The Amazing Story Behind Tho Global Warming Scam

[NaptownChief]

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/38574742.html

The Amazing Story Behind Tho Global Warming Scam

By John Coleman
January 28, 2009

The key players are now all in place in Washington and in state governments across America to officially label carbon dioxide as a pollutant and enact laws that tax we citizens for our carbon footprints. Only two details stand in the way, the faltering economic times and a dramatic turn toward a colder climate. The last two bitter winters have lead to a rise in public awareness that CO2 is not a pollutant and is not a significant greenhouse gas that is triggering runaway global warming.

How did we ever get to this point where bad science is driving big government we have to struggle so to stop it?

The story begins with an Oceanographer named Roger Revelle. He served with the Navy in World War II. After the war he became the Director of the Scripps Oceanographic Institute in La Jolla in San Diego, California. Revelle saw the opportunity to obtain major funding from the Navy for doing measurements and research on the ocean around the Pacific Atolls where the US military was conducting atomic bomb tests. He greatly expanded the Institute’s areas of interest and among others hired Hans Suess, a noted Chemist from the University of Chicago, who was very interested in the traces of carbon in the environment from the burning of fossil fuels. Revelle tagged on to Suess studies and co-authored a paper with him in 1957. The paper raises the possibility that the carbon dioxide might be creating a greenhouse effect and causing atmospheric warming. It seems to be a plea for funding for more studies. Funding, frankly, is where Revelle’s mind was most of the time.

Next Revelle hired a Geochemist named David Keeling to devise a way to measure the atmospheric content of Carbon dioxide. In 1960 Keeling published his first paper showing the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and linking the increase to the burning of fossil fuels.

These two research papers became the bedrock of the science of global warming, even though they offered no proof that carbon dioxide was in fact a greenhouse gas. In addition they failed to explain how this trace gas, only a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, could have any significant impact on temperatures.

Now let me take you back to the1950s when this was going on. Our cities were entrapped in a pall of pollution from the crude internal combustion engines that powered cars and trucks back then and from the uncontrolled emissions from power plants and factories. Cars and factories and power plants were filling the air with all sorts of pollutants. There was a valid and serious concern about the health consequences of this pollution and a strong environmental movement was developing to demand action. Government accepted this challenge and new environmental standards were set. Scientists and engineers came to the rescue. New reformulated fuels were developed for cars, as were new high tech, computer controlled engines and catalytic converters. By the mid seventies cars were no longer big time polluters, emitting only some carbon dioxide and water vapor from their tail pipes. Likewise, new fuel processing and smoke stack scrubbers were added to industrial and power plants and their emissions were greatly reduced, as well.

But an environmental movement had been established and its funding and very existence depended on having a continuing crisis issue. So the research papers from Scripps came at just the right moment. And, with them came the birth of an issue; man-made global warming from the carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.

Revelle and Keeling used this new alarmism to keep their funding growing. Other researchers with environmental motivations and a hunger for funding saw this developing and climbed aboard as well. The research grants began to flow and alarming hypothesis began to show up everywhere.

The Keeling curve showed a steady rise in CO2 in atmosphere during the period since oil and coal were discovered and used by man. As of today, carbon dioxide has increased from 215 to 385 parts per million. But, despite the increases, it is still only a trace gas in the atmosphere. While the increase is real, the percentage of the atmosphere that is CO2 remains tiny, about .41 hundredths of one percent.

Several hypothesis emerged in the 70s and 80s about how this tiny atmospheric component of CO2 might cause a significant warming. But they remained unproven. Years have passed and the scientists kept reaching out for evidence of the warming and proof of their theories. And, the money and environmental claims kept on building up.

Back in the 1960s, this global warming research came to the attention of a Canadian born United Nation’s bureaucrat named Maurice Strong. He was looking for issues he could use to fulfill his dream of one-world government. Strong organized a World Earth Day event in Stockholm, Sweden in 1970. From this he developed a committee of scientists, environmentalists and political operatives from the UN to continue a series of meeting.

Strong developed the concept that the UN could demand payments from the advanced nations for the climatic damage from their burning of fossil fuels to benefit the underdeveloped nations, a sort of CO2 tax that would be the funding for his one-world government. But, he needed more scientific evidence to support his primary thesis. So Strong championed the establishment of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This was not a pure climate study scientific organization, as we have been lead to believe. It was an organization of one-world government UN bureaucrats, environmental activists and environmentalist scientists who craved the UN funding so they could produce the science they needed to stop the burning of fossil fuels. Over the last 25 years they have been very effective. Hundreds of scientific papers, four major international meetings and reams of news stories about climatic Armageddon later, the UN IPCC has made its points to the satisfaction of most and even shared a Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore.

At the same time, that Maurice Strong was busy at the UN, things were getting a bit out of hand for the man who is now called the grandfather of global warming, Roger Revelle. He had been very politically active in the late 1950’s as he worked to have the University of California locate a San Diego campus adjacent to Scripps Institute in La Jolla. He won that major war, but lost an all important battle afterward when he was passed over in the selection of the first Chancellor of the new campus.

He left Scripps finally in 1963 and moved to Harvard University to establish a Center for Population Studies. It was there that Revelle inspired one of his students to become a major global warming activist. This student would say later, "It felt like such a privilege to be able to hear about the readouts from some of those measurements in a group of no more than a dozen undergraduates. Here was this teacher presenting something not years old but fresh out of the lab, with profound implications for our future!" The student described him as "a wonderful, visionary professor" who was "one of the first people in the academic community to sound the alarm on global warming," That student was Al Gore. He thought of Dr. Revelle as his mentor and referred to him frequently, relaying his experiences as a student in his book Earth in the Balance, published in 1992.

So there it is, Roger Revelle was indeed the grandfather of global warming. His work had laid the foundation for the UN IPCC, provided the anti-fossil fuel ammunition to the environmental movement and sent Al Gore on his road to his books, his move, his Nobel Peace Prize and a hundred million dollars from the carbon credits business.

What happened next is amazing. The global warming frenzy was becoming the cause celeb of the media. After all the media is mostly liberal, loves Al Gore, loves to warn us of impending disasters and tell us "the sky is falling, the sky is falling". The politicians and the environmentalist loved it, too.

But the tide was turning with Roger Revelle. He was forced out at Harvard at 65 and returned to California and a semi retirement position at UCSD. There he had time to rethink Carbon Dioxide and the greenhouse effect. The man who had inspired Al Gore and given the UN the basic research it needed to launch its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was having second thoughts. In 1988 he wrote two cautionary letters to members of Congress. He wrote, "My own personal belief is that we should wait another 10 or 20 years to really be convinced that the greenhouse effect is going to be important for human beings, in both positive and negative ways." He added, "…we should be careful not to arouse too much alarm until the rate and amount of warming becomes clearer."

And in 1991 Revelle teamed up with Chauncey Starr, founding director of the Electric Power Research Institute and Fred Singer, the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, to write an article for Cosmos magazine. They urged more research and begged scientists and governments not to move too fast to curb greenhouse CO2 emissions because the true impact of carbon dioxide was not at all certain and curbing the use of fossil fuels could have a huge negative impact on the economy and jobs and our standard of living. I have discussed this collaboration with Dr. Singer. He assures me that Revelle was considerably more certain than he was at the time that carbon dioxide was not a problem.

Did Roger Revelle attend the Summer enclave at the Bohemian Grove in Northern California in the Summer of 1990 while working on that article? Did he deliver a lakeside speech there to the assembled movers and shakers from Washington and Wall Street in which he apologized for sending the UN IPCC and Al Gore onto this wild goose chase about global warming? Did he say that the key scientific conjecture of his lifetime had turned out wrong? The answer to those questions is, "I think so, but I do not know it for certain". I have not managed to get it confirmed as of this moment. It’s a little like Las Vegas; what is said at the Bohemian Grove stays at the Bohemian Grove. There are no transcripts or recordings and people who attend are encouraged not to talk. Yet, the topic is so important, that some people have shared with me on an informal basis.

Roger Revelle died of a heart attack three months after the Cosmos story was printed. Oh, how I wish he were still alive today. He might be able to stop this scientific silliness and end the global warming scam.

Al Gore has dismissed Roger Revelle’s Mea culpa as the actions of senile old man. And, the next year, while running for Vice President, he said the science behind global warming is settled and there will be no more debate, From 1992 until today, he and his cohorts have refused to debate global warming and when ask about we skeptics they simply insult us and call us names.

So today we have the acceptance of carbon dioxide as the culprit of global warming. It is concluded that when we burn fossil fuels we are leaving a dastardly carbon footprint which we must pay Al Gore or the environmentalists to offset. Our governments on all levels are considering taxing the use of fossil fuels. The Federal Environmental Protection Agency is on the verge of naming CO2 as a pollutant and strictly regulating its use to protect our climate. The new President and the US congress are on board.

Many state governments are moving on the same course.

We are already suffering from this CO2 silliness in many ways. Our energy policy has been strictly hobbled by no drilling and no new refineries for decades. We pay for the shortage this has created every time we buy gas. On top of that the whole thing about corn based ethanol costs us millions of tax dollars in subsidies. That also has driven up food prices. And, all of this is a long way from over.

And, I am totally convinced there is no scientific basis for any of it.

Global Warming. It is the hoax. It is bad science. It is a high jacking of public policy. It is no joke. It is the greatest scam in history.

John Coleman
1-29-09

[Rohirrim]

Tell it to the dying polar bears.

[NaptownChief]

Tell it to the dying polar bears.



There aren't anymore T-Rex's running around...I suppose that had something to do with man made issues as well?

[Rohirrim]

There aren't anymore T-Rex's running around...I suppose that had something to do with man made issues as well?

According to some of the religious rightards out there, T-Rex was wiped out by saddle sores.

[NaptownChief]

According to some of the religious rightards out there, T-Rex was wiped out by saddle sores.



Those saddle sores were probably created by SUV's.

[TailgateNut]

According to some of the religious rightards out there, T-Rex was wiped out by saddle sores.


Damn it Roh, I almost choked on my burrito.

[Smiling Assassin27]

Sadly, the global warming honks aren't even open for a debate on the topic. They are the anointed, they are smarter than us all, and having to actually rely on properly analyzed evidence would actually make them have to recant all or parts of their position--a no-no when it comes to the anointed ones.

If the shoe were on the other foot, these people would be offering to pay for prime time debates on the subject. But since their political (not 'scientific', but merely political) position is accepted by all the right power players, they are lazy and unwilling to budge. Another example of America pretending to lead but really just opting for the path of least resistance.

[W*GS]

Denying anthropogenic climate change is about as intellectually credible as denying the Holocaust.

[Rohirrim]

Denying anthropogenic climate change is about as intellectually credible as denying the Holocaust.

And carried out by individuals with similar wattage, if you get my drift. ;)

[barryr]

Climate change has been happening since the planet has existed. The man-made climate change is BS. The Earth had at least one ice age, something killed the dinosaurs, the sun is hotter now than it ever has been in recorded time, and the caps on Mars are melting. Sorry, but man isn't causing these. Many in the man-made group also happen to want to weaken the U.S. by singling out the U.S. as some big polluter, while countries such as China and India use a ton more fossil fuels than this country and they get free passes all the time.

[Rohirrim]

Climate change has been happening since the planet has existed. The man-made climate change is BS. The Earth had at least one ice age, something killed the dinosaurs, the sun is hotter now than it ever has been in recorded time, and the caps on Mars are melting. Sorry, but man isn't causing these. Many in the man-made group also happen to want to weaken the U.S. by singling out the U.S. as some big polluter, while countries such as China and India use a ton more fossil fuels than this country and they get free passes all the time.

It's a conspiracy being conducted by the one worlders.

[Bob]

Tell it to the dying polar bears.

Dear idiot, what was the population 25 years ago, and what is the population now? I know you saw some compelling evidence from Prostitute Gore, but first off the trend in temps is going down in many places across the globe, and the population in polar bears is going up.

Is is a remote possibility this ploy (for most politicans) is notyhing more than a way to shift wealth, and impliment political ideoology through the new faith of the left -- and I do mean blind faith -- as in not seeing, but feeling all warm and fuzzy inside.

[TheDave]

Denying anthropogenic climate change is about as intellectually credible as denying the Holocaust.

Ditto...

Though i still do it from time to time... arguing science on this board has to be the most useless waste of time i have ever engaged in.

You win...

anthropogenic climate change is all fake... it's just god holding us closer. :thumbs:

[Bob]

Denying anthropogenic climate change is about as intellectually credible as denying the Holocaust.

I think I just threw-up in my mouth -- dumbest logic ever applied, and sick if you know survivors of that real event, as I do. Unless of course it means over-emphasising what might be a threat and equating the death of millions by a dictator, to somthing that could actually save lives. (for teh sake of augument, you know how many die of heat vs. cold each year?

The problem is that we are NOT ALLOWED to question based on facts, or question the ways "change" might imimented -- and this fake crisis pushes people to do things that might have worse consquences long term. I think twho dare question the Oricals are standing in the way of additional taxes, and regulation that will bring "Hope" to a dying world -- they are using this world wide "crisis" to take world wide power and authority, as it will take world wide collective action -- get it?

Its the biggest damn distraction to more important issues I can think of.

If I assume allot, and believe that WE are responsibile for a decent percentage of warming, (and ignore a decade of more recent cooling trends) then one has to determine the long term negative cost in life, if we do nothing, vs. going "all out" and doing, well not very much, except going bankrupt while other hostile countries continue to produce more and more energy & yes, C02. Maybe we can sell Alaska to China for some of our debt, and they can tap into resources there, heaven knows they would be more cautious then we have been.

[Fedaykin]

The problem is that we are NOT ALLOWED to question based on facts, or question the ways "change" might imimented

Who exactly is preventing you from question things and brings evidence to the table? Does Al Gore have roving death squads that disappear you if you question AGW? Is your evidence locked away in a vault where no one but Al Gore has the combination?

Browse the web and you'll find THOUSANDS of sites that question AGW (and are perfectly free to do so). The problem is they aren't able to convince anyone but those ignorant of the science involved that AGW doesn't exist.

Science THRIVES on people questioning things. Many scientific advances are based on questioning of previous ideas (the whole standing on the shoulders of giants meme). However, AGW deniers, creationists, flat earthers, etc all fail to back up their questioning with evidence (they rely on ideology and myth to support their claims), which is why they are ignored.

It's as simple as this:

Bring objective evidence to the table for any of these things, and your questions will be accepted. Continue to fail to bring evidence, and you questioning will continue to be ignored.

[orinjkrush]

this is one of the "faith based" discussion areas.
sorta like: evolution; abortion, UFOs, and the economy.

[Rohirrim]

Dear idiot, what was the population 25 years ago, and what is the population now? I know you saw some compelling evidence from Prostitute Gore, but first off the trend in temps is going down in many places across the globe, and the population in polar bears is going up.

Is is a remote possibility this ploy (for most politicans) is notyhing more than a way to shift wealth, and impliment political ideoology through the new faith of the left -- and I do mean blind faith -- as in not seeing, but feeling all warm and fuzzy inside.

You know, Bob. You really don't have to do anything else around here to prove what a clueless moron you are. You've already won the title. You can stop competing.

[watermock]

This all about taxing co2 emmisions for another revenue stream, not polar bears.

[barryr]

It's a conspiracy being conducted by the one worlders.

Nah, its being done by the bozos like Soros and Chompsky.

[Spider]

According to some of the religious rightards out there, T-Rex was wiped out by saddle sores.

LOL ........... that was funny

[Spider]

Ditto...

Though i still do it from time to time... arguing science on this board has to be the most useless waste of time i have ever engaged in.

You win...

anthropogenic climate change is all fake... it's just god holding us closer. :thumbs:

LOL ........ I am not a scientist shocking news I know ......... But I have seen some weather changes from Boston to San Diego and all points in between .... Freaks like Nappy , Barryr , want us to believe everything is normal ........ Bald headed ass bandits wouldnt know **** from Shinola .but if tell them they are idiots , then we are being mean ........ So I used my people skills here so I wouldnt offend these turds

[Bob]

You know, Bob. You really don't have to do anything else around here to prove what a clueless moron you are. You've already won the title. You can stop competing.

But you are wrong, and are unable to learn from others. Below is information from www.factcheck.org I have found it to be a pretty good source. Now, one can augue that future populations may be affected because of global warming - if it is real and impacts polar regions. Over the past ten years, I am not convinced that it has warmed globally. The article does talk about
some populations may have gone down lately -- so if one assumes global warming is real, then it would have an impact on polar bear populations most likely.

Since the 1960's. "Figures cited by government officials do show an increase – though not as big a jump as Stevens claims. Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne said at the department's press conference that the polar bear population increased from "a low of about 12,000 in the late 1960s to approximately 25,000 today." But the size of the world’s polar bear population is subject to much debate."

Are there three times as many polar bears in the Arctic now as there were in the 1970s?
Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska, in objecting to the listing of polar bears as a threatened species under the U.S. Endangered Species Act, is reported to have said: "Scientists have observed that there are now three times as many polar bears in the Arctic than there were in the 1970s." What is the basis of this claim?
A: The population of polar bears today is larger than it was in the 1970s, due mainly to legislation banning polar bear hunting, but exact numbers are unclear. We couldn't find any figures showing that the population had tripled.
On May 14, 2008, the U.S. Department of the Interior announced its decision to classify polar bears as "threatened," under the Endangered Species Act.


Republican Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska expressed his disapproval that day in a press release, saying that the classification was unnecessary:


Sen. Stevens: Scientists have observed that there are now three times as many polar bears in the Arctic than there were in the 1970s.


Steven Amstrup/USGS
Figures cited by government officials do show an increase – though not as big a jump as Stevens claims. Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne said at the department's press conference that the polar bear population increased from "a low of about 12,000 in the late 1960s to approximately 25,000 today." But the size of the world’s polar bear population is subject to much debate.

Sen. Stevens’ press office told us he based his claim on numbers from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Web site. However, we couldn't find support for his statement on the site. Instead, we found a discussion of why it's so hard to point to reliable numbers on the polar bear population.

Factors such as low population density, inaccessible habitats, movement of bears across international borders and budget constraints limit scientists’ abilities to accurately and precisely measure the number of polar bears. Furthermore, according to an essay by Scott L. Schliebe, polar bear project leader for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, more sophisticated satellite and thermal technology exists today than was available during the 1970s, making previous population estimates less accurate than today’s approximations.

The situation is further complicated by the fact that relatively little data, if any, reflect the entire population of polar bears as a whole. Instead, scientists tend to group them into subpopulations, known as "stocks" or "populations," based on habitat. The World Wildlife Fund estimates that today there are about 22,000 polar bears living in 20 different populations.

Some of these populations are growing; others are relatively stable. The status of certain populations is unknown. But studies by the United States Geological Survey show that some populations may, in fact, be shrinking. One USGS study from 1984-2004 showed that the number of polar bears in the West Hudson Bay stock, in Canada, decreased from 1,194 polar bears in 1987 to 935 in 2004, a 22 percent drop. USGS documented reductions in the weight of adult bears and the survival rate of newborn cubs along with this population decrease, which correlated with a loss of sea ice. A 2007 USGS report on the status of polar bears in Alaska’s Southern Beaufort Sea found a similar decrease in cub survivorship.

Yet many reports show that the total number of polar bears has increased since the late 1960s and 1970s. This growth in population is often attributed to the passage of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) in 1972. The MMPA says that it is unlawful "for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States or any vessel or other conveyance subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take any marine mammal on the high seas." The MMPA defined “take” as “to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal.”

The 1973 International Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears, between the United States, Russia (at that time, the Soviet Union), Norway, Denmark and Canada, applied these and other prohibitions to a much larger area. Polar bears underwent a recovery period in subsequent decades.

However, most figures regarding the number of bears in the 1970s are based on guesses. Peter Dykstra, CNN’s executive producer for Science, Technology, and Weather, wrote in a May 15 blog post that there was no consensus between the five polar bear nations regarding the population in the 1970s.


Peter Dykstra: For example, based on observer reports from Arctic villages, ships, and other sources, U.S. researchers came up with an estimate of 18,000 polar bears throughout the Arctic. The Canadian Wildlife Service set the number at 20,000. The Soviet Union submitted the low bid, estimating a worldwide population of 5,000 animals.

Are They “Threatened”?


So why place polar bears on the list of "threatened" species if their numbers have been growing? Many scientists believe that due to climate change and resulting environmental factors, the trend is reversing. The Department of the Interior’s classification has more to do with increasing concerns for the future than with current population numbers. The Endangered Species Act of 1973 defines a "threatened" species as one "which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range." In the case of polar bears, the "foreseeable future" refers to the next 45 years.

Polar bears rely on sea ice as a platform for hunting seals, their primary source of food, and global warming and climate change are projected to cause a severe decline in the amount of sea ice. This was the reason Kempthorne cited in his May 14 press conference: "First, sea ice is vital to polar bear survival," he said. "Second, the polar bear's sea-ice habitat has dramatically melted in recent decades. Third, computer models suggest sea ice is likely to further recede in the future." (Kempthorne also outlined several measures designed to prevent the use of the Endangered Species Act as a vehicle to set policy on climate change. The Bush administration had been reluctant to list the polar bear as "threatened," according to news reports, because it feared that listing a species due to global warming-induced habitat loss would spur attempts by environmentalists to prohibit certain activities, such as natural resource exploitation, by invoking the act.)


According to several 2007 reports by the USGS, if the predicted decline in sea ice actually takes place, the world will lose nearly two-thirds of its polar bear population by the middle of the 21st century.

[Br0nc0Buster]

Though i still do it from time to time... arguing science on this board has to be the most useless waste of time i have ever engaged in.



Unfortunately this is true.....:tearhair:

[Br0nc0Buster]

Denying anthropogenic climate change is about as intellectually credible as denying the Holocaust.

Didnt you know, you dont need facts when you have "faith"

[Dukes]

But you are wrong, and are unable to learn from others. Below is information from www.factcheck.org I have found it to be a pretty good source. Now, one can augue that future populations may be affected because of global warming - if it is real and impacts polar regions. Over the past ten years, I am not convinced that it has warmed globally. The article does talk about
some populations may have gone down lately -- so if one assumes global warming is real, then it would have an impact on polar bear populations most likely.

Since the 1960's. "Figures cited by government officials do show an increase – though not as big a jump as Stevens claims. Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne said at the department's press conference that the polar bear population increased from "a low of about 12,000 in the late 1960s to approximately 25,000 today." But the size of the world’s polar bear population is subject to much debate."

Are there three times as many polar bears in the Arctic now as there were in the 1970s?
Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska, in objecting to the listing of polar bears as a threatened species under the U.S. Endangered Species Act, is reported to have said: "Scientists have observed that there are now three times as many polar bears in the Arctic than there were in the 1970s." What is the basis of this claim?
A: The population of polar bears today is larger than it was in the 1970s, due mainly to legislation banning polar bear hunting, but exact numbers are unclear. We couldn't find any figures showing that the population had tripled.
On May 14, 2008, the U.S. Department of the Interior announced its decision to classify polar bears as "threatened," under the Endangered Species Act.


Republican Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska expressed his disapproval that day in a press release, saying that the classification was unnecessary:


Sen. Stevens: Scientists have observed that there are now three times as many polar bears in the Arctic than there were in the 1970s.


Steven Amstrup/USGS
Figures cited by government officials do show an increase – though not as big a jump as Stevens claims. Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne said at the department's press conference that the polar bear population increased from "a low of about 12,000 in the late 1960s to approximately 25,000 today." But the size of the world’s polar bear population is subject to much debate.

Sen. Stevens’ press office told us he based his claim on numbers from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Web site. However, we couldn't find support for his statement on the site. Instead, we found a discussion of why it's so hard to point to reliable numbers on the polar bear population.

Factors such as low population density, inaccessible habitats, movement of bears across international borders and budget constraints limit scientists’ abilities to accurately and precisely measure the number of polar bears. Furthermore, according to an essay by Scott L. Schliebe, polar bear project leader for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, more sophisticated satellite and thermal technology exists today than was available during the 1970s, making previous population estimates less accurate than today’s approximations.

The situation is further complicated by the fact that relatively little data, if any, reflect the entire population of polar bears as a whole. Instead, scientists tend to group them into subpopulations, known as "stocks" or "populations," based on habitat. The World Wildlife Fund estimates that today there are about 22,000 polar bears living in 20 different populations.

Some of these populations are growing; others are relatively stable. The status of certain populations is unknown. But studies by the United States Geological Survey show that some populations may, in fact, be shrinking. One USGS study from 1984-2004 showed that the number of polar bears in the West Hudson Bay stock, in Canada, decreased from 1,194 polar bears in 1987 to 935 in 2004, a 22 percent drop. USGS documented reductions in the weight of adult bears and the survival rate of newborn cubs along with this population decrease, which correlated with a loss of sea ice. A 2007 USGS report on the status of polar bears in Alaska’s Southern Beaufort Sea found a similar decrease in cub survivorship.

Yet many reports show that the total number of polar bears has increased since the late 1960s and 1970s. This growth in population is often attributed to the passage of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) in 1972. The MMPA says that it is unlawful "for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States or any vessel or other conveyance subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take any marine mammal on the high seas." The MMPA defined “take” as “to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal.”

The 1973 International Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears, between the United States, Russia (at that time, the Soviet Union), Norway, Denmark and Canada, applied these and other prohibitions to a much larger area. Polar bears underwent a recovery period in subsequent decades.

However, most figures regarding the number of bears in the 1970s are based on guesses. Peter Dykstra, CNN’s executive producer for Science, Technology, and Weather, wrote in a May 15 blog post that there was no consensus between the five polar bear nations regarding the population in the 1970s.


Peter Dykstra: For example, based on observer reports from Arctic villages, ships, and other sources, U.S. researchers came up with an estimate of 18,000 polar bears throughout the Arctic. The Canadian Wildlife Service set the number at 20,000. The Soviet Union submitted the low bid, estimating a worldwide population of 5,000 animals.

Are They “Threatened”?


So why place polar bears on the list of "threatened" species if their numbers have been growing? Many scientists believe that due to climate change and resulting environmental factors, the trend is reversing. The Department of the Interior’s classification has more to do with increasing concerns for the future than with current population numbers. The Endangered Species Act of 1973 defines a "threatened" species as one "which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range." In the case of polar bears, the "foreseeable future" refers to the next 45 years.

Polar bears rely on sea ice as a platform for hunting seals, their primary source of food, and global warming and climate change are projected to cause a severe decline in the amount of sea ice. This was the reason Kempthorne cited in his May 14 press conference: "First, sea ice is vital to polar bear survival," he said. "Second, the polar bear's sea-ice habitat has dramatically melted in recent decades. Third, computer models suggest sea ice is likely to further recede in the future." (Kempthorne also outlined several measures designed to prevent the use of the Endangered Species Act as a vehicle to set policy on climate change. The Bush administration had been reluctant to list the polar bear as "threatened," according to news reports, because it feared that listing a species due to global warming-induced habitat loss would spur attempts by environmentalists to prohibit certain activities, such as natural resource exploitation, by invoking the act.)


According to several 2007 reports by the USGS, if the predicted decline in sea ice actually takes place, the world will lose nearly two-thirds of its polar bear population by the middle of the 21st century.

But.... but the WWF commercial says they are almost gone!

[Dukes]

Here is something even more interesting.
James Hansen’s Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic - Says Hansen ‘Embarrassed NASA’, ‘Was Never Muzzled’, & Models ‘Useless’ (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/27/james-hansens-former-nasa-supervisor-declares-himself-a-skeptic-says-hansen-embarrassed-nasa-was-never-muzzled/)


The best part is the two Emails at the bottom of the story.

[Dukes]

Who exactly is preventing you from question things and brings evidence to the table? Does Al Gore have roving death squads that disappear you if you question AGW? Is your evidence locked away in a vault where no one but Al Gore has the combination?

Browse the web and you'll find THOUSANDS of sites that question AGW (and are perfectly free to do so). The problem is they aren't able to convince anyone but those ignorant of the science involved that AGW doesn't exist.

Science THRIVES on people questioning things. Many scientific advances are based on questioning of previous ideas (the whole standing on the shoulders of giants meme). However, AGW deniers, creationists, flat earthers, etc all fail to back up their questioning with evidence (they rely on ideology and myth to support their claims), which is why they are ignored.

It's as simple as this:

Bring objective evidence to the table for any of these things, and your questions will be accepted. Continue to fail to bring evidence, and you questioning will continue to be ignored.

Maybe this will help you.....
http://climatetrek.wordpress.com/2007/03/19/climate-scientist-says-government-censorship-has-confused-public/

[W*GS]

The best part is the two Emails at the bottom of the story.

The first email contains two outright lies:

My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit.

Theon doesn't understand climate models very well.

Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy.

This is a very serious charge, with no proof or evidence. Theon needs to substantiate these allegations, or he will (rightly) be dumped into the pile of denialists.

[Dukes]

This is a very serious charge, with no proof or evidence. Theon needs to substantiate these allegations, or he will (rightly) be dumped into the pile of denialists.

That pile is growing.

[Rohirrim]

That pile is growing.

And I can show you where the majority of them reside. Just type in "global warming" on your browser followed by "Exxon Mobil." They'll also tell you that polar bears are thriving.

[NaptownChief]

LOL ........ I am not a scientist shocking news I know ......... But I have seen some weather changes from Boston to San Diego and all points in between .... Freaks like Nappy , Barryr , want us to believe everything is normal ........


Napoleon Dynamite, did you ever stop to think that "some weather changes" have been happening since the beginning of time? Long before people were emitting anything other than methane out their backside?

You are one sharp dude.

I just hope second hand stupidity isn't contagious otherwise everyone on this board is in trouble for hanging out around you.

[W*GS]

That pile is growing.

Actually, no.

[Garcia Bronco]

You can't take a computer model based on conceptual criteria and say the it exhibits all the characteristics of the actual criteria. We call these confounding variables. Every study has them, the job of the researcher is to minimize them. This alone makes most climate studies questionable at some level. It's about funding, it's a about climate change, and it's about conservation. Compound this all with limited data sets and you have something that just cannot be confirmed: Man-made Global Warming.

[W*GS]

You're full of ****, Garcia. As usual.

[Garcia Bronco]

You're full of ****, Garcia. As usual.

Now that you've gotten that all out of your system:

Prove it. Prove your studies at your company don’t have confounding variables. You can't. Tell me all the criteria you test for is the actual criteria involved. You can't. Tell me you have directly observed data for the past 100,000 years. You can't because you don't. All anyone can do on that as a researcher is make guesses. Educated ones, but still guesses. You can't prove man-made global warming. At best you could only ever make a correlation. Which we all know isn't causation.

Now you might be right, but you can't sell it to a person that knows what research actually is...

[Rohirrim]

Napoleon Dynamite, did you ever stop to think that "some weather changes" have been happening since the beginning of time? Long before people were emitting anything other than methane out their backside?

You are one sharp dude.

I just hope second hand stupidity isn't contagious otherwise everyone on this board is in trouble for hanging out around you.

If you don't think the world is going through climate change, you haven't been around long enough. Somebody Spider's age who has been driving trucks back and forth across this country for years is going to notice it far more than most. I've been diving the Pacific for many years. The changes in the ocean are phenomenal.

[W*GS]

You're full of ****, Garcia. As usual.

[baja]

There are those that say the best way to achieve a One World Order is to have an enemy or life threading problem that threatens the entire planet and requires action from every country on the planet. Global warming is the perfect problem to use to catapult the planet to a One World government. Nothing like annihilation to get folks attention.

[baja]

If you don't think the world is going through climate change, you haven't been around long enough. Somebody Spider's age who has been driving trucks back and forth across this country for years is going to notice it far more than most. <b>I've been diving the Pacific for many years. The changes in the ocean are phenomenal.

such as?

[Garcia Bronco]

You're full of ****, Garcia. As usual.

I didn't think you could.

[Garcia Bronco]

There are those that say the best way to achieve a One World Order is to have an enemy or life threading problem that threatens the entire planet and requires action from every country on the planet. Global warming is the perfect problem to use to catapult the planet to a One World government. Nothing like annihilation to get folks attention.

That's hollywood created dramatic BS. A One World Governemnt is a bad idea.

[W*GS]

There are those that say the best way to achieve a One World Order is to have an enemy or life threading problem that threatens the entire planet and requires action from every country on the planet. Global warming is the perfect problem to use to catapult the planet to a One World government. Nothing like annihilation to get folks attention.

Nothing like a paranoia-ridden conspiratorial bull****-laden post from you.

[TheDave]

You can't take a computer model based on conceptual criteria and say the it exhibits all the characteristics of the actual criteria. We call these confounding variables. Every study has them, the job of the researcher is to minimize them. This alone makes most climate studies questionable at some level. It's about funding, it's a about climate change, and it's about conservation. Compound this all with limited data sets and you have something that just cannot be confirmed: Man-made Global Warming.


Believe it or not... confounding variables are nothing new in the world of statistics, science or computer modeling. If we take what you are saying as fact then EVERY computer statistical and scientific model used to predict future events would have to be ruled invalid for fear that it "missed something".

Minimizing the effects of confounders is part of modeling...

[W*GS]

Prove it. Prove your studies at your company don’t have confounding variables. You can't.

Not all confoundednesses are created equal.

Tell me all the criteria you test for is the actual criteria involved. You can't.

We know a hell of a lot more about the climate that you think. Are we omniscient? No. Are we wholly ignorant? No.

You're trying to claim that since we do not perfectly know everything, we cannot know anything. That's bull****.

Tell me you have directly observed data for the past 100,000 years. You can't because you don't.

See my response above, asshole.

All anyone can do on that as a researcher is make guesses. Educated ones, but still guesses. You can't prove man-made global warming. At best you could only ever make a correlation. Which we all know isn't causation.

Wrong. We're well past mere correlation.

Now you might be right, but you can't sell it to a person that knows what research actually is...

Go build a planet that's perfectly identical to Earth in all aspects, but lacking people. Impossible, you say? Tough ****.

All you've revealed, moron, is that you're completely ****ing clueless as to the state of the science. You ought to be embarrassed.

[Garcia Bronco]

"Not all confoundednesses are created equal. "

Agreed

"We know a hell of a lot more about the climate that you think. Are we omniscient? No. Are we wholly ignorant? No."

Agreed

"You're trying to claim that since we do not perfectly know everything, we cannot know anything. That's bull****."

No. I didn't say that. I said you cannot gurantee causation. You know this


"Wrong. We're well past mere correlation."

No we aren't. You cannot say it's causation. You can at best say it's a correaltion. Every educated researcher knows this.


Go build a planet that's perfectly identical to Earth in all aspects, but lacking people. Impossible, you say? Tough ****.

Which is why it's hard to mitigate confounding variables


"All you've revealed, moron, is that you're completely ****ing clueless as to the state of the science. You ought to be embarrassed."

We aren't talking about science. We are talking about research methods and testing and conclusions. We aren't discussing Physics, Chemistry, or Biology. So now that you are through and gotten all of that out of your system. You know that your personal belief and religion are not causation and that man-made global cannot be proven at this time.

[W*GS]

No we aren't. You cannot say it's causation. You can at best say it's a correaltion. Every educated researcher knows this.

You're wrong. Consider what we know of the radiative properties of carbon dioxide.

We aren't talking about science. We are talking about research methods and testing and conclusions. We aren't discussing Physics, Chemistry, or Biology. So now that you are through and gotten all of that out of your system. You know that your personal belief and religion are not causation and that man-made global cannot be proven at this time.

You're wrong. Re-read the IPCC AR4.

[Rohirrim]

such as?

Well, one place off Catalina I dove at for many years used to be a lush habitat full of kelp, urchins, fish, etc. I dove on it a couple of years ago and it's now a desert. I've seen it a few places up and down the coast. I was recently reading how the temperature increases are also killing off coral reefs world wide. When I was a kid, I fished off the Redondo Breakwater almost every week. I once saw a fisherman bring in a 42 pound sea bass on those rocks. I walked down there last year and not one person was fishing there. Why? No more fish.

[Garcia Bronco]

You're wrong. Consider what we know of the radiative properties of carbon dioxide.



You're wrong. Re-read the IPCC AR4.

Hardly.

If you go the the conclusion that it's causation then you cross-over from the scientific method to ideology. It becomes a belief and not a fact. At best you'll only be able to say it's a correaltion. It doesn't matter what you are studying. This is textbook research methods to gather empirical data.

The IPCC, while informative in it's reports, are summerized and produced by the UN, Governemnt Rep's, and Scienctists. While I hae not read the report in whole, it still doesn't escape confounds, limited data sets(Especially in archival data from the 1800's), and bias.

[NaptownChief]

If you don't think the world is going through climate change, you haven't been around long enough. Somebody Spider's age who has been driving trucks back and forth across this country for years is going to notice it far more than most. I've been diving the Pacific for many years. The changes in the ocean are phenomenal.



The point isn't whether the world is going through climate change but whether that change is outside of it's natural change and if it is man made issues. The world has been going through cycles since the begining of time and will continue to go through the until time on earth is done. That much is known fact. What isn't known fact is whether or not man made issues are causing it to warm at a pace different than it would by itself.

Unlike Al Gorical, who wants to run around and conclude that it is absolutely happening and we are all going to kill ourselves tomorrow based on nothing more than spotty opinion is the problem here. Anybody in their right mind wants to preserve the only Earth that we have. Anybody with a reasonable mind wants more than myth before we start throwing billions if not trillions of dollars at little more than scare tactics created by a few radicals.

[Bob]

But.... but the WWF commercial says they are almost gone!

The WWF wont be able to get donations to pay their bloated salaries, if its not an imediate crisis -- like creating the false image of 35 bears left living on a isolated, melting iceberg...

[W*GS]

If you go the the conclusion that it's causation then you cross-over from the scientific method to ideology. It becomes a belief and not a fact. At best you'll only be able to say it's a correaltion. It doesn't matter what you are studying. This is textbook research methods to gather empirical data.

You're wrong. There are no known causative factors for the climate changes that have been observed other than from anthropogenic sources. Period. I recommend you read "Physics Today", Jan 2009 issue, pp.48-49 for a straightforward example.

The IPCC, while informative in it's reports, are summerized and produced by the UN, Governemnt Rep's, and Scienctists. While I hae not read the report in whole, it still doesn't escape confounds, limited data sets(Especially in archival data from the 1800's), and bias.

You're far too fond of confounds - you're using them as a bludgeon to attempt to make the problem go away, much as someone who would claim that since relative humidity wasn't measured to with 1 ppt, we cannot know that a bowling ball dropped vertically from a 10m elevation will hit the ground some "t" later.

As for limited data, and "bias", those are addressed in the AR4. Please read it.

[barryr]

The Earth went through a hot spell in the 1930's, so how did man cause that and then cause that hot spell to lessen and now causing it again several years later?

Fact is the Sun has been getting hotter, so gee, maybe that is causing the planet to get hotter? Nah, makes too much sense.

[NaptownChief]

Fact is the Sun has been getting hotter, so gee, maybe that is causing the planet to get hotter? Nah, makes too much sense.



We better set aside at least $400 billion for some radical liberal groups to conduct studies over the next 10 years to verify that the sun does indeed generate heat. And then another $400 billion to study and see if by chance the sole reason why it generates heat is caused by SUV's and cow farts.

[W*GS]

The Earth went through a hot spell in the 1930's, so how did man cause that and then cause that hot spell to lessen and now causing it again several years later?

The globally-averaged surface temperatures in the 1930s are not as warm as the last 10 years.

Fact is the Sun has been getting hotter, so gee, maybe that is causing the planet to get hotter? Nah, makes too much sense.

There is no trend in TSI (total solar irradiance) since satellite observations began in 1979.

[Garcia Bronco]

You're wrong. There are no known causative factors for the climate changes that have been observed other than from anthropogenic sources. Period. I recommend you read "Physics Today", Jan 2009 issue, pp.48-49 for a straightforward example.



You're far too fond of confounds - you're using them as a bludgeon to attempt to make the problem go away, much as someone who would claim that since relative humidity wasn't measured to with 1 ppt, we cannot know that a bowling ball dropped vertically from a 10m elevation will hit the ground some "t" later.

As for limited data, and "bias", those are addressed in the AR4. Please read it.

I will try to check out that article.

I didn't say confounds make a particular cause go away. However, just because there is a correalation, that doesn't mean it's causation. Or that just because there is a cause that doesn't mean it's the cause.

[W*GS]

I will true to check out that article.

I didn't say confounds make a particular cause go away. However, just because there is a correalation, that doesn't mean it's causation. Or that just because there is a cause that doesn't mean it's the cause.

You're erecting a strawman.

[Garcia Bronco]

You're erecting a strawman.

It's an Axiom of research methods. I didn't make it.

[baja]

Nothing like a paranoia-ridden conspiratorial bull****-laden post from you.


Global warming hysteria serves as excuse for world government
If world government is to be achieved by consent, the world must be sold on the idea of world government and its necessity

Daniel Taylor
Wednesday, March 14, 2007

Proponents of a system of world government and the tyrannical measures that accompany it have seized upon the popular issue of global warming to advance long existing plans for global governance. World government has been the desire of power hungry organizations and the individuals running them for many years. The Bilderberg Group, CFR, Trilateral Commission, and their think tanks like the Club of Rome are all such organizations. Council on Foreign Relations member James Paul Warburg, who was the son of Paul Moritz Warburg, a prominent banker, stated before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1950 that, “We shall have world government whether or not you like it -- by conquest or consent.”

Terrorism, economics, and global warming are all reasons given by proponents of world government as evidence of the necessity for a new world order. If world government is to be achieved by consent, as Mr. Warburg put it, then the world must be sold on the idea of world government and its necessity.

In a report titled "The First Global Revolution" (1991) published by the Club of Rome, a globalist think tank, we find the following statement: "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.... All these dangers are caused by human intervention... The real enemy, then, is humanity itself."

In the past, the Club of Rome has resorted to deceptive tactics in order to support their plans. In 1972, the Club of Rome, along with an MIT team released a report called "Limits to growth." The report stated that we were to reach an environmental holocaust by the year 2000 due to overpopulation and other environmental problems. Support for their conclusions was gathered by results from a computer model. Aurelio Peccei, one of the founders of the Club of Rome, later confessed that the computer program had been written to give the desired results.

Today, global warming and climate change in general have become foundational issues for one of the largest political movements of our time. As more focus is placed on global warming, the solutions which are being presented to the world often have nothing to do with what many are saying is the root cause of the problem. Scientific evidence has emerged, highlighted in the documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle," which supports the theory that the sun is in fact a major driving force behind global warming. Ice core samples show that CO2 levels (which are blamed by many to be the initiating force behind a rise in global temperature) rise 800 years after an initial rise in temperature. Other data gathered regarding solar activity show a clear connection between fluctuations in the sun's activity and temperature variations on earth. If the sun is in fact the culprit for changes in the earth's temperature, world taxes, global government and other solutions we are being given are not cutting to the root cause of climate change.

In response to the conventional explanation of global warming, several calls have been made by various individuals to create a system of world government, and put into place rigid controls over the lives of millions across the world.

Richard Haass, the current president of the Council on Foreign Relations, stated in his article "State sovereignty must be altered in globalized era," that a system of world government must be created and sovereignty eliminated in order to fight global warming, as well as terrorism. "Moreover, states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function," says Haass. "Globalization thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves..."

Gordon Brown, the potential future Prime Minister of the UK, stated recently that a 'new world order' must be created in order to combat global warming.

Dr. Eric R. Pianka, a professor at the University of Texas who has a following of dedicated environmentalists, made startling comments regarding population reduction to a group of students and other scientists in April of 2006. Because of the negative effects of overpopulation on the earth, Pianka proposed that the Ebola virus be used as a tool of population reduction. Pianka also praised China's one child policy, saying that, "China was able to turn the corner and become the leading world super power because they have a police state and they are able to force people to stop re-producing."

Everyone, regardless of your position on global warming or the environment, must take into consideration the solutions that we are being given, as well as the forces behind them which seek to create a global system of domination and control.

[NaptownChief]

The way I see this is much like life insurance.

If you knew you were going to die in the next couple years you would be willing to pay a large premium to get an expensive life insurance policy to really provide for your family. However, nobody wants to pay that huge premium. While they know there is a small chance that it could happen, they don't believe it will.

Al Gore wants to try and force a $10 million dollar whole life policy down the throats of every living person and he wants to be the agent collecting all the commissions.

[baja]

The point isn't whether the world is going through climate change but whether that change is outside of it's natural change and if it is man made issues. The world has been going through cycles since the begining of time and will continue to go through the until time on earth is done. That much is known fact. What isn't known fact is whether or not man made issues are causing it to warm at a pace different than it would by itself.


Unlike Al Gorical, who wants to run around and conclude that it is absolutely happening and we are all going to kill ourselves tomorrow based on nothing more than spotty opinion is the problem here. Anybody in their right mind wants to preserve the only Earth that we have. Anybody with a reasonable mind wants more than myth before we start throwing billions if not trillions of dollars at little more than scare tactics created by a few radicals.


What will be the signal to act?

Will it come too late?

[NaptownChief]

What will be the signal to act?

Will it come too late?



That is the dilemma...It is possible that it could be too late. It is also very possibly that we piss away billions, if not trillions and destroy the world and the economy beyond all repair on this stuff only to find out 100 years from now it was the biggest joke of all time.

Nobody has a crystal ball and the only thing you can do is make the best reasonable and rational decisions as possible.

For instance, somebody will have their teenage child die in car wreck today. We also know that by allowing your teenage kids go out and get a job, experience life etc they will be better adjusted adults some day. Somebody could look at that and say "we should ban all teenage kids from every driving a car today to save one life". Yet if we did that every day we would be destroying tons of lives by having future adults that are poorly adjusted, horrible social skills and no concept of work.

Same thing, you have to make a rational decision based on what you think is best over the long run for the vast majority. We know that for the kid that dies that they would have been better off with the ban, for all the rest they will be better off without it.

[barryr]

The globally-averaged surface temperatures in the 1930s are not as warm as the last 10 years.


There is no trend in TSI (total solar irradiance) since satellite observations began in 1979.

Doesn't matter how warm it is compared to the 30's. Point is there was a spike for some reason and how did man cause it if that's the belief?

The Sun is hotter now than ever before, so until someone explain how man has caused this and why the caps on Mars are melting, the theory is BS and there are planety of scientists who support that as well.

[baja]

That is the dilemma...It is possible that it could be too late. It is also very possibly that we piss away billions, if not trillions and destroy the world and the economy beyond all repair on this stuff only to find out 100 years from now it was the biggest joke of all time.

Nobody has a crystal ball and the only thing you can do is make the best reasonable and rational decisions as possible.

For instance, somebody will have their teenage child die in car wreck today. We also know that by allowing your teenage kids go out and get a job, experience life etc they will be better adjusted adults some day. Somebody could look at that and say "we should ban all teenage kids from every driving a car today to save one life". Yet if we did that every day we would be destroying tons of lives by having future adults that are poorly adjusted, horrible social skills and no concept of work.

Same thing, you have to make a rational decision based on what you think is best over the long run for the vast majority. We know that for the kid that dies that they would have been better off with the ban, for all the rest they will be better off without it.

That is a terrible analogy, I expected better from you.

First we need to realize what is a stake here. We need a serious non political assessment of the situation, after all we are talking the possible termination of the human species on the planet. Time to get real.

[NaptownChief]

First we need to realize what is a stake here. We need a serious non political assessment of the situation, after all we are talking the possible termination of the human species on the planet. Time to get real.



Exact same sales pitch made by all types of religions. How do you stand when they sell you that? You rolling over and tossing them 10% of your coin for the cause as they would like? Would you like the government to mandate that you play along with that?

[W*GS]

Doesn't matter how warm it is compared to the 30's. Point is there was a spike for some reason and how did man cause it if that's the belief?

There wasn't a "spike" in the 1930s. You're just getting your information from Limbaugh and the other ****wads.

The Sun is hotter now than ever before

Wrong.

so until someone explain how man has caused this and why the caps on Mars are melting, the theory is BS and there are planety of scientists who support that as well.

The ice caps on Mars aren't melting.

Christ, you're ****ing stupid.

[Rohirrim]

The point isn't whether the world is going through climate change but whether that change is outside of it's natural change and if it is man made issues. The world has been going through cycles since the begining of time and will continue to go through the until time on earth is done. That much is known fact. What isn't known fact is whether or not man made issues are causing it to warm at a pace different than it would by itself.

Unlike Al Gorical, who wants to run around and conclude that it is absolutely happening and we are all going to kill ourselves tomorrow based on nothing more than spotty opinion is the problem here. Anybody in their right mind wants to preserve the only Earth that we have. Anybody with a reasonable mind wants more than myth before we start throwing billions if not trillions of dollars at little more than scare tactics created by a few radicals.

I think that global warming science is similar to evolutionary science. People who understand it accept its findings. Those who don't simply call it bogus based on their own pitiful prejudices. That's how superstition works. I find it hard to believe that people find the basic premises so hard to grasp: There are a billion autos, millions of factories, and every other kind of machine, landfill, and trash heap spewing billions of parts per million of various gasses into the atmosphere. And it started with the industrial revolution back in the 1800s. At the same time, man has been denuding the planet of forests, grasslands and other carbon sinks at unfathomable rates. And now we see the worlds forests buckling under the pressure. The world's oceans' bio-mass dying. The ice caps melting. Hard evidence. To then step back and simply state with certitude that all of man's mindless rape of the planet has no effect on the environment or climate is the raving of simpletons.

[frerottenextelway]

Wow, I would've lost a lot of money if I would've bet on what side of the fence W*GS was on. Awesome.

Anyways, for anyone seriously interested in this subject, this is the best website on the net: www.realclimate.org

[Spider]

Napoleon Dynamite, did you ever stop to think that "some weather changes" have been happening since the beginning of time? Long before people were emitting anything other than methane out their backside?

You are one sharp dude.

I just hope second hand stupidity isn't contagious otherwise everyone on this board is in trouble for hanging out around you.

yeah you turd everything is fine ............ Mean while in ****ing reality ( meant for everyone but **** head here ) Doesnt matter what brought it on , what does matter is it is here , and what can we do to lessen the impact ?
Nappy Hiking up your skirt and going denial queen isnt the answer ....... pull your panties up and face reality ......turd

[Spider]

The Earth went through a hot spell in the 1930's, so how did man cause that and then cause that hot spell to lessen and now causing it again several years later?

Fact is the Sun has been getting hotter, so gee, maybe that is causing the planet to get hotter? Nah, makes too much sense.

you and Nappy arent lovers are you ? .........

[Bronco Bob]

Climate change has been happening since the planet has existed. The man-made climate change is BS. The Earth had at least one ice age, something killed the dinosaurs, the sun is hotter now than it ever has been in recorded time, and the caps on Mars are melting. Sorry, but man isn't causing these.


You idiot. The Phoenix lander, near the Martian north pole, quit working back
in November because it is now winter on that part of Mars and the cold
froze up the electrical circuits. I don't know where you come up with
your nonsense from, but you might try talking to people who know what
they are talking about before you post.

[Bronco Bob]

Are there three times as many polar bears in the Arctic now as there were in the 1970s?
Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska, in objecting to the listing of polar bears as a threatened species under the U.S. Endangered Species Act, is reported to have said:

And this is where any intelligent person stops reading. You are quoting
a politician so corrupt that even the the far right state of Alaska voted
him out of office.

[Bronco Bob]

The Earth went through a hot spell in the 1930's, so how did man cause that and then cause that hot spell to lessen and now causing it again several years later?



Sure, you can find a year here or there where it was colder than the year
before, none the less, the overall trend is the average global temperature
is increasing.


Fact is the Sun has been getting hotter, so gee, maybe that is causing the planet to get hotter? Nah, makes too much sense.

The sun is getting hotter over a period of billions of years, not over a period of 100 years.

[Bronco Bob]

Doesn't matter how warm it is compared to the 30's. Point is there was a spike for some reason and how did man cause it if that's the belief?



You think we just started burning coal and oil in the last 10 years?



The Sun is hotter now than ever before,


So it's .0000000000000000000001 degree hotter now than
it was in 1859. How does that explain the average global
temperature has risen by degrees in that same time.

[/QUOTE]



so until someone explain how man has caused this and why the caps on Mars are melting, the theory is BS and there are planety of scientists who support that as well.

Simple explanation for that. Mars has summers and winters just like the Earth
does. In the northern Martian summer some of the ice at the Martian north
pole melts and the ice at the Martian south pole freezes in the southern
winter. When its winter in the Martian north and summer in the Martian
south, the opposite happens. The only BS is dopes who don't understand
science and try to BS their way into an argument.

[barryr]

There wasn't a "spike" in the 1930s. You're just getting your information from Limbaugh and the other ****wads.



Wrong.



The ice caps on Mars aren't melting.

Christ, you're ****ing stupid.

Um, I don't listen to Limbaugh, so that's pretty impossible. The usual tactic when have no facts, nice try though. There isn't even a consensus among scientists who study this that man has caused global warming, yet YOU know all the answers? Sure.

[barryr]

You think we just started burning coal and oil in the last 10 years?



So it's .0000000000000000000001 degree hotter now than
it was in 1859. How does that explain the average global
temperature has risen by degrees in that same time.






Simple explanation for that. Mars has summers and winters just like the Earth
does. In the northern Martian summer some of the ice at the Martian north
pole melts and the ice at the Martian south pole freezes in the southern
winter. When its winter in the Martian north and summer in the Martian
south, the opposite happens. The only BS is dopes who don't understand
science and try to BS their way into an argument.[/QUOTE]

The dopes are the ones that believe the scientists who are given grants by colleges to talk about how man is causing global warming yet their facts are BS and easily contradiced by other scientists.

There is no consensus by the scientists who study this, which you aren't one anyway, that man has caused global warming. So if they don't know, how the hell do you? Oh, the ones you agree with know more than those that don't. I see.

[W*GS]

There isn't even a consensus among scientists who study this that man has caused global warming, yet YOU know all the answers? Sure.

Bull****.

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

[W*GS]

The dopes are the ones that believe the scientists who are given grants by colleges to talk about how man is causing global warming yet their facts are BS and easily contradiced by other scientists.

http://albanysinsanity.wnymedia.net/blogs/files/2008/07/head_up_your_ass.jpg

There is no consensus by the scientists who study this, which you aren't one anyway, that man has caused global warming. So if they don't know, how the hell do you? Oh, the ones you agree with know more than those that don't. I see.

You're still full of ****.

[Spider]

Bull****.

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

LOL Barryr is very special ...... His parents still must support his ass

[Bob]

And this is where any intelligent person stops reading. You are quoting
a politician so corrupt that even the the far right state of Alaska voted
him out of office.

Actually, there has only been a doubling of the polar bear poulation -- www.factcheck.org so I guess I was wrong, it looks like the population has slipped a tad lately though...bottomline is that both sides have something to prove, usually I am more interested in the truth, and there are some on the far left that would feel better about themselves if cars were illegal, and we all have to ride ricshaws or hot-air balloons to work, at a government job of course (sp.)

[Spider]

here is the piece ........ http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/are_there_three_times_as_many_polar.html
June 18, 2008
Q:

Are there three times as many polar bears in the Arctic now as there were in the 1970s?
Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska, in objecting to the listing of polar bears as a threatened species under the U.S. Endangered Species Act, is reported to have said: "Scientists have observed that there are now three times as many polar bears in the Arctic than there were in the 1970s." What is the basis of this claim?
A:

The population of polar bears today is larger than it was in the 1970s, due mainly to legislation banning polar bear hunting, but exact numbers are unclear. We couldn't find any figures showing that the population had tripled.

On May 14, 2008, the U.S. Department of the Interior announced its decision to classify polar bears as "threatened," under the Endangered Species Act.

Republican Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska expressed his disapproval that day in a press release, saying that the classification was unnecessary:

Sen. Stevens: Scientists have observed that there are now three times as many polar bears in the Arctic than there were in the 1970s.

polar bear
Steven Amstrup/USGS
Figures cited by government officials do show an increase – though not as big a jump as Stevens claims. Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne said at the department's press conference that the polar bear population increased from "a low of about 12,000 in the late 1960s to approximately 25,000 today." But the size of the world’s polar bear population is subject to much debate.

Sen. Stevens’ press office told us he based his claim on numbers from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Web site. However, we couldn't find support for his statement on the site. Instead, we found a discussion of why it's so hard to point to reliable numbers on the polar bear population.

Factors such as low population density, inaccessible habitats, movement of bears across international borders and budget constraints limit scientists’ abilities to accurately and precisely measure the number of polar bears. Furthermore, according to an essay by Scott L. Schliebe, polar bear project leader for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, more sophisticated satellite and thermal technology exists today than was available during the 1970s, making previous population estimates less accurate than today’s approximations.

The situation is further complicated by the fact that relatively little data, if any, reflect the entire population of polar bears as a whole. Instead, scientists tend to group them into subpopulations, known as "stocks" or "populations," based on habitat. The World Wildlife Fund estimates that today there are about 22,000 polar bears living in 20 different populations.

Some of these populations are growing; others are relatively stable. The status of certain populations is unknown. But studies by the United States Geological Survey show that some populations may, in fact, be shrinking. One USGS study from 1984-2004 showed that the number of polar bears in the West Hudson Bay stock, in Canada, decreased from 1,194 polar bears in 1987 to 935 in 2004, a 22 percent drop. USGS documented reductions in the weight of adult bears and the survival rate of newborn cubs along with this population decrease, which correlated with a loss of sea ice. A 2007 USGS report on the status of polar bears in Alaska’s Southern Beaufort Sea found a similar decrease in cub survivorship.

Yet many reports show that the total number of polar bears has increased since the late 1960s and 1970s. This growth in population is often attributed to the passage of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) in 1972. The MMPA says that it is unlawful "for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States or any vessel or other conveyance subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take any marine mammal on the high seas." The MMPA defined “take” as “to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal.”

The 1973 International Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears, between the United States, Russia (at that time, the Soviet Union), Norway, Denmark and Canada, applied these and other prohibitions to a much larger area. Polar bears underwent a recovery period in subsequent decades.

However, most figures regarding the number of bears in the 1970s are based on guesses. Peter Dykstra, CNN’s executive producer for Science, Technology, and Weather, wrote in a May 15 blog post that there was no consensus between the five polar bear nations regarding the population in the 1970s.

Peter Dykstra: For example, based on observer reports from Arctic villages, ships, and other sources, U.S. researchers came up with an estimate of 18,000 polar bears throughout the Arctic. The Canadian Wildlife Service set the number at 20,000. The Soviet Union submitted the low bid, estimating a worldwide population of 5,000 animals.

Are They “Threatened”?

So why place polar bears on the list of "threatened" species if their numbers have been growing? Many scientists believe that due to climate change and resulting environmental factors, the trend is reversing. The Department of the Interior’s classification has more to do with increasing concerns for the future than with current population numbers. The Endangered Species Act of 1973 defines a "threatened" species as one "which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range." In the case of polar bears, the "foreseeable future" refers to the next 45 years.

Polar bears rely on sea ice as a platform for hunting seals, their primary source of food, and global warming and climate change are projected to cause a severe decline in the amount of sea ice. This was the reason Kempthorne cited in his May 14 press conference: "First, sea ice is vital to polar bear survival," he said. "Second, the polar bear's sea-ice habitat has dramatically melted in recent decades. Third, computer models suggest sea ice is likely to further recede in the future." (Kempthorne also outlined several measures designed to prevent the use of the Endangered Species Act as a vehicle to set policy on climate change. The Bush administration had been reluctant to list the polar bear as "threatened," according to news reports, because it feared that listing a species due to global warming-induced habitat loss would spur attempts by environmentalists to prohibit certain activities, such as natural resource exploitation, by invoking the act.)
According to several 2007 reports by the USGS, if the predicted decline in sea ice actually takes place, the world will lose nearly two-thirds of its polar bear population by the middle of the 21st century.

-Rachel Weisel

[Bronco Bob]

The dopes are the ones that believe the scientists who are given grants by colleges to talk about how man is causing global warming yet their facts are BS and easily contradiced by other scientists.

For example.


There is no consensus by the scientists who study this, which you aren't one anyway, that man has caused global warming. So if they don't know, how the hell do you? Oh, the ones you agree with know more than those that don't. I see.

Name one legitimate scientist in the field who disputes it. And I'm
not talking about some paid oil company shill. I'm talking about
a real scientist.

As to how I know, because I work with scientist who study this sort of thing.
Dr. Robert Strom. Dr. Peter Smith. Dr. Uwe Fink To name a few.
And all agree that the deniers, such as you, are either woefully ignorant
on the subject, or have a hidden agenda.
Which one are you? And what qualifies you to speak on the subject?
Other than just being another right wing political hack.

[W*GS]

Why the denialists' claims that there's no consensus are full of ****:

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1184

Which one statement most nearly matches your personal opinion about the physical science basis of global warming, as exemplified by the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group 1 (WG1)? [If your personal opinion falls between two adjacent statements, please mark both]

1. There is no warming; it is a fabrication based on inaccurate/inappropriate measurement. Human activity is not having any significant effect on Climate. The data on which such assumptions are made is so compromised as to be worthless. The physical science basis of Anthropogenic Global Warming theory is founded on a false hypothesis.

2. Any recent warming is most likely natural. Human input of CO2 has very little to do with it. Solar, naturally varying water vapor, and similar variables can explain most or all of the climate changes. Projections based on Global Climate Models are unreliable because these are based on too many assumptions and unreliable data sets.

3. There are changes in the atmosphere, including added CO2 from human activities, but significant climate effects are likely to be all within natural limits. The 'scares' are exaggerations with a political motive. The undue emphasis on CO2 diverts attention away from other, important research on climate variability and change.

4. There is warming and the human addition of CO2 causes some of it, but the science is too uncertain to be confident about current attributions of the precise role of CO2 with respect to other climate forcings. The IPCC WG1 overestimates the role of CO2 relative to other forcings, including a diverse variety of human climate forcings.

5. The scientific basis for human impacts on climate is well represented by the IPCC WG1 report. The lead scientists know what they are doing. We are warming the planet, with CO2 as the main culprit. At least some of the forecast consequences of this change are based on robust evidence.

6. The IPCC WG1 is compromised by political intervention; I agree with those scientists who say that the IPCC WG1 is underestimating the problem. Action to reduce human emissions of CO2 in order to mitigate against serious consequences is more urgent than the report suggests. This should be done irrespective of other climate and environmental considerations.

7. The IPCC WG1 seriously understates the human influence on climate. I agree with those scientists who say that major mitigation responses are needed immediately to prevent catastrophic serious warming and other impacts projected to result from human emissions of CO2. We are seriously damaging the Earth's climate, and will continue to face devastating consequences for many years.

http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/2009/ferguspoll.png

Figure 3. Results of the 2007 opinion poll by Fergus Brown, Roger Pielke, Sr., and James Annan of climate scientists, organized by question number (one to seven). In the USA, the mean response was 4.8, compared to 5.2 in all other countries, and 5.6 in EU countries.

[barryr]

If you can't find scientists who dispute the claim that man causes global warming, you aren't trying hard enough. Plus, now many scientists are saying we are experiencing more a global cooling than global warming. Again, the info. is out there. If you choose to ignore that, then that's up to you, but some of us like to know both sides instead of ignoring facts we don't like. Try it sometime.

[W*GS]

The ol' "I'm just being open-minded" ploy on your part, barryr, is dishonesty of the highest order.

Just another reason you're a dork.

[TailgateNut]

If you can't find scientists who dispute the claim that man causes global warming, you aren't trying hard enough. Plus, now many scientists are saying we are experiencing more a global cooling than global warming. Again, the info. is out there. If you choose to ignore that, then that's up to you, but some of us like to know both sides instead of ignoring facts we don't like. Try it sometime.


I'm sure you can also find scientists who could find an intelligent "bone" in your body, if they work long hours and use the best technology available.

[watermock]

It's a conspiracy being conducted by the one worlders.








actually, your not far from the truth. More like globalists, that point to America's relatively clean skies, while massive polution floats over Japan from China. China is the biggest polluter on the planet.

Why? It makes money for their communist mafia.

[Rohirrim]

If you can't find scientists who dispute the claim that man causes global warming, you aren't trying hard enough. Plus, now many scientists are saying we are experiencing more a global cooling than global warming. Again, the info. is out there. If you choose to ignore that, then that's up to you, but some of us like to know both sides instead of ignoring facts we don't like. Try it sometime.

Just go over the Exxon Mobile website. You'll find plenty of "scientists" who agree with you.

[TailgateNut]

Just go over the Exxon Mobile website. You'll find plenty of "scientists" who agree with you.

Those "scientists" are just like the "doctors" who back the miracle weight loss drugs which are peddled on late night TV.

[Rohirrim]

Those "scientists" are just like the "doctors" who back the miracle weight loss drugs which are peddled on late night TV.

I remember for thirty years listening to the tobacco company experts and doctors who said smoking didn't cause lung cancer.

[TailgateNut]

I remember for thirty years listening to the tobacco company experts and doctors who said smoking didn't cause lung cancer.
...while they were living in the lap of luxury provided by the Tobacco companies...

[Rohirrim]

...while they were living in the lap of luxury provided by the Tobacco companies...

It's the world's oldest profession, after all. ;D

[barryr]

The ol' "I'm just being open-minded" ploy on your part, barryr, is dishonesty of the highest order.

Just another reason you're a dork.


And you're an idiot. There are many books written about the subject, not to mention articles, but since those don't jive with your theory, then they don't exist. Live in fantasy land :thumbsup:

[barryr]

Just go over the Exxon Mobile website. You'll find plenty of "scientists" who agree with you.

Read some books and articles wriiten by scientists who don't agree with you. Oh, that's right, they must not exist then since you know more than they do.

[barryr]

http://albanysinsanity.wnymedia.net/blogs/files/2008/07/head_up_your_ass.jpg



You're still full of ****.

Nah, you are. I actually read books on the subject and no, none were written by Limbaugh and none were written by Gore either. And there have been more studies than the one you stick to which do not support your theory. But I know, pretend they don't exist. Keep telling a lie over and over and people who don't try to find out for themselves will believe it. Good going, sheep.

[barryr]

I remember for thirty years listening to the tobacco company experts and doctors who said smoking didn't cause lung cancer.


And gee, they lied about the statistics too. And gee, those that wondered, actually tried to find out for themselves instead of blindly going with what was popular at the time and found out something different. Wow, kind of reminds of a different issue :thumbs:

[barryr]

Bull****.

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf


This is your proof? I could also do a search and find sites and studies that contradict this and say something else. And this proves what? Oh, what I have been saying, there is no consensus, not all scientists who study this for a living agree.

[W*GS]

This is your proof? I could also do a search and find sites and studies that contradict this and say something else. And this proves what? Oh, what I have been saying, there is no consensus, not all scientists who study this for a living agree.

So do this search and find all these practicing and publishing climate scientists who don't think any anthropogenic global warming is taking place.

95+% of the scientists who "study this for a living" believe anthropogenic global warming is occurring. There's your consensus, bub.

[W*GS]

And you're an idiot. There are many books written about the subject, not to mention articles, but since those don't jive with your theory, then they don't exist. Live in fantasy land :thumbsup:

Those books and articles aren't credible.

Just like right-wingers.

[TailgateNut]

And you're an idiot. There are many books written about the subject, not to mention articles, but since those don't jive with your theory, then they don't exist. Live in fantasy land :thumbsup:

Please provide some of those stories for our entertainment. I need a good laugh.Hilarious!

[barryr]

The dumb want to stay dumb. Oh well. Oh oh, looks like the country is going through a deep freeze now too. Lakes freezing over that haven't for years in Michigan, Idaho getting snow earlier than usual, not since the 70's, and piles of snow around the country that just aren't used to it. Not to mention COLDER temps in places settign records. But I know, it's global warming happening. Just tell those folks and they will feel warmer. That's right, the cold and snow and records being broken is just all in their minds and not really happening. Dorothy, click your heels, so we can be in snowy, ooops, I mean, warm Kansas. Bozos.

[TailgateNut]

The dumb want to stay dumb. .

That must be the title of your autobiography. I

Chapter one: It's cold in Minnesota.
Chapter two: Smog, what smog?
Chapter three: Polar bears love floating on ice.
Chapter four: Kyoto, the new sushi.
Chapter five: Ice storm proves there's no such thing as Global warming
Chapter six: Five new ways to bury your head in the sand.
Chapter seven: "The new ice age", coming to a theater near you soon.

[NaptownChief]

Just go over the Exxon Mobile website. You'll find plenty of "scientists" who agree with you.



And just run over to any university or non-profit that needs federal funding grants to pay their bills if you want to find "scientists" that agree with you.

[TheDave]

There has to be a reason that folks on the right seem to be alergic to science...

Evolution, global warming, stem cell research, etc.... Why does science bother you folks so much?

[NaptownChief]

There has to be a reason that folks on the right seem to be alergic to science...

Evolution, global warming, stem cell research, etc.... Why does science bother you folks so much?



It doesn't bother me. I tend to side with any that has any reasonable basis to it like evolution and stem cell research....green religion, well not so much.

Why are you liberals so emotional and quick to jump on a bandwagon with little merit?

[TheDave]

It doesn't bother me. I tend to side with any that has any reasonable basis to it like evolution and stem cell research....green religion, well not so much.

Why are you liberals so emotional and quick to jump on a bandwagon with little merit?

95+% of all peer reviewed published science says that mankind is playing a role in Global Warming... how does that equal "little merit"?

[W*GS]

95+% of all peer reviewed published science says that mankind is playing a role in Global Warming... how does that equal "little merit"?

Because, on this issue, he's an idiot?

[Bronco Bob]

And just run over to any university or non-profit that needs federal funding grants to pay their bills if you want to find "scientists" that agree with you.

I don't have to run over to one. I work at one. I don't have to read a book
about it, or some right wing blog posted on the internet. And you haven't
got a clue. When Georgie boy was president, the government was threatening
to cut off funds for scientists who weren't toeing the administration line.
The scientists stuck to the guns because they knew what was going on
and they weren't going to let a bunch of political hacks intimidate them.
Scientists are like that, their only concern is the truth, and they
don't care whose feathers they ruffle. In the end even Georgie boy
started seeing the light and realized that, yes, Global Climate Change
is real. I'm not sure what you folks point is anymore. Global Climate
Change is an accepted fact by the major majority of the world's
scientists, most of the world's population and we have a president
who accepts it as fact and is working to mediate it. I guess you
just like being argumentative because you deniers sure aren't
going to convince anyone who has a half a brain and is capable
of putting two and two together and getting four.

[barryr]

That must be the title of your autobiography. I

Chapter one: It's cold in Minnesota.
Chapter two: Smog, what smog?
Chapter three: Polar bears love floating on ice.
Chapter four: Kyoto, the new sushi.
Chapter five: Ice storm proves there's no such thing as Global warming
Chapter six: Five new ways to bury your head in the sand.
Chapter seven: "The new ice age", coming to a theater near you soon.


Your title would be: "How to Sound Smart Despite Knowing Very Little."

Chapter 1 - I gots to no more

[barryr]

95+% of all peer reviewed published science says that mankind is playing a role in Global Warming... how does that equal "little merit"?

Nice number to pull out of your ass. BS.

[TailgateNut]

Nice number to pull out of your ass. BS.

Are you the only one on this planet who doesn't realize that stupidity isn't considered a positive trait?

[NaptownChief]

95+% of all peer reviewed published science says that mankind is playing a role in Global Warming... how does that equal "little merit"?



95+% of published science takes governement grants and to get governement grants you need a cause(real or otherwise).

That is before we even get into the huge liberal bias in the academia world which has to publish for their job. Not to mention the liberals running most publication which don't want to publish anything that runs contrary to their agenda.

That is like saying since 95+% of all topics published in Rush Limbaugh's newsletter are very conservative thus it has to have merit and has to be true.

[NaptownChief]

The scientists stuck to the guns because they knew what was going on
and they weren't going to let a bunch of political hacks intimidate them..



What is their alternative? Say "we were wrong, please stop funding my life work so I can scramble around and try to find another way to make a living..."


Getting a fair and honest opinion from a scientist that relies on federal grants is as likely as getting a CPA to think a simplified flat tax system is a good idea.

Obviously nobody wants to cut off their paycheck and chosen life work and I don't blame them. But it just makes their opinion on the topic so biased and distorted that it holds little merit.

While you are at it, see where gun shop owners and gun manufactures stand on gun laws. I think you might find a pattern there as well. LOL

[Spider]

95+% of published science takes governement grants and to get governement grants you need a cause(real or otherwise).

That is before we even get into the huge liberal bias in the academia world which has to publish for their job. Not to mention the liberals running most publication which don't want to publish anything that runs contrary to their agenda.

That is like saying since 95+% of all topics published in Rush Limbaugh's newsletter are very conservative thus it has to have merit and has to be true.

Hilarious! just so I understand , your position is Global warming is a hoax so 95% of Scientist can get government grants ?
:rofl:

[Spider]

What is their alternative? Say "we were wrong, please stop funding my life work so I can scramble around and try to find another way to make a living..."


Getting a fair and honest opinion from a scientist that relies on federal grants is as likely as getting a CPA to think a simplified flat tax system is a good idea.

Obviously nobody wants to cut off their paycheck and chosen life work and I don't blame them. But it just makes their opinion on the topic so biased and distorted that it holds little merit.

While you are at it, see where gun shop owners and gun manufactures stand on gun laws. I think you might find a pattern there as well. LOL Did you have a cup of stupid this morning ?

[NaptownChief]

Did you have a cup of stupid this morning ?



No, they said they just ran out...Sold all they had to a hilljack trucker from Wyoming who couldn't get enough.

[Spider]

No, they said they just ran out...Sold all they had to a hilljack trucker from Wyoming who couldn't get enough.

So I guess you dont need any help being this stupid , it just comes naturally ......

[TheDave]

What is their alternative? Say "we were wrong, please stop funding my life work so I can scramble around and try to find another way to make a living..."


Getting a fair and honest opinion from a scientist that relies on federal grants is as likely as getting a CPA to think a simplified flat tax system is a good idea.

Obviously nobody wants to cut off their paycheck and chosen life work and I don't blame them. But it just makes their opinion on the topic so biased and distorted that it holds little merit.

While you are at it, see where gun shop owners and gun manufactures stand on gun laws. I think you might find a pattern there as well. LOL

Oh i get it... so now it is all a conspiracy and 9 out of 10 scientists are on the take. Yet the ones being paid by XOM are legit... :thumbs:

Here's the other problem with your conspiracy theory, regardless of where the money comes from their findings must stand up to repeated analysis and testing before being published. Trust me if they just made **** up it wouldn't make it past review, let alone into the publications.

Funny how your theory and the creationists theories are sound identical.

[NaptownChief]

Yet the ones being paid by XOM are legit... :thumbs:





Why not, "regardless of where the money comes from their findings must stand up to repeated analysis and testing". :thumbsup:

[BroncoInferno]

Why not, "regardless of where the money comes from their findings must stand up to repeated analysis and testing". :thumbsup:

And their analysis does not.

[barryr]

Are you the only one on this planet who doesn't realize that stupidity isn't considered a positive trait?

Then why are you still using it?

[TheDave]

Why not, "regardless of where the money comes from their findings must stand up to repeated analysis and testing". :thumbsup:

To the best of my knowledge no XOM backed research has ever been published...

That's why not.

[Bronco Bob]

http://albanysinsanity.wnymedia.net/blogs/files/2008/07/head_up_your_ass.jpg



You're still full of ****.

Barryr and Nappy and the rest of the Global Climate Change deniers
have a lot in common with Gaffney and LABF and the Troofers.

Both have no science or engineering background, don't really know
anything about the science involved, and have seized upon various
lunatic fringe websites that support their political agenda to form
their opinions. And so think it is just sort of some vast conspiracy
and only they are the ones able to enlighten the rest of us.
And if you dare question them, they have nothing legitimate
to back their claims up, so they resort to insults. Sort of sad, really