Tuesday
11Dec2007
DV TWITTERING
RECENT POSTS
RECENT COMMENTS
THE PRICE OF REWARDING TERRORISM
You do not defeat terrorism by rewarding terrorists, regardless of how many bleeding heart liberals argue otherwise. Want to know where that flawed approach leads to? Read UNIONISM DECAYED 1997-2007 - It's my first book and it explains what happens when you seeek to appease terrorists and call it peace. It's available right now for ATW readers so make sure you get your copy by emailing the editor! This is the book that dissents from the herd mentality that doing wrong can lead to being right. It doesn't and this book spells out WHY.
HIT THE TIP JAR!
A TANGLED CLOUD
Tangled Navigation
More About This Website
THE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT
Can America Trust the BBC?
"I do remember... the corridors of Broadcasting House were strewn with empty champagne bottles. I'll always remember that", Jane Garvey, BBC Five Live, May 10th, 2007, recalling May 2nd, 1997.
Login
RSS
Powered by Squarespace
BEST BLOGS
SEARCH ATW
SITEMETER
Tuesday, December 11, 2007 at 03:46PM
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (66)
Here is a headline and link to an article that has all the links and information anyone needs to PROVE that people like Peter have been duped and there is NO threat from global warming
Skeptical Scientists Urge World To ‘Have the Courage to Do Nothing' At UN Conference
lol - mute?
A new game per chance?
Guess what the writer wants to say.
Hilarious.
Troll: By any chance did you take a look at your source and the people cited in the article? Marc Morano is a known rightwing fellow, who writes the predictible rightwing line. The star of his article, Lord Christopher Monckton has a degree in journalism (not science) and is known to have fabricated a story as a publicity stunt in his native land. His views on many subjects are, to put in kindly, far right of even YOU.
Daphne: !!!!! BTW, that's me in the purple!.....screaming.....
....KIDDING ...lolololol.
That video is hilarious. Oh man, these people need a reality check. And why, oh why, is there always some stupid drum in groups such as these?!?!
HA!
Patty - Please don't attack silly people with drums, you'll upset the Orangemen on this site.
More nuts and bolts fall from the climate alarmists' bandwagon:
"Climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia report that temperature fluctuations over the past three decades are not consistent with greenhouse model predictions and more closely correlate with solar activity.
The report dismisses attempts to reverse global warming by reducing carbon emissions as ineffective and pointless."
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2007/121107_global_warming.htm
*snort*
My beer ended all up all over the place. Funny.
This is where you need Sasha Baron Cohen to step in and interview them (as Ali G)
here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZ9o1KHi-mY
So Mahons did you read the article? did you look at any of the reports that links are provided for? They don't link to Monktin they link to about fifty other scientists plus other peer reviewed studies by climatolagists that disagree with the IPCC
If nothing else it proves that there is no such thing as a consensus in science
RC,
Here is what the abstract of that study actually says:
"We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 Climate of the 20th Century model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data"
Notice how it bears no resemblance at all to the, uh, 'paraphrasing' from the learned prisonplanet.com?
And apparently it's also wrong.
Troll: I read the article. There is no such thing like a consensus in science? So we have to accept the earth is flat crowd, the sun revolves around the earth crowd and the moon is made of cheese crowd because some idiot(s) somewhere can be found who disagrees with basic common science? I don't think so.
I exposed the writer and the star "expert" from his article as those who pander to rightwing delusions about global warming. Why can't you people even try to find objective support for your arguments? Is it really that hard (on this issue I suspect the answer is "yes").
Hmm....the National Science Academies of the G* countries recently issued a joint statement saying glopbal warming was probably human induced and was a threat which needed to be tackled.
Why the hell shouldn`t we follow the advice of the mainstream scientists instead of ultra right wing ideologues who think a;; environmental protection laws are just an economic burdon to big business?
Imagine the dire straits we would have been in if we had followed the advice of those who claims CFCs were not destroying the Ozone layer.
Mahons posted (to the Troll)
His views on many subjects are, to put in kindly, far right of even YOU.
LOL! Impossible!
Troll
Yeah, there is room for dispute, but THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF CLIMATE SCIENTISTS are in agreement with the AGW hypothesis.
Check out this link from your own post!
Daphne
It's easy to laugh at the tree-huggers, but I didn't see any weapons or explosives there, unlike the right-wing religious nutters at Waco or the right-wing survivalist creeps, or the right-wing government-haters like Timothy McVeigh who blew up the federal building in Oklahoma City.
I reckon this video is a bunch of Right wingers acting up to spoof the ecobrigade.
Frank,
scientists keep coming out and contradicting the climate alarmists, unfortunate things keep being found out, like global warming on Mars and mistakes in the temperature data, which reveal that 1934 was the hottest year in the 20th century, and the 1930s the hottest decade, but still the band plays on.
Peter,
'rightwing religious nutters at Waco'
Screw you pal! They may have been religious nutters, but their guns were legal, and that's no reason to kill them all. Many of them were children.
Here's a pretty accurate account from arborist Richard Mabey in his book Flora Britannica.
It takes place in Tamworth, Staffordshire in 1991 and shows that not all the eco-worrier bozo's are from the USA:
'A party of eco's were returning from a day out when one of their colleagues hit a tree with his car, killing him instantly.
"After the funeral ten of the mourners returned to the scene of the crash and hacked down the flower-decked tree with axes and a chainsaw". (unquote).
It seems that some people have certain 'limits' when it comes to their green credentials!
Bernard: It would have been a better story if they held the funeral for the tree.
RC,
"scientists keep coming out and contradicting the climate alarmists, unfortunate things keep being found out, like global warming on Mars and mistakes in the temperature data, which reveal that 1934 was the hottest year in the 20th century, and the 1930s the hottest decade, but still the band plays on."
Pretty much everything in the above paragraph is factually incorrect. Global warming on Mars is not 'unfortunate' and may not even be happening (by the way the evidence for it is far less than there is for global warming on earth, which those on your side of the aisle deny is happening). 1934 was not the hottest year in the 20th century, the 1930s were not the hottest decade.
Indeed about the only statement you could support in that is "scientists keep coming out and contradicting the climate alarmists" but then it doesn't mean what you think it does.
Frank,
"Global warming on Mars is not 'unfortunate' and may not even be happening (by the way the evidence for it is far less than there is for global warming on earth, which those on your side of the aisle deny is happening)"
Unfortunate for the alarmists, because it can't be blamed on evil mankind and farting cattle. I dare say there's not as much data, that's because it's difficult to get politicians to go there for photo-shoots. In any case, if we can't find agreement on the 1934 vs 1998 question, there may be little we can agree on. However, to pose a question, has the temperature continued to rise since 1998, or not?
p.s Frank,
here's one report on the 1934/1998 question
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0823/p02s01-wogi.html
No doubt some of the guys on 'your side of the aisle have been burning the midnight oil (and increasing their carbon footprints) trying to work out how up is down on this one.
RC,
"Unfortunate for the alarmists, because it can't be blamed on evil mankind and farting cattle."
But which CAN be explained by the models developed by the scientists whose work and integrity gets pissed on by every right-wing ignoramus with a web browser. The same models that predict AGW.
"1934 vs 1998 question"
There isn't one. 1934 refers to temperature in the US. 1998 was a global temperature record.
"has the temperature continued to rise since 1998, or not?"
Does such cherry picking impress anyone? Has your bank balance continued to rise since payday? No? Then paying you must have no effect.
Hey RC.....
http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ocga/testimony/Global_Climate_Change_Policy_and_Budget_Review.asp
nice link for you about the overall concensus on global warming
Stop listening to big oil stooges and start listening to those who know most about science
Peter: " or the right-wing government-haters like Timothy McVeigh who blew up the federal building in Oklahoma City."
Ah, yes.....Timothy McVeigh...the left's ubiquitous example of a "right wing nutter."
Like the tom-tom drum, McVeigh is one of the left's favorite props. You will find McVeigh, inexplicably brought into almost any discussion, including the global warming, Islamophobia, and Christianity in the public square.
RC,
"http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0823/p02s01-wogi.html"
Here's the opening sentence of your link. What a surprise, it is factually incorrect.
Was 1998 the hottest year in United States history, as most reporting on climate change has presumed?
NASA didn't claim that 1998 was the hottest year in the US - in 1999 they actually said that it was not and that 1934 was. 1998 was however the hottest year globally. Both of those statements were reported. 'Reporting' that said otherwise (if any) was contradicting what the science said in 1999 and is thus completely irrelevant to the science. And as a 'skeptic' that is what you care about, right?
Does it never faze you that the sources you rely on are complete tosh and easily shown to be so? Don't you get embarrassed to constantly reference such fools and liars? And doesn't it damage your reputation as 'skeptics' when you are constantly found to be credulously repeating garbage?
Patty
I know it's an inconvenient truth for Rightworld to accept, but a right-wing nutter is an exact description of the Oklahoma terrorist bomber.
Michael,
'big oil stooges'? Gimme a break! All the corporations are well represented at Bali, and will support the calls for global laws restraining development, in fact many of them are lobbying right now. The carbon trading scheme (literally creating a commodity out of thin air) will provide a new way to take the money out of all our pockets. It is you people who are the shills for the corporate agenda.
"start listening to those who know most about science"
Do you see the impenetrable loop of blind faith in your position? If a scientist disagrees, or even publishes data that contradicts the climate cult, then he must be wrong, because 'those who know most' have decided.
Frank,
yep, those darn 'cherry-picked' facts, eh? Like the one that shows that temperature rises come before atmospheric CO2 rises
RC pal
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you have some er, interesting views on 9/11?
Your defence of the Waco right wing nutters brought it to mind.
Frank,
you're just cherry-picking!
Peter,
why don't you check the facts about Waco, before trying to sneer at me? If you think killing a bunch of children is okay, because they're 'rightwing' you're sick in the head.
"If a scientist disagrees, or even publishes data that contradicts the climate cult, then he must be wrong,"
If a scientist wishes to tout some data then a peer reviewed science journal is the place to do so..unfortunately the skeptics don`t follow the peer review process. They know that their stuff would never pass the review process in prominent science journals like "Science" or "Nature"
BTW...the NAS whom I posted a link to are the American version of the Royal Society....ie the USA`s highest science body...as Bush himself even put it once.
RC
I note you don't answer the 9/11 question.
Your concern for the innocent children at Waco is commendable, but it was their righ-wing nutter parents who were responsible for what happened. They could have released the children during the 51 day siege but chose not to. But what can you expect from nut jobs who thought it was the end of the world anyway?
RC,
"you're just cherry-picking!"
I read the links you offer. Doesn't it bother you at all that they are wrong? Do you ever read any of the sources that rebut this stuff you are coming out with?
"Like the one that shows that temperature rises come before atmospheric CO2 rises"
Are you claiming that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas? If yes then how do you explain the observations that demonstrate that it is? If no then what is the point you are trying to make?
Frank, just to interrupt your fine argument for a moment - do you think those people in the video appear to be mentally or emotionally unstable in their seemingly sincere grief for the forest?
And would you date any of them? :-)
Frank,
"Doesn't it bother you at all that they are wrong?"
It doesn't bother me that you say they are wrong, because that's what you always say whenever a report comes out that contradicts the orthodoxy you embrace.
"Are you claiming that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas?"
Changing the subject, I see. No I haven't claimed that. Are you claiming that life could exist on this planet without the greenhouse effect?
Peter,
spoken like a true environmentalist - totally lacking human compassion.
RC,
Dear me, the knives are truly out tonight.
Peter: And what exactly does Timothy McVeigh or Waco have to do with the environment? What's next? the Crusades?
....who mentioned crusades?!...
Where do I sign?.....
RC,
"It doesn't bother me that you say they are wrong, because that's what you always say whenever a report comes out that contradicts the orthodoxy you embrace."
I notice you handily ignore the reasons I offer. Nor do I embrace any orthodoxy, not that it is relevant. It would be nice if you would attempt to address the arguments. I do you the courtesy of actually reading your links and addressing the content of them.
""Are you claiming that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas?"
Changing the subject, I see. No I haven't claimed that."
It's pretty rich for you to accuse of changing the subject. Let's review your 'argument' so far. You offer a report on a study which clearly misrepresents the study. To support that I offer the actual abstract of the study, and also show some evidence that the numbers in the study are off by a factor of 10. You suddenly lose interest in the study and begin to talk about warming on mars and temperature in the USA. I explain some problems in that line of reasoning and you lose interest again and say that CO2 rises precede temperature rises. I enquire as to the point you are making and you claim that I am changing the subject. LOL!
Daphne,
"do you think those people in the video appear to be mentally or emotionally unstable in their seemingly sincere grief for the forest?"
*Shrug*. They look no worse off than the average Church-goer. Though they are probably getting fleeced for less money and at least they get a trip to the woods out of the deal.
Though admittedly some of those Catholic girls are hot.
Frank
Though admittedly some of those Catholic girls are hot.
Why do you think we hang in there?
So it appears that the 1930's was the hottest decade in the US last century, but not in the world. The US extends from Hawaii to Alaska and from one coast to the other of the north American continent: a fairly large and diverse chunk of the world. It is also reasonable to assume that the quality of instrumentation used by the US to record temperature was more accurate and more correctly calibrated than instrumentation elsewhere in the world at that time. So just how accurate are the temperature readings from the rest of the world during the 1930's?
Patty posted:
And what exactly does Timothy McVeigh or Waco have to do with the environment?
The post is about cults. Did you miss that in the title?
"Though admittedly some of those Catholic girls are hot."
Frank, we aren't discussing O'Dwyer Warming.
>>O'Dwyer Warming.<<
woman-made warming, to be precise.
Mahons, Ive been away and have just spent a fun morning reading over yours and O'Dwyer's comments over several threads.
One of the more enjoyable things in life. Good to see you're in good hitting form and that Frank is back.
Peter: actually, I lost the plot...mea culpa
Mahons
There is no such thing like a consensus in science? So we have to accept the earth is flat crowd, the sun revolves around the earth crowd and the moon is made of cheese crowd because some idiot(s) somewhere can be found who disagrees with basic common science? I don't think so.
Those things have been "proven" untrue by real science and math They do make a good list to put Global Warming in though...LOL