Climate change natural says new study

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
Prejudiced by real science and scientist that have NO gains with politically trumped-up science.

yvoMS1512_468x293.jpg


Yeah, this emo looks stable enough to be objective and deal with the matter. :rofl:

Had to be led out of the thing by a woman who, by the way, wasn't sobbing uncontrollably. The guy on his left looks like he wants to kick him a few times.

By the way, who taught this little fuck how to dress, anyway?
 

spike

New Member
Once again you err in your reading of what I say. I have never stated that GW is a hoax. What I have said is that it is a scam.

The entire thing is a money maker for those who play it right -- like Al Gore.

Yet your wrong again. Pollution and oil are the money makers. Look how much they are willing to pay scientists to fool people like you?


What you keep giving me are one-sided articles from one-sided sources.

No, that's what you're giving me.

Canada Free Press. Take a quick look at the home page and tell me it's not completely biased. :laugh:

Your blogs and opinions of the people have done absolutely nothing to prove it's a scam or a hoax. The bottom line is there is theories and counter theories yet most scientists still support the concept that quick action is needed..
 

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
And you give me The Guardian which is a left wing newspaper.

Your story has been refuted and everything you need to find that out is below. Simply follow the links in the story.

AEI staff and fellows have been frequent critics of the prevailing scientific view of global warming and especially of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the international scientific body tasked to evaluate the risk of climate change caused by human activity.[16][17] In February 2007, a number of sources, including the British newspaper The Guardian, reported that the AEI had sent letters to scientists offering US$10,000 plus travel expenses and additional payments, asking them to critique the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. The letters alleged that the IPCC was "resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work" and asked for essays that "thoughtfully explore the limitations of climate model outputs."[18][19][20] According to the Guardian article, the AEI received $1.6 million in funding from ExxonMobil. The article further notes that former ExxonMobil CEO Lee R. Raymond is the vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees.

The Guardian article was disputed both by AEI[21] and in an editorial in the Wall Street Journal.[22] The rebuttals claimed factual errors and distortions, noting the ExxonMobil funding was spread out over a ten-year period and totaled less than 1% of AEI's budget. The Wall Street Journal editorial stated "AEI doesn't lobby, didn't offer money to scientists to question global warming, and the money it did pay for climate research didn't come from Exxon."

AEI denies that the organization is skeptical about global warming. Criticizing the story as part of a "climate inquisition" published in "the left-wing press", the AEI's Steven Hayward and Kenneth Green wrote in the The Weekly Standard:

t has never been true that we ignore mainstream science; and anyone who reads AEI publications closely can see that we are not "skeptics" about warming. It is possible to accept the general consensus about the existence of global warming while having valid questions about the extent of warming, the consequences of warming, and the appropriate responses. In particular, one can remain a policy skeptic, which is where we are today, along with nearly all economists.[23]


Hayward has described efforts to reduce global warming as being "based on exaggerations and conjecture rather than science."[24] He also has stated that "even though the leading scientific journals are thoroughly imbued with environmental correctness and reject out of hand many articles that don’t conform to the party line, a study that confounds the conventional wisdom is published almost every week."[25] Green has referred to efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as "the positively silly idea of establishing global-weather control by actively managing the atmosphere’s greenhouse-gas emissions," and endorsed Michael Crichton's novel State of Fear for having "educated millions of readers about climate science." [26]

AEI President Chris DeMuth accepts that the earth has warmed in recent decades, but states that "it's not clear why this happened" and charges that the IPCC "has tended to ignore many distinguished physicists and meteorologists whose work casts doubt on the influence of greenhouse gases on global temperature trends."[27] AEI fellow James Glassman also disputes the prevailing scientific opinion on climate change, having written numerous articles criticizing the Kyoto accords and climate science more generally for Tech Central Station.[28] He has supported the views of U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe, an outspoken skeptic of human-caused climate change,[29] and, like Green, cites Michael Crichton's novel State of Fear which "casts serious doubt on global warming and extremists who espouse it."[30] Joel Schwartz, an AEI Visiting Fellow, states: "The Earth has indeed warmed during the last few decades and may warm further in the future. But the pattern of climate change is not consistent with the greenhouse effect being the main cause."[31]



We will have to agree to disagree. Our debate, if that is what you can call it, is over.
 

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
Nonono. Cow farts cause global warming.
Kissing causes electricity. Therefore, electricity causes, in a roundabout way, population growth. :shrug:

Not according to the Norweigans.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,501145,00.html

GLOBAL WARMING FEARS
Norway's Moose Population in Trouble for Belching

The poor old Scandinavian moose is now being blamed for climate change, with researchers in Norway claiming that a grown moose can produce 2,100 kilos of carbon dioxide a year -- equivalent to the CO2 output resulting from a 13,000 kilometer car journey.

Norway is concerned that its national animal, the moose, is harming the climate by emitting an estimated 2,100 kilos of carbon dioxide a year through its belching and farting.

Norwegian newspapers, citing research from Norway's technical university, said a motorist would have to drive 13,000 kilometers in a car to emit as much CO2 as a moose does in a year.

Bacteria in a moose's stomach create methane gas which is considered even more destructive to the environment than carbon dioxide gas. Cows pose the same problem (more...).

Norway has some 120,000 moose but an estimated 35,000 are expected to be killed in this year's moose hunting season, which starts on September 25, Norwegian newspaper VG reported.

cro
 

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
By the way, Spike, if you are so all fired sure of AGW then this should be a no-brainer for you -- and could earn you a cool $150,000!

The rules are simple and are explained in detail HERE.

You might also want to watch the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBCRStksqL0

Remember, the prize has now been increased to $150,000!

Please allow me to congratulate you in advance of your win!
 

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
I'm sure that the GW proponents will point to this as irrefutable proof that their efforts to stem GW are working.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071219/COMMENTARY/10575140

Year of global cooling
By David Deming
December 19, 2007

Al Gore says global warming is a planetary emergency. It is difficult to see how this can be so when record low temperatures are being set all over the world. In 2007, hundreds of people died, not from global warming, but from cold weather hazards.

Since the mid-19th century, the mean global temperature has increased by 0.7 degrees Celsius. This slight warming is not unusual, and lies well within the range of natural variation. Carbon dioxide continues to build in the atmosphere, but the mean planetary temperature hasn't increased significantly for nearly nine years. Antarctica is getting colder. Neither the intensity nor the frequency of hurricanes has increased. The 2007 season was the third-quietest since 1966. In 2006 not a single hurricane made landfall in the U.S.

South America this year experienced one of its coldest winters in decades. In Buenos Aires, snow fell for the first time since the year 1918. Dozens of homeless people died from exposure. In Peru, 200 people died from the cold and thousands more became infected with respiratory diseases. Crops failed, livestock perished, and the Peruvian government declared a state of emergency.

Unexpected bitter cold swept the entire Southern Hemisphere in 2007. Johannesburg, South Africa, had the first significant snowfall in 26 years. Australia experienced the coldest June ever. In northeastern Australia, the city of Townsville underwent the longest period of continuously cold weather since 1941. In New Zealand, the weather turned so cold that vineyards were endangered.

Last January, $1.42 billion worth of California produce was lost to a devastating five-day freeze. Thousands of agricultural employees were thrown out of work. At the supermarket, citrus prices soared. In the wake of the freeze, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger asked President Bush to issue a disaster declaration for affected counties. A few months earlier, Mr. Schwarzenegger had enthusiastically signed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, a law designed to cool the climate. California Sen. Barbara Boxer continues to push for similar legislation in the U.S. Senate.

In April, a killing freeze destroyed 95 percent of South Carolina's peach crop, and 90 percent of North Carolina's apple harvest. At Charlotte, N.C., a record low temperature of 21 degrees Fahrenheit on April 8 was the coldest ever recorded for April, breaking a record set in 1923. On June 8, Denver recorded a new low of 31 degrees Fahrenheit. Denver's temperature records extend back to 1872.

Recent weeks have seen the return of unusually cold conditions to the Northern Hemisphere. On Dec. 7, St. Cloud, Minn., set a new record low of minus 15 degrees Fahrenheit. On the same date, record low temperatures were also recorded in Pennsylvania and Ohio.

Extreme cold weather is occurring worldwide. On Dec. 4, in Seoul, Korea, the temperature was a record minus 5 degrees Celsius. Nov. 24, in Meacham, Ore., the minimum temperature was 12 degrees Fahrenheit colder than the previous record low set in 1952. The Canadian government warns that this winter is likely to be the coldest in 15 years.

Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri are just emerging from a destructive ice storm that left at least 36 people dead and a million without electric power. People worldwide are being reminded of what used to be common sense: Cold temperatures are inimical to human welfare and warm weather is beneficial. Left in the dark and cold, Oklahomans rushed out to buy electric generators powered by gasoline, not solar cells. No one seemed particularly concerned about the welfare of polar bears, penguins or walruses. Fossil fuels don't seem so awful when you're in the cold and dark.

If you think any of the preceding facts can falsify global warming, you're hopelessly naive. Nothing creates cognitive dissonance in the mind of a true believer. In 2005, a Canadian Greenpeace representative explained “global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter.” In other words, all weather variations are evidence for global warming. I can't make this stuff up.

Global warming has long since passed from scientific hypothesis to the realm of pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo.

David Deming is a geophysicist, an adjunct scholar with the National Center for Policy Analysis, and associate professor of Arts and Sciences at the University of Oklahoma.
 

PrincessLissa

New Member
Even if it is 100% true that global warming is not caused by human way of life, why does it matter so much that people want to tread lightly on the earth and keep the environment safe and beautiful for future generations? Why spend so much time, money, and bribery proving to people that it is okay to dump oil into oceans, use cans of aerosol containing CFC's, and to dump everything into the trash can?

It does not matter what scientists are paid to say or what certain studies may find one week and have another study counter it the next. I think that everyone should be gentle to our planet no matter how many articles are put out. And frankly, for one person to find this many articles on this topic is a total waste of time.
 

Professur

Well-Known Member
Even if it is 100% true that global warming is not caused by human way of life, why does it matter so much that people want to tread lightly on the earth and keep the environment safe and beautiful for future generations? Why spend so much time, money, and bribery proving to people that it is okay to dump oil into oceans, use cans of aerosol containing CFC's, and to dump everything into the trash can?

It does not matter what scientists are paid to say or what certain studies may find one week and have another study counter it the next. I think that everyone should be gentle to our planet no matter how many articles are put out. And frankly, for one person to find this many articles on this topic is a total waste of time.


That people want to, and are encouraged to 'green up' is a noble cause. The greatest tragedies in history have often been accomplished in the name of 'the noble cause'.
 

PrincessLissa

New Member
That people want to, and are encouraged to 'green up' is a noble cause. The greatest tragedies in history have often been accomplished in the name of 'the noble cause'.

A lot of companies trying to fit into the "trend" of going green are actually making things worse in their efforts. Going green does not mean throwing out entire buildings to rebuild them "green". That can be very wasteful. No one should be encouraged to scrap their perfectly working vehicle in order to go green with a Hybrid. If the car is in great working condition, find another use for it if you really don't want to drive it anymore. Don't just scrap it. And the Wal-Mart going green with it's "green stores' pisses me right the hell off. The little things they are doing are good, but they are so wasteful in the process and in other areas of their business. Sure they now have select stores using environmentally friendly light bulbs and solar power, but they still throw away all of those plastic hangers. They don't even reuse them let alone attempt to recycle them.

I can certainly see the tragedy in the trend, but I don't see the necessity in trying to thwart the efforts of people who are truly concerned about the environment and would prefer to do what they can about global warming and other issues by digging up every article they can find. Until we know for sure what causes it, which might not ever happen depending on which studies you look at or which scientists are paid how much for their studies, we might as well try to do what we can.
 

Professur

Well-Known Member
A lot of companies trying to fit into the "trend" of going green are actually making things worse in their efforts. Going green does not mean throwing out entire buildings to rebuild them "green". That can be very wasteful. No one should be encouraged to scrap their perfectly working vehicle in order to go green with a Hybrid. If the car is in great working condition, find another use for it if you really don't want to drive it anymore. Don't just scrap it. And the Wal-Mart going green with it's "green stores' pisses me right the hell off. The little things they are doing are good, but they are so wasteful in the process and in other areas of their business. Sure they now have select stores using environmentally friendly light bulbs and solar power, but they still throw away all of those plastic hangers. They don't even reuse them let alone attempt to recycle them.

I can certainly see the tragedy in the trend, but I don't see the necessity in trying to thwart the efforts of people who are truly concerned about the environment and would prefer to do what they can about global warming and other issues by digging up every article they can find. Until we know for sure what causes it, which might not ever happen depending on which studies you look at or which scientists are paid how much for their studies, we might as well try to do what we can.



You see, appearances aren't everything, Walmart stores might go Greener than Green, but most of their goods are produced in countries that pollute without hesitation. False green. Compact florescent bulbs are in fact becoming law in many places .... but they're full of toxic mercury ... unlike easily recyclable incandescent bulbs. False green. How about hybrid and electric cars? Well hybrid cars haul about useless components and are dramatically heavier than their regular counterparts, and both hybrid and electric cars carry hundreds of pounds of toxic batteries. Not to mention that, in most places .... electric cars have to be charged using power from coal and oil fired power plants. False green.

My biggest objections to 'going green' is the blindness of most of the followers to the fact that all they've done is a shell game. Moving the pollution from one place to another. Ever use recycled paper? In most cases, recycling paper produced more pollution than new paper. And the recycling could be as easily done by burying the paper to renew the ground for growing plants for that new paper. But that doesn't look as good on the headlines, and doesn't drum up votes.
 
Top