered your own question

the Democratic Party is fairly extremist in nature

CkG

PS you forgot Mike Reagan and Mike Medved

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
You answered your own question

the Democratic Party is fairly extremist in nature

CkG

PS you forgot Mike Reagan and Mike Medved

Classic...take something out of context...

Why not quote the whole sentence?

It seems like the only voice of the Democratic Party is fairly extremist in nature.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Insane3D
Why not quote the whole sentence?

It seems like the only voice of the Democratic Party is fairly extremist in nature.

Because:
a) it doesn't directly answer his question.
b) it is my opinion, using his words
c) I fixed his sentence?
d) It isn't as funny

It was dead here last night - I wanted to stir up some fun - this thread provided that opportunity, But nobody took me up on it right away.

CkG

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Insane3D
Why not quote the whole sentence?

It seems like the only voice of the Democratic Party is fairly extremist in nature.

Because:
a) it doesn't directly answer his question.
b) it is my opinion, using his words
c) I fixed his sentense?
d) It isn't as funny

It was dead here last night - I wanted to stir up some fun - this thread provided that opportunity, But nobody took me up on it right away.

CkG

Roger that.

 

[sMiLeYz]

My daddy always use to say:

"Give the country to the Republicans and they will run it to the ground."

Well he didn't actually say that... but it's true .

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: noproblems
[ ... ]
There is no doubt our nation was long overdue for a change from that entitlement philosophy of the 1960's. Our states and our federal government were drowning in debt because of excesses in welfare programs and othersuch government handouts.
[ ... ]

I'm not sure I agree with your premise. Sure, some people in some areas have an unhealthy expectation of entitlement. I don't agree it is primarily due to government handouts, nor am I convinced that some programs are big enough. I think the government's priorities are often screwed up, that we waste money in some areas while starving other, more vital programs.

I think part of the reason we are drowning in debt is our taxes are too low, In particular, I believe progressive taxation is the right philosophy, but we aren't nearly progressive enough in practice. I also think corporate welfare has become a tremendous problem at all levels of government. It is contrary to the principles of capitalism and a drain on the general public. It is also contrary to the purpose of government in most cases.

Having said all that, I am interested in others' views on which programs are excessive, which entitlements are unreasonable. Where does "safety net" end and "entitlement" begin? Why shouldn't the U.S. government ensure equal access to fundamental services like health care and education? Many other industrialized countries do, and we are supposed to be the best of the best. How do we justify rampant corporate welfare in a country supposedly of the people, by the people, and for the people? Why is corporate good now presumed to be more important than personal good?

It could be an interesting and informative discussion if we keep the flames down.

 

[EXman]

Help AT is gone to the Liberals!

really though Conservatives have the Radio but Libs have had the TV for a long time. so Deal with it...

 

[Jmman]

Well, since the science behind global warming is controversial and they are plenty of credible scientists who call BS on it, and since in the 1970's there was a huge cry from the environmentalists and some scientists about global cooling, and since the whole concept of global warming has been used by the liberals to advance their wealth re-distribution schemes, I don't think I am going to sell my SUV just yet......sorry.......:disgust:

I see far more serious issues out there than the environment. And yes, you are exactly right. The democrats are far too extreme at this point.........

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: EXman
Help AT is gone to the Liberals!

really though Conservatives have the Radio but Libs have had the TV for a long time. so Deal with it...

So like the Dems, the Republicans have been taken over by the Lunatic Fringe.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

"since the whole concept of global warming has been used by the liberals to advance their wealth re-distribution schemes, I don't think I am going to sell my SUV just yet......sorry......."


How, precisely how does this work, and specifically who is responsible for this conspiracy- you make an interesting claim.

 

[drag]

It started with Rush. Then came O'Reilly. Sean Hannity. Laura whatsherface. Glen Becker. Especially that neo-nazi extremist Savage.

Hrmp.

You know why those guys are on air? Because people like listening to them. They get ratings.

Ever listen to a hardcore libral person on the air? They just keep talking about how stupid the average american is hand how they need to be told the truth and have their hand held by government. They talk about how clueless most people are and how smart the people that "play" the system are. They talk about how moronic the people who drive SUV's are and how we are screwing up the world and how America is the center of all that is wrong with the world.

If you call the average american a idiot, the average american isn't going to listen to you.

At least Rush has whole shows dedicated on telling people that if they work hard enough and find their talent in life they can be successfull as anybody else out there.

That's why he gets 20 million listeners daily were as liberal TV stations like CNN get only about 4-5 million in prime time (and that's on a good day).


Anyways on the topic of global warming. Most of what you hear is IMO hogwash. The sun goes thru cycles. Not only does it go thru 11 cycles, but it probably goes thry 100 years cycles and probably 1000 year cycles too. Right now due to solar flare activity and increases in stuff like solar wind and radiation, scientists know that the sun is going thru a hotter cycle right now. This corrisponds with the rise in temperature. Nobody is denying that the mediam temp changes year to year, but most intellegent people are right in doubting that even a fraction of the difference is caused by human activity, we just are not that powerfull.

We came out of the "little ice age" were temperatures dropped considurably world wide. This caused all sorts of havoc and corrisponds with about the time when science progressed to the point were we began to study the enviroment. Before that was a period of tempurature fluctuation. And before that was the Mideivel warm period. This was a period of a about a thousand years were the average tempurature was serveral degrees hotter then it is now. This was when Greenland was actually GREEN. And not a completely frozen wasteland.

Today the enviromentalists try to tell us a change of a fraction of a degree in average tempurature will cause mass extections

For instance in one euruption Mt. St. Helens spewed forth more toxic chemicals and air pollutants then all of human history since the industrial revolution. Now the land around that mountain is livelier and greener then ever. There have been others too.

from here

Atmospheric Effects - Mt Pinatubo?s massive eruption was the largest on record in the Philippines, and in the world for a century, producing the largest cloud of climate-modifying gases since mighty Krakatoa erupted in Indonesia in 1883. Scientists estimated that Pinatubo?s eruption added more aerosols (light gases and particles) than all human-caused ?greenhouse gases? since the industrial revolution. A reduction of up to 1°C in the Earth?s average temperature was recorded by NASA satellites within a year of the main eruption. This cooling effect persisted for about two years, temporarily more than offsetting any global warming effect.

And there have been other volcanic eruptions that make Pinatubo look like small stuff.

What about the hundreds and thousands of gallons of crud oil that gets leaked into the ocean NATURALLY?

Scientist studying the amount of crud oil that leaks into the gulf of mexico said that in their most conservative estimants say that more oil gets absorbed into the ocean there every year then was spilled in the Exxon Valdis accident. There are bacteria that live off of the stuff.

I am not saying that we shouldn't give a damn about the enviroment. It's very precious and worth protecting. I am for that a 110%. But if your trying to tell me that SUV's are going to kill us all, then you should expect some strange looks.

 

[naddicott]

Originally posted by: Jmman
Well, since the science behind global warming is controversial and they are plenty of credible scientists who call BS on it, and since in the 1970's there was a huge cry from the environmentalists and some scientists about global cooling, and since the whole concept of global warming has been used by the liberals to advance their wealth re-distribution schemes, I don't think I am going to sell my SUV just yet......sorry.......:disgust:

:disgust:

is right.

Repeating the same flawed logic, inappropriate use of statistics and hidden value judgements over and over again does not make a scientist credible or correct. Name and link one individual with a PhD in climate science, actively working in the field, not taking any money from the energy industry in speaker fees or industry grants, who "calls BS" on global warming. I'm not talking about the lack of absolute certainty, which is impossible in such a complex field, but someone coming out and saying "it's all BS" as you imply credible scientists are doing.

Perhaps you are referring to the petition passed around by the prestegious Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, with "2660 Physicists, Geophysicists, Climatologists, Meteorologists, Oceanographers, and Evironmental Scientists Signers" many of whom turned out not to exist when attempts were made to verify their signatures, or turned out to have no more than a bachelors degree in the stated field and a PhD in an entirely unrelated field? Or maybe you are impressed by the attempt to infer an association with the National Academy of Sciences despite the Academy's immediate statement that "the petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy." The petition itself was accompanied by one "academic" article that has been shown as not logically supported by it's own sources (it cites data showing upper atmosphere temeratures cooling, which is entirely consistent with Global Warming theory - surface temps rise while upper atmosphere cools).

On the other hand, you have Working Group I of the IPCC -- a group of 637 climate scientists who specifically studied the available peer-reviewed scientific literature relevant to climate change -- concluding that global warming is being caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases. They looked at more than one source of information, and their sources actually support their conclusions.

Which of the two is BS? I wonder...

The fact is the risks posed by global warming to the health and safety of the American public (and the rest of the world) are much more likely than the risk of an "immenent threat" from Iraq ever was, there is certainly more hard data supporting the global warming risk. I suppose you're fine with millions of dollars spent to pre-empt immement Iraqi attacks but don't want a dime invested on countering our impact on global warming (although due to residence times, it's very likely too late anyway) until you can comfortably inner tube back and forth between the Northwest Territories and Russia, wearing bermuda shorts and a tank top, crossing true magnetic North en-route.

[edit: formatting]

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: naddicott

Originally posted by: Jmman
Well, since the science behind global warming is controversial and they are plenty of credible scientists who call BS on it, and since in the 1970's there was a huge cry from the environmentalists and some scientists about global cooling, and since the whole concept of global warming has been used by the liberals to advance their wealth re-distribution schemes, I don't think I am going to sell my SUV just yet......sorry.......:disgust:

:disgust:

is right.

Repeating the same flawed logic, inappropriate use of statistics and hidden value judgements over and over again does not make a scientist credible or correct. Name and link one individual with a PhD in climate science, actively working in the field, not taking any money from the energy industry in speaker fees or industry grants, who "calls BS" on global warming. I'm not talking about the lack of absolute certainty, which is impossible in such a complex field, but someone coming out and saying "it's all BS" as you imply credible scientists are doing.

Perhaps you are referring to the petition passed around by the prestegious Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, with "2660 Physicists, Geophysicists, Climatologists, Meteorologists, Oceanographers, and Evironmental Scientists Signers" many of whom turned out not to exist when attempts were made to verify their signatures, or turned out to have no more than a bachelors degree in the stated field and a PhD in an entirely unrelated field? Or maybe you are impressed by the attempt to infer an association with the National Academy of Sciences despite the Academy's immediate statement that "the petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy." The petition itself was accompanied by one "academic" article that has been shown as not logically supported by it's own sources (it cites data showing upper atmosphere temeratures cooling, which is entirely consistent with Global Warming theory - surface temps rise while upper atmosphere cools).

On the other hand, you have Working Group I of the IPCC -- a group of 637 climate scientists who specifically studied the available peer-reviewed scientific literature relevant to climate change -- concluding that global warming is being caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases. They looked at more than one source of information, and their sources actually support their conclusions.

Which of the two is BS? I wonder...

The fact is the risks posed by global warming to the health and safety of the American public (and the rest of the world) are much more likely than the risk of an "immenent threat" from Iraq ever was, there is certainly more hard data supporting the global warming risk. I suppose you're fine with millions of dollars spent to pre-empt immement Iraqi attacks but don't want a dime invested on countering our impact on global warming (although due to residence times, it's very likely too late anyway) until you can comfortably inner tube back and forth between the Northwest Territories and Russia, wearing bermuda shorts and a tank top, crossing true magnetic North en-route.

[edit: formatting]

For every climatoligist you find that supports human caused global warming, I can find one that supports a different reason. Right now very climatoligist do not beleive global warming is happening, however very few also agree on the reason for it.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: naddicott

Originally posted by: Jmman
Well, since the science behind global warming is controversial and they are plenty of credible scientists who call BS on it, and since in the 1970's there was a huge cry from the environmentalists and some scientists about global cooling, and since the whole concept of global warming has been used by the liberals to advance their wealth re-distribution schemes, I don't think I am going to sell my SUV just yet......sorry.......:disgust:

:disgust:

is right.

Repeating the same flawed logic, inappropriate use of statistics and hidden value judgements over and over again does not make a scientist credible or correct. Name and link one individual with a PhD in climate science, actively working in the field, not taking any money from the energy industry in speaker fees or industry grants, who "calls BS" on global warming. I'm not talking about the lack of absolute certainty, which is impossible in such a complex field, but someone coming out and saying "it's all BS" as you imply credible scientists are doing.

Perhaps you are referring to the petition passed around by the prestegious Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, with "2660 Physicists, Geophysicists, Climatologists, Meteorologists, Oceanographers, and Evironmental Scientists Signers" many of whom turned out not to exist when attempts were made to verify their signatures, or turned out to have no more than a bachelors degree in the stated field and a PhD in an entirely unrelated field? Or maybe you are impressed by the attempt to infer an association with the National Academy of Sciences despite the Academy's immediate statement that "the petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy." The petition itself was accompanied by one "academic" article that has been shown as not logically supported by it's own sources (it cites data showing upper atmosphere temeratures cooling, which is entirely consistent with Global Warming theory - surface temps rise while upper atmosphere cools).

On the other hand, you have Working Group I of the IPCC -- a group of 637 climate scientists who specifically studied the available peer-reviewed scientific literature relevant to climate change -- concluding that global warming is being caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases. They looked at more than one source of information, and their sources actually support their conclusions.

Which of the two is BS? I wonder...

The fact is the risks posed by global warming to the health and safety of the American public (and the rest of the world) are much more likely than the risk of an "immenent threat" from Iraq ever was, there is certainly more hard data supporting the global warming risk. I suppose you're fine with millions of dollars spent to pre-empt immement Iraqi attacks but don't want a dime invested on countering our impact on global warming (although due to residence times, it's very likely too late anyway) until you can comfortably inner tube back and forth between the Northwest Territories and Russia, wearing bermuda shorts and a tank top, crossing true magnetic North en-route.

[edit: formatting]

also please show where this list was shown to be a fraud.



linkage

 

[naddicott]

Originally posted by: drag
I am not saying that we shouldn't give a damn about the enviroment. It's very precious and worth protecting. I am for that a 110%. But if your trying to tell me that SUV's are going to kill us all, then you should expect some strange looks.

I'm not saying SUV's are going to kill us all, and I'm glad you're interested in protecting the environment. However, you really would do well to clear up some of your gross misconceptions about the nature of climate change.

 

[naddicott]

Originally posted by: charrison
also please show where this list was shown to be a fraud.

linkage

For starters, see the link in my previous post.

National Academy of Sciences Statement. (complains that the article accompanying the petition used "a format that is nearly identical to that of scientific articles published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences" and was not published in a peer reviewed journal (it's an op-ed article from the Wall Street Journal).

Background on the four scientists who make up the OISM. Including that one was fired for research that was "amateurish and inadequate."

Robinson was not even a climate scientist. He was a biochemist with no published research in the field of climatology, and his paper had never been subjected to peer review by anyone with training in the field. In fact, the paper had never been accepted for publication anywhere, let alone in the NAS Proceedings. It was self-published by Robinson, who did the typesetting himself on his own computer.

None of the coauthors of "Environmental Effects of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" had any more standing than Robinson himself as a climate change researcher. They included Robinson's 22-year-old son, Zachary (home-schooled by his dad), along with astrophysicists Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon. Both Baliunas and Soon worked with Frederick Seitz at the George C. Marshall Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank where Seitz served as executive director. Funded by a number of right-wing foundations, including Scaife and Bradley, the George C. Marshall Institute does not conduct any original research. It is a conservative think tank that was initially founded during the years of the Reagan administration to advocate funding for Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative--the "Star Wars" weapons program. Today, the Marshall Institute is still a big fan of high-tech weapons. In 1999, its website gave prominent placement to an essay by Col. Simon P. Worden titled "Why We Need the Air-Borne Laser," along with an essay titled "Missile Defense for Populations--What Does It Take? Why Are We Not Doing It?" Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, the Marshall Institute has adapted to the times by devoting much of its firepower to the war against environmentalism, and in particular against the "scaremongers" who raise warnings about global warming.
...
When questioned in 1998, OISM's Arthur Robinson admitted that only 2,100 signers of the Oregon Petition had identified themselves as physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, or meteorologists, "and of those the greatest number are physicists." The names of the signers are available on the OISM's website, but without listing any institutional affiliations or even city of residence, making it very difficult to determine their credentials or even whether they exist at all. When the Oregon Petition first circulated, in fact, environmental activists successfully added the names of several fictional characters and celebrities to the list, including John Grisham, Michael J. Fox, Drs. Frank Burns, B. J. Honeycutt, and Benjamin Pierce (from the TV show M*A*S*H), an individual by the name of "Dr. Red Wine," and Geraldine Halliwell, formerly known as pop singer Ginger Spice of the Spice Girls. Halliwell's field of scientific specialization was listed as "biology."

"We're not researchers in climate change"..

Robinson declined to say how much the campaign cost or who financed it--only that a retired Portland man paid for about 18 percent of the petition drive.

[edit: formatting]

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: naddicott

Originally posted by: drag
I am not saying that we shouldn't give a damn about the enviroment. It's very precious and worth protecting. I am for that a 110%. But if your trying to tell me that SUV's are going to kill us all, then you should expect some strange looks.

I'm not saying SUV's are going to kill us all, and I'm glad you're interested in protecting the environment. However, you really would do well to clear up some of your gross misconceptions about the nature of climate change.

Hehe. I am not going to listen to a propagandising document full of aurguments more ment to make misinformed so-called "enviromentalists" feel good about there beleif system than actually convince people that they should change their own views on nature.

Especially not when I spent weeks and weeks doing research on my own time on the subject to come to this viewpoint. This isn't some knee-jerk reaction from listening to Rush Limbaugh to much.

how about this.

Fiction: Just look at X: it's the coldest day/month/year on record ... or: Region X has cooled by Y°F over the past two years! There is no global warming!

Duh. The climate is determined by a average world wide tempurature. Even though many areas have colder tempuratures and growing glaciers, others have higher tempuratures and melting glaciers. When you average it out, the tempurature of the earth has risen a fraction of a degree over the past 30 years. Just like for 40 years before that the tempurature of the earth dropped a fraction of a degree.

Oh, what's a few degrees?

Fiction: A few degrees temperature increase won't matter much, and besides, warmer is better -- fewer cold-related deaths, longer growing seasons, lower heating bills. How many people actually notice the difference between 86 and 88.5°F?

Ummm.... Remember that the tempurature doesn't increase and decrease evenly over the entire planet. Some places react quite negatively (in our perceptions) to the climate change. Changes in familar weather patterns can cause havoc in large polutations that depend on marginal agriculture for their food. Other places react quite positively to tempurature changes. For instance quite a bit proof exists that in the Mideviel warm period Africa was quite a bit greener place with healthier forests and a shrinking desert. But that is no idication how it will react now in modern times. The only constant in Earth's enviroment is constant change.

man CO2 emissions are small compared to natural CO2 exchange.

Fiction: The 4.5% of the world's greenhouse gases that humans generate is insignificant when compared to the 95.5% generated by nature.

Yes that is true. Humans have less then a 1% of a change in the balance in the air mixtures. However 1 major change that seems most likely thru human behavior is CO2 gass emissions. This has a very small impact on, if any (it's disputable) on the overall tempurature. However one thing that has been proven (more or less) is that it results in more intense flora concitrations. This is due to the fact that plant life thrives in a high c02 enviroment, which counteracts the effect of CO2 in the long run. Thus Earth mantains the balance that has resulted from several hundred thousand years of wide tempurature swings.

Satellite temperature records don't show any global warming.

Fiction: Satellite temperature records do not show a warming trend over the past 20 years, and ground-level data are incorrect and exaggerate the warming.

Yes, satellite have shown a difference in tempurature. Just like sedimant shows that at times the earth was much hotter then it is now and much cooler, too. The tempurature at times was much hotter and this was by no means the result of human activity in a way, shape, or form. Just like the high likely hood that tempurature changes now are unlikely to have been caused by human activity.

The observed warming is all due to solar variation, not human activities.

Fiction: An increase in solar irradiance is the main cause of the Earth's current warming trend. Therefore, reducing fossil fuel emissions would not impact the Earth's temperature.

The "fact" section of this Q/A segment is more fiction then anything else.

What about the 19,000 scientists who claim we should not worry about global warming?

Fiction: There is no scientific consensus on climate change. Just look at the 19,000 scientists who signed on to the Global Warming Petition Project.

In this forum was the first time that I ever heard of this. Probably true that this was hoax. I have no reason to doubt it. It probably came from the desperation of some corporate a-hole who figured that if a large number of people could be conned in thinking one direction they could be conned into thinking the other way.


Does that clear up any misconceptions you may have?

 

[naddicott]

Originally posted by: charrison
For every climatoligist you find that supports human caused global warming, I can find one that supports a different reason. Right now very climatoligist do not beleive global warming is happening, however very few also agree on the reason for it.

Pick your argument. The petition you love so much claims global warming isn't happening.

I agree that climatoligists don't all agree on the exact causes of global warming - there too many delays in the system to easily identify cause/effect correlations, although I would be interested to see any who straight out discount the possibility of human contribution altogether. Personally, based on the science I've seen (I've taken grad level courses at university and I follow the research), I think whatever damage we've done to the atmosphere already will do the trick and that any efforts made at this point are a futile attempt to apologize for screwing up in the past. Have a nice day.

The hypocricy I see in the current administration is the liberal application of the "precautionary principle" for uncertain military risks, countered by the demand for a locktight, 110% certainty (need the extra 10% to counter conservative bias) about any possible environmental harm before moving a pinky finger to reduce America's disproportionate impact on the environment.

 

[naddicott]

Originally posted by: drag

The observed warming is all due to solar variation, not human activities.

Fiction: An increase in solar irradiance is the main cause of the Earth's current warming trend. Therefore, reducing fossil fuel emissions would not impact the Earth's temperature.

The "fact" section of this Q/A segment is more fiction then anything else.

Prove it. I would tend to take these propogandists' (Nobel laureates, department chairs, international council heads, generally more reputable than those four guys in Oregon) evaluation of scientific evidence over yours. No offense intended.

I met Henry Kendall (Nobel laureate, co-founder of UCS, lived 1926-1999) before he passed, and he didn't come across as anything but rational and ridiculously brilliant, there was no trace of propoganda or fiction in his statements.

 

[Jmman]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
"since the whole concept of global warming has been used by the liberals to advance their wealth re-distribution schemes, I don't think I am going to sell my SUV just yet......sorry......."


How, precisely how does this work, and specifically who is responsible for this conspiracy- you make an interesting claim.

Well, a couple of comments. First, I often hear people quote the IPCC and their studies as the foundation for their global warming ideas. The only problem with that is that the organization is clearly using the fear of global warming as a political tool. Look at the artful editing that was done to the final IPCC report and see if they were trying to advance an agenda.

"A comparison between the report approved by the contributing scientists and the published version reveals that key changes were made after the scientists had met and accepted what they thought was the final peer-reviewed version. The scientists were assuming that the IPCC would obey the IPCC Rules--a body of regulations that is supposed to govern the panel's actions. Nothing in the IPCC Rules permits anyone to change a scientific report after it has been accepted by the panel of scientific contributors and the full IPCC.

The participating scientists accepted "The Science of Climate Change" in Madrid last November; the full IPCC accepted it the following month in Rome. But more than 15 sections in Chapter 8 of the report--the key chapter setting out the scientific evidence for and against a human influence over climate--were changed or deleted after the scientists charged with examining this question had accepted the supposedly final text.

Few of these changes were merely cosmetic; nearly all worked to remove hints of the skepticism with which many scientists regard claims that human activities are having a major impact on climate in general and on global warming in particular.

The following passages are examples of those included in the approved report but deleted from the supposedly peer-reviewed published version:


"None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases."


"No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes."


"Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced."

Sure looks like they tried to edit out any signs of doubt about the cause of this apparent phenomena, huh?




If you look at the economics of the Kyoto Protocols, it is easy to see the ulterior motives involved. The US and US companies will be penalized, the other countries are completely exempt. Energy costs will significantly increase domestically, and jobs will be lost, and for what? So a third world country can be more competitive on the world market? Sounds like wealth redistribution to me......

"That the Kyoto Protocol will be costly, on the other hand, is well known; private and government estimates of the required greenhouse gas reductions place the cost to the U.S. economy alone at $130 billion to $400 billion annually. However, the benefits of a Kyoto-style policy should definitely be questioned. The protocol does not include developing nations such as China and India, which will clearly increase their levels of carbon dioxide emissions as they develop. Energy restrictions that raise costs in the developed world will only accelerate the shift of emissions (and jobs) to the developing world. "

Text



Oh, and there definitely are no credible scientists who doubt the cause of "global warming", huh?

"There is no consensus, unanimous or otherwise,

about long-term climate trends and what causes them.?

We are in no position to attribute confidently past

climate change to carbon dioxide or forecast

what the climate will be in the future."

?Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology, MIT

Furthermore, most people will neglect to tell you that most of this century's "global warming" took place before 1940, much earlier than the significant rise was seen in the world's CO2 levels.....

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: naddicott

Originally posted by: drag

The observed warming is all due to solar variation, not human activities.

Fiction: An increase in solar irradiance is the main cause of the Earth's current warming trend. Therefore, reducing fossil fuel emissions would not impact the Earth's temperature.

The "fact" section of this Q/A segment is more fiction then anything else.

Prove it. I would tend to take these propogandists' (Nobel laureates, department chairs, international council heads, generally more reputable than those four guys in Oregon) evaluation of scientific evidence over yours. No offense intended.

I met Henry Kendall (Nobel laureate, co-founder of UCS, lived 1926-1999) before he passed, and he didn't come across as anything but rational and ridiculously brilliant, there was no trace of propoganda or fiction in his statements.

I wasn't saying they were propagandists, I am just saying that who ever put out that website linked to was.


Here. Let me let you into a little secret about acadamia, science, and the media.

There is very limited amount of resources that scientists can call apon to base their studies on. Meaning that as far as money/grants go, there are very few scientists that get a chance to do what they want and make truly ground breaking studies.

The reason that you see so many studies on global warming is because it is in vouge. You do a study on global warming and you are almost garanteed to get your name mentioned in the media in one way or another. A university's job is to make sure that they are taken seriously as a school, the more mentions they get, the more awards they get, makes them look very good.

Right now if a scientest does a study whose goal is to reinforce the opinion that human-caused global warming is a farce they don't get taken seriously. If you don't get taken seriously you don't get the money, you don't get the awards, you don't get the notoriaty. So if you are to survive as a scientist when you beleive human-based global warming is a lie, you have to simply not talk about it to much and concitrate on other subjects.


Similar things happen in other feilds of studies. Take evolution. There are plenty of scientist who beleive that the current viewpoints on evolution are a mistake, and there must be some other more logical (in their opinion) explaination. There are plenty of evidence that they are right. But if they make noise about it, people won't take them seriously and they won't get choosen to do the studies.

All this is very political and rather stupid.

Anyways just because a person is intellegent or seems briliant, doesn't mean they are right. If you look at the history of science there have been many many very intellegent poeple, who coincidently have been very wrong. In fact if you look at the track record of scientific progress it becomes apparent that the majority of the time scientific thought was heading in a bad direction, and it took some minority of even a individual to redirect them in a more correct way.

 

[daniel1113]

http://www.sitewave.net/news/s49p419.htm

It seems as though there are quite a few knowledgeable scientists that disagree with global warming. What a coincidence.

 

[naddicott]

Good post Jmman.

Shame on you, however, for not providing the full context of Lindzen's quote:

Our primary conclusion was that despite some knowledge and agreement, the science is by no means settled. We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 degrees Celsius higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds).

But--and I cannot stress this enough--we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to carbon dioxide or to forecast what the climate will be in the future. That is to say, contrary to media impressions, agreement with the three basic statements tells us almost nothing relevant to policy discussions.

Ah well, can't blame people for arguing about the environment by the book:

Strategy 1 ? DISCREDIT THE MESSAGE
(a) Highlight the scientific uncertainties
(b) Emphasize and take out of context selected findings to weaken the scientific conclusions.
(c) Making false claims for the policy implications of scientific findings

Strategy 2 ? DISCREDIT THE MESSENGER
(a) Those eco-doomsters, alarmists, communists! ? Plain old name calling
(b) Proclaim all guilty by association

Strategy 3 ? DISCREDIT THE PROCESS

Strategy 4 ? BOLSTER THE COUNTER-MESSAGE
(a) Put climate change (or at least the US and fossil fuel industry) in the best possible light
(b) Sign-on petitions
(c) Putting on a scientific front
(d) The proliferation of skeptics organizations

Granted, variations of these strategies go both ways. Climate science, especially in regard to global warming has been misquoted and misrepresented by both sides of environmental politics. There obviously isn't a certainty of some doomsday scenario, but it's within the realm of possibility (i.e. if you model future climate with best estimate parameters you often get some not too nice to think about results).

 

[naddicott]

Originally posted by: drag
If you look at the history of science there have been many many very intellegent poeple, who coincidently have been very wrong. In fact if you look at the track record of scientific progress it becomes apparent that the majority of the time scientific thought was heading in a bad direction, and it took some minority of even a individual to redirect them in a more correct way.

Nice to meet you Galileo. I hope for everyone's sake that you're right.