| Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
..
11 |
oxxo
Banned
Posts: 2347
Registered: 5-17-2006
Location: Wherever I am, I'm there
Member Is Offline
Mood: If I was feeling any better, I'd be twins!
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by David K
1) Why is it so important to you to believe the new age observations of the past 'few months' over my 43 years going to the same sea level places
(rock and sand, not just sand) OR better still the scientific papers in the link provided by bajalou? |
Wrong! This research is NOT "new age observations of the past 'few months.'" It is credible scientific research over the last several years
including available data from before that.
I'm sure the scientific community is waiting with bated breath to enlighten them with your observations at Shell Island over the last 43 years.
| Quote: |
2) Don't you trust yourself to know what is best for you and your family? |
Yes I do, and relying on DavidK's "scientific observations" is NOT what is best for me and my family.
| Quote: |
3) Would you really prefer that a bureaucrat in Washington dictate your every move? |
That's not we are talking about here. We are talking about an unqualified Nomad with 43 years of observations trying to dictate my every move. In
general, scientists are not bureaucrats. You are totally confused about what bureaucrats want to do.
|
|
|
mtgoat666
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 20354
Registered: 9-16-2006
Location: San Diego
Member Is Offline
Mood: Hot n spicy
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by David K
1) Why is it so important to you to believe the new age observations of the past 'few months' over my 43 years going to the same sea level places
(rock and sand, not just sand) OR better still the scientific papers in the link provided by bajalou?
|
It is not important to me. But I am a scientist, and I trust good science more than your memories. If you were collecting data and documenting your
observations in something even resembling scientific method, that would be another matter.
| Quote: | Originally posted by David K
2) Don't you trust yourself to know what is best for you and your family?
|
Of course I do, and your question is assinine.
I think rapid climate change due to pollution does not bode well for our world, and should be mitigated if we can do so.
| Quote: | Originally posted by David K
3) Would you really prefer that a bureaucrat in Washington dictate your every move? |
Not my every move. But I trust a bureaucrat and scientists more than a politician or exxonmobil to make informed choices about regulating pollution
to protect my interests.
|
|
|
oxxo
Banned
Posts: 2347
Registered: 5-17-2006
Location: Wherever I am, I'm there
Member Is Offline
Mood: If I was feeling any better, I'd be twins!
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Taco de Baja
There is also a net growth of glaciers in Antarctica, |
Source please.
| Quote: |
With "climate change" some areas will get warmer, some colder, some dryer, some wetter. Nothing new. The animals, including us humans, can and do
adapt quite readily. |
Just like the dinosaurs adapted?
We are NOT talking about whether last month was warmer or colder than the year before, we are talking about TRENDS. The scientific community is
concerned and alarmed by the current TRENDS.
|
|
|
Barry A.
Select Nomad
Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: optimistic
|
|
Oxxo---------your vitriol, sarcasm, and character assasination is so refreshing!!!! You are not living up to your stated state of
happiness----------in fact you seem pretty grouchy, to me.
Barry
ps the dinosaurs were probably desimated by a one time huge explosion from an impact from space????? No amount of scientific study could have
prevented it.
[Edited on 8-12-2009 by Barry A.]
|
|
|
oxxo
Banned
Posts: 2347
Registered: 5-17-2006
Location: Wherever I am, I'm there
Member Is Offline
Mood: If I was feeling any better, I'd be twins!
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by bajalou
There is difference of opinions regarding cause/effect of this "global Warming" among the scientific community. |
You are technically correct - 95% of the scientific community is concerned about the effect of greenhouse gasses on global warming and 5% of the
scientific community is not. Most of those 5% are on the payroll of companies with a vested interest in the outcome.
|
|
|
Barry A.
Select Nomad
Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: optimistic
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by oxxo
| Quote: | Originally posted by bajalou
There is difference of opinions regarding cause/effect of this "global Warming" among the scientific community. |
You are technically correct - 95% of the scientific community is concerned about the effect of greenhouse gasses on global warming and 5% of the
scientific community is not. Most of those 5% are on the payroll of companies with a vested interest in the outcome. |
That is a preposterous statement!!! Sources please.
Barry
|
|
|
Taco de Baja
Super Nomad
Posts: 1913
Registered: 4-14-2004
Location: Behind the Orange Curtain, CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Dreamin' of Baja
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by oxxo
| Quote: | Originally posted by Taco de Baja
There is also a net growth of glaciers in Antarctica, |
Source please.
| Quote: |
With "climate change" some areas will get warmer, some colder, some dryer, some wetter. Nothing new. The animals, including us humans, can and do
adapt quite readily. |
Just like the dinosaurs adapted?
We are NOT talking about whether last month was warmer or colder than the year before, we are talking about TRENDS. The scientific community is
concerned and alarmed by the current TRENDS. |
Here's one: | Quote: | While the news focus has been on the lowest ice extent since satellite monitoring began in 1979 for the Arctic, the Southern Hemisphere (Antarctica)
has quietly set a new record for most ice extent since 1979.
The Southern Hemispheric areal coverage is the highest in the satellite record, just beating out 1995, 2001, 2005 and 2006. Since 1979, the trend has
been up for the total Antarctic ice extent.
While the Antarctic Peninsula area has warmed in recent years and ice near it diminished during the Southern Hemisphere summer, the interior of
Antarctica has been colder and ice elsewhere has been more extensive and longer lasting, which explains the increase in total extent.
Indeed, according the NASA GISS data, the South Pole winter (June/July/August) has cooled about 1 degree F since 1957 and the coldest year was 2004.
This winter (2007) has been an especially harsh one in the Southern Hemisphere with cold and snow records set in Australia, South America and Africa.
link |
here's another: | Quote: | Ice is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap.
The results of ice-core drilling and sea ice monitoring indicate there is no large-scale melting of ice over most of Antarctica, although experts are
concerned at ice losses on the continent's western coast.
Australian Antarctic Division glaciology program head Ian Allison said sea ice losses in west Antarctica over the past 30 years had been more than
offset by increases in the Ross Sea region, just one sector of east Antarctica.
Ice core drilling in the fast ice off Australia's Davis Station in East Antarctica by the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-Operative Research
Centre shows that last year, the ice had a maximum thickness of 1.89m, its densest in 10 years. The average thickness of the ice at Davis since the
1950s is 1.67m.
A paper to be published soon by the British Antarctic Survey in the journal Geophysical Research Letters is expected to confirm that over the past 30
years, the area of sea ice around the continent has expanded.
link |
Speaking of TRENDS, where do you think the stock market will be on Dec 31? Some economists are alarmed by the current trend, I'd like your take, not
that I'd rush out and buy or sell tomorrow...
Truth generally lies in the coordination of antagonistic opinions
-Herbert Spencer
|
|
|
gnukid
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4411
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
K-Rico
The following is criticism of the biased presentation of the Royal Society of Science UK Climate Change report by the Royal Society of Science New
Zealand.
http://www.heartland.org/publications/environment%20climate/...
Written By: Muriel Newman
Published In: Environment & Climate News > October 2008
Publication date: 10/09/2008
Publisher: The Heartland Institute
The Royal Society of New Zealand (RSNZ) in June 2008 issued a special statement designed to clear up the “controversy over climate change” and
“possible confusion among the public.”
The statement from the Society’s Climate Committee asserts, “The globe is warming because of increasing greenhouse gas emissions” and “human
activities” are to blame.
The statement reinforces the New Zealand government’s position that in order to prevent climate disaster, legislation must be passed to force the
public to make personal sacrifices and reduce their consumption of energy.
Statement Stirs Controversy
According to its Web site, the Royal Society is an independent, national academy of sciences representing nearly 20,000 scientists, technologists, and
technicians. They administer science and technology funds worth $40 million to $50 million for the government, publish science journals, offer advice
to government, and promote science and technology. The society operates on a budget of more than $5 million per year.
In response to the Climate Committee’s statement, a longstanding member of the Royal Society, Dr. Vincent Gray, resigned. Dr. Gray, a climate
consultant and expert reviewer of all four of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment Reports, said his
resignation was in protest against major inaccuracies in the society’s climate statement.
His concerns include the fact that the globe is now cooling, not warming, and that there is “no evidence whatsoever for a human contribution to the
climate.”
‘Biased and Inadequate’
The society’s climate change statement also drew strong criticism from the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.
The coalition was founded in 2006 by a group of climate experts (including the late atmospheric science professor at the University of Wyoming, Augie
Auer) who had become increasingly alarmed about the misleading information being disseminated about climate change and so-called anthropogenic
(man-made) global warming.
In a detailed response to the Royal Society, the coalition stated, “It beggars the imagination that an expert committee can launch a public statement
about climate change that is so partial in its arguments and so out of date in its science.”
Conflict of Interest
The coalition document says the society has a major conflict of interest in benefiting from global warming alarmism.
“Six of the eight members of the expert committee carry the conflict of interest that they work for institutions that garner research funds to
investigate the human influence on global warming. ... Five members are employed by NIWA [the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research],
one member works within a global change research institute and one is associated with ‘carboNZero’—which is a ‘greenhouse gas emissions management and
reduction scheme offering carbon credits.’”
The coalition statement continues, “Incredibly, the committee contains not a single person drawn from research agencies other than NIWA, nor any
independent climate scientist rationalists. The chairman of the committee—through senior positions that he holds at NIWA and within the IPCC—also
advises government on climate change. ... In view of such manifest conflicts, it is not surprising to discover that the RSNZ statement on climate
change is both biased and inadequate.”
Dr. Muriel Newman (muriel@newman.co.nz) is founder and director of the New Zealand Centre for Political Research. This article was first published on
the group’s Web site and is reprinted with permission.
[Edited on 8-12-2009 by gnukid]
|
|
|
tripledigitken
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4848
Registered: 9-27-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by oxxo
.....scientists are not bureaucrats...... |
You do know that scientists to a large degree get their funding from bureaucrats. Is there a relationship between funding and the direction of
scientific research, most certainly.
Ken
spell check
[Edited on 8-12-2009 by tripledigitken]
|
|
|
Taco de Baja
Super Nomad
Posts: 1913
Registered: 4-14-2004
Location: Behind the Orange Curtain, CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Dreamin' of Baja
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by tripledigitken
| Quote: | Originally posted by oxxo
.....scientists are not bureaucrats...... |
You do know that scientists too a large degree get there funding from bureaucrats. Is there a relationship between funding and the direction of
scientific research, most certainly.
Ken |
...and remember, bureaucrats get their funding from lobbyists.....
Truth generally lies in the coordination of antagonistic opinions
-Herbert Spencer
|
|
|
Cypress
Elite Nomad
Posts: 7641
Registered: 3-12-2006
Location: on the bayou
Member Is Offline
Mood: undecided
|
|
Barry A., Your advice is well worth taken.
|
|
|
mtgoat666
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 20354
Registered: 9-16-2006
Location: San Diego
Member Is Offline
Mood: Hot n spicy
|
|
People who don't believe science of climate change are typically overweight and drivers of oversized gas hogs -- and their guilt at being wasteful is
behind their denial, the denial that is necessary to enable their guilty wastefulness.
Fat energy hogs.
Yes we can!!!!!!!
|
|
|
tigerdog
Nomad
Posts: 135
Registered: 12-7-2005
Member Is Offline
|
|
Always follow the money (and the political affiliations).  In this case,
regarding The Heartland Institute, funding from big oil and tobacco lead the way, and while they claim to be non-partisan they clearly are closely
aligned with the conservative movement. See:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institu...
Funding: MediaTransparency reported that the Heartland Institute received funding from politically conservative foundations such as
the Castle Rock Foundation, the Sarah Scaife Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation, and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation.
Some of their funding from ExxonMobil:
Heartland Institute has received $676,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
1997
$unknown Mobil Corporation
Source: Heartland material, present at 3/16/97 conference
1998
$30,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
Source: ExxonMobil 1998 grants list
2000
$115,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Climate Change
Source: ExxonMobil Foundation 2000 IRS 990
2001
$90,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Source: ExxonMobil 2001 Annual Report
2002
$15,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Source: ExxonMobil 2002 Annual Report
2003
$7,500 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
19th Aniversary Benefit Dinner
Source: ExxonMobil 2003 Corporate Giving Report
2003
$85,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
General Operating Support
Source: ExxonMobil 2003 Corporate Giving Report
2004
$10,000 Exxon Corporation
Climate Change Activities
Source: Exxon Giving Report 2004
2004
$15,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Climate Change Efforts
Source: Exxon Giving Report 2004
2004
$75,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
General Operating Support
Source: Exxon Giving Report 2004
2005
$29,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Source: ExxonMobil 2005 DIMENSIONS Report (Corporate Giving)
2005
$90,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
Source: ExxonMobil 2005 DIMENSIONS Report (Corporate Giving)
2006
$90,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
General Operating Support
Source: ExxonMobil Corporate Giving Report 2006
2006
$10,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
Anniversary benefit dinner
Source: ExxonMobil Corporate Giving Report 2006
2006
$15,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
General Operating Support
Source: ExxonMobil Corporate Giving Report 2006
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/wiki/index.php/Deniers:_Heartland_Institute"
MORE:
| Quote: |
Our research into the listed "sponsors" for the Heartland Institute's upcoming "International Conference on Climate Change" finds that these
organizations have received over $47 million from energy companies and right-wing foundations, with 78% of that total coming from the Scaife Family of
foundations.
According to the Media Transparency project the Scaife Family of Foundations is, "financed by the Mellon industrial, oil and banking fortune. At one
time its largest single holding was stock in the Gulf Oil Corporation. Became active in funding conservative causes in 1973, when Richard Mellon
Scaife became chairman of the foundation. According to a recent article, 'In 1993, the Carthage and Sarah Scaife Foundations...gave more than $17.6
million to 150 conservative think tanks.'"
Here's the breakdown:
ExxonMobil (1998-2006): $6,199,000
Koch Foundations (1986-2006): $4,438,920
Scaife Foundations (1985-2006): $36,868,640
Grand Total: $47,506,560
|
http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-institutes-2009-climate-...
How unbiased do you really think they are, and how much do you think they can be relied on for honest scientific information?
\"You know Hobbes, sometimes even my lucky rocket-ship underpants don\'t help.\" - Calvin, from Calvin and Hobbes
Visit me at Rocky Point Tides
http://rptides.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
Taco de Baja
Super Nomad
Posts: 1913
Registered: 4-14-2004
Location: Behind the Orange Curtain, CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Dreamin' of Baja
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by mtgoat666
People who don't believe science of climate change are typically overweight and drivers of oversized gas hogs -- and their guilt at being wasteful is
behind their denial, the denial that is necessary to enable their guilty wastefulness.
Fat energy hogs.
|
Source?
Besides my personal observation, over the last 40 years, that rising obesity curve for the US population exactly matches the rising global temperature
curve.
Truth generally lies in the coordination of antagonistic opinions
-Herbert Spencer
|
|
|
David K
Honored Nomad
Posts: 65408
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: San Diego County
Member Is Offline
Mood: Have Baja Fever
|
|
Hmmm... we have Nomads posting mature answers vs. Nomads posting insults and hysteria.
I go with the mature answer everytime!
If it was 'science', then they wouldn't have a politician (Al Gore) be their head spokesman and they wouldn't have needed to re-name their (myth)
'Global Warming' to the new and more versatile phrase 'Climate Change'.
Science is the ONGOING collection of data and CONSTANT evaluation of that data. The global 'alarmist' say that man-made 'climate change' is a forgone
conclusion. That alone proves there is NOTHING scientific about it.
[Edited on 8-12-2009 by David K]
|
|
|
gnukid
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4411
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by mtgoat666
People who don't believe science of climate change are typically overweight and drivers of oversized gas hogs -- and their guilt at being wasteful is
behind their denial, the denial that is necessary to enable their guilty wastefulness. ... |
Not one poster has denied climate change-there is consensus among scientists and neophytes.
Not one poster denies that pollution is bad and may affect climate change.
The fine point is that there is no consensus on evidence of *significant* affect of human created CO2 on climate change versus natural causes.
And even if there was evidence of significant affect on climate change caused by human generated CO2 that by no means justifies creating legislation
to punish people for breathing and eating etc... nor justifies an absurd Carbon Unit currency market.
These natural issues observed as points toward the conclusion = let's create a new highly contrived carbon unit speculative financial market plus
invasive *smart grid* is a non-sequiter, based on no empirical logic.
The smart grid and carbon unit proposals were created by Enron's Ken Lay and by Al Gore. Ken Lay was subsequently charged and proven guilty of with
corporate fraud that stole billions.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=gore+enron&emb=0&a...
http://xmmlbchat.blogspot.com/2009/06/al-goreenron-in-dress-...
|
|
|
Taco de Baja
Super Nomad
Posts: 1913
Registered: 4-14-2004
Location: Behind the Orange Curtain, CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Dreamin' of Baja
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by tigerdog
Always follow the money (and the political affiliations).
|
Well said!
Al Gore went from a net worth of ~$2 million when he left the White House to well above $100 million after pushing global warming....
98 million reasons not to trust guy, or what he is selling.
Truth generally lies in the coordination of antagonistic opinions
-Herbert Spencer
|
|
|
arrowhead
Banned
Posts: 912
Registered: 5-5-2009
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by mtgoat666
People who don't believe science of climate change are typically overweight and drivers of oversized gas hogs -- and their guilt at being wasteful is
behind their denial, the denial that is necessary to enable their guilty wastefulness.
|
What has that to do with climate change? Are you aware that all the planets in the solar system have warmed up over the last century? Since the other
eight planets don't have any fossil fuel burning, the only other explanation is that the energy output of the Sun has increased. In fact the energy
output of the Sun is variable, which accounts for Earth's numerous ice ages and warm periods before humans existed.
What the so-called "scientists" do is make a finding that the Earth's temperature has increased, and then jump on the most likely explanation for it,
without doing any real looking for other reasons.
Back in the middle Ages, scientists were certain that their existed an "ether" upon which light waves traveled. This was long before the understanding
of electromagnetic forces. The proof that "ether" existed was that fact that light waves traveled. That is just as likely as the "proof" that global
warming is caused by burning fossil fuels.
The name for this logical fallacy is: Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc. Just becuase two events occur together does not mean one event causes the other.
No soy por ni contra apatía.
|
|
|
Cypress
Elite Nomad
Posts: 7641
Registered: 3-12-2006
Location: on the bayou
Member Is Offline
Mood: undecided
|
|
tigerdog, $10K here and there is chump change compared to what's going on now. How 'bout several trillion being tossed down the rat hole?
|
|
|
mtgoat666
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 20354
Registered: 9-16-2006
Location: San Diego
Member Is Offline
Mood: Hot n spicy
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by arrowhead
| Quote: | Originally posted by mtgoat666
People who don't believe science of climate change are typically overweight and drivers of oversized gas hogs -- and their guilt at being wasteful is
behind their denial, the denial that is necessary to enable their guilty wastefulness.
|
What has that to do with climate change? Are you aware that all the planets in the solar system have warmed up over the last century? Since the other
eight planets don't have any fossil fuel burning, the only other explanation is that the energy output of the Sun has increased. In fact the energy
output of the Sun is variable, which accounts for Earth's numerous ice ages and warm periods before humans existed.
What the so-called "scientists" do is make a finding that the Earth's temperature has increased, and then jump on the most likely explanation for it,
without doing any real looking for other reasons.
Back in the middle Ages, scientists were certain that their existed an "ether" upon which light waves traveled. This was long before the understanding
of electromagnetic forces. The proof that "ether" existed was that fact that light waves traveled. That is just as likely as the "proof" that global
warming is caused by burning fossil fuels.
The name for this logical fallacy is: Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc. Just becuase two events occur together does not mean one event causes the other.
|
Lux sit!
(it's probaably too late for you)
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
..
11 |
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
