U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 11-03-2010, 10:23 AM
 
13,072 posts, read 11,396,728 times
Reputation: 2608

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by shelby93 View Post
Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record

The Geological Society has prepared a position statement on climate change, focusing specifically on the geological evidence (here's a pdf version of the statement (http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/webdav/site/GSL/groups/ourviews_edit/public/Climate%20change%20-%20evidence%20from%20the%20geological%20record.pdf - broken link)). The geological record contains abundant evidence on the ways Earth’s climate has changed in the past and give us vital clues on how it may change in the future. Their statement is based on geological evidence, not on recent temperature or satellite data or climate model projections. The statement is a must-read, featuring a wealth of information and many useful peer-reviewed references (my to-do list has just gotten longer). I've summarised some of their key points below:

The Earth’s temperature changes naturally over time scales ranging from decades, to hundreds of thousands, to millions of years. In some cases these changes are gradual and in others abrupt. Evidence for climate change is preserved in a wide range of geological settings, including marine and lake sediments, ice sheets, fossil corals, stalagmites and fossil tree rings. Cores drilled through the ice sheets yield a record of polar temperatures and atmospheric composition ranging back to 120,000 years in Greenland and 800,000 years in Antarctica. Oceanic sediments preserve a record reaching back tens of millions of years, and older sedimentary rocks extend the record to hundreds of millions of years.
Evidence from the geological record is consistent with the physics that shows that adding large amounts of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere warms the world and may lead to higher sea levels, greatly changed patterns of rainfall, increased acidity of the oceans and decreased oxygen levels in seawater. Life on Earth has survived large climate changes in the past, but extinctions and major redistribution of species have been associated with many of them. When the human population was small and nomadic, a rise in sea level of a few metres would have had very little effect. With the current and growing global population, much of which is concentrated in coastal cities, such a rise in sea level would have a drastic effect on our complex society, especially if the climate were to change as suddenly as it has at times in the past.
Sudden climate change has occurred before. About 55 million years ago, at the end of the Paleocene, there was a sudden warming event in which temperatures rose by about 6ºC globally and by 10-20ºC at the poles. This warming event, called the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum or PETM, was accompanied by a major release of 1500 to 2000 billion tonnes or more of carbon into the ocean and atmosphere. This injection of carbon may have come mainly from the breakdown of methane hydrates beneath the deep sea floor, perhaps triggered by volcanic activity superimposed on an underlying gradual global warming trend that peaked some 50 million years ago in the early Eocene. CO2 levels were already high at the time, but the additional CO2 injected into the atmosphere and ocean made the ocean even warmer, less well oxygenated and more acidic, and was accompanied by the extinction of many species on the deep sea floor. It took the Earth’s climate around 100,000 years or more to recover, showing that a CO2 release of such magnitude may affect the Earth’s climate for that length of time.
When was CO2 last at today’s level, and what was the world like then? The most recent estimates suggest that between 5.2 and 2.6 million years ago, the carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere reached between 330 and 400 ppm. During those periods, global temperatures were 2 to 3°C higher than now, and sea levels were higher than now by 10 to 25 metres, implying that global ice volume was much less than today. The Arctic Ocean may have been seasonally free of sea-ice.
Human activities have emitted over 500 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere since around 1750. In the coming centuries, continued emissions of carbon could increase the total to 1500 to 2000 billion tonnes - close to the amounts added during the 55 million year warming event. The geological evidence from the 55 million year event and from earlier warming episodes suggests that such an addition is likely to raise average global temperatures by at least 5 to 6ºC, and possibly more. Recovery of the Earth’s climate in the absence of any mitigation measures could take 100,000 years or more. In the light of the geological evidence presented here it is reasonable to conclude that emitting further large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere over time is likely to be unwise, uncomfortable though that fact may be.
This is a position paper by an Administration. The APS held similar statements which resulted in the loss of membership from long term prominent members due to the conclusive assumptions the administration made.

It is one thing to have a position, but for a scientific organization to hold an opinion as such is political pandering, not scientific process. It appears that politics have taken the forefront of this issue.

You keep posting these administration summaries as statements of fact, but the fact is that it is simply an opinion based on research that also has assumptive opinions about the issue. The very fact that they attempt to conclude a result is a travesty in the process of true scientific discovery and it shows us that this field is more concerned with its political associations and direction than it is in truly understanding the elements to which they study.

climate science and politics are currently one beast.

 
Old 11-04-2010, 10:30 AM
 
108 posts, read 113,953 times
Reputation: 32
Thanks Chi-Town for the information-

no one here feeds trolls- however our role is to give readers information, and educate members-I seldom feel arguing with those who deny Anthropogenic global warming accomplishes much- only have my blood pressure go up
 
Old 11-08-2010, 01:17 PM
 
Location: Nort Seid
5,288 posts, read 7,587,419 times
Reputation: 2453
I'd think anyone who has ever left a car running in a closed garage knows what happens to the air. And post-industrial revolution Earth has had a lot of cars running (and factories, and a thousand other emitters).

Here's a nicely articulated piece:

Don't believe in global warming? That's not very conservative.

"...but it's conservatives who should fear climate change the most. To put it simply, if you hate big government, try global warming on for size.

Many conservatives say they oppose clean-energy policies because they want to keep government off our backs. But they have it exactly backward. Doing nothing will set our country on a course toward narrower choices for businesses and individuals, along with an expanded role for government. When catastrophe strikes - and yes, the science is quite solid that it will - it will be the feds who are left conducting triage.


...The best science available suggests that without taking action to fundamentally change how we produce and use energy, we could see temperatures rise 9 to 11 degrees Fahrenheit over much of the United States by 2090. These estimates have sometimes been called high-end predictions, but the corresponding low-end forecasts assume we will rally as a country to shift course. That hasn't happened, so the worst case must become our best guess.
With temperature increases in this range, studies predict a permanent drought throughout the Southwest, much like the Dust Bowl of the 1930s, but this time stretching from Kansas to California. If you hate bailouts or want to end farm subsidies, this is a problem. Rising ocean acidity, meanwhile, will bring collapsing fisheries, catch restrictions - and unemployment checks. And rising sea levels will mean big bills as cash-strapped cities set about rebuilding infrastructure and repairing storm damage. With Americans in pain, the government will have to respond. And who will shoulder these new burdens? Future taxpayers.


This is just the beginning. If conservatives' rosy hopes prove wrong, who but the federal government will undertake the massive infrastructure projects necessary to protect high-priced real estate in Miami and Lower Manhattan from rising oceans? And what about smaller coastal cities, such as Galveston and Corpus Christi in Texas? Will it fall to FEMA or some other part of the federal government to decide who will move and when and under what circumstances? Elsewhere, with declining river flows, how will the Bureau of Reclamation go about repowering the dams of the Pacific Northwest?
And while we're busy at home, who will help Pakistan or Bangladesh in its next flood? What will the government do to secure food supplies when Russia freezes wheat exports? Without glaciers, what will become of Lima, Peru, a city dependent on melting ice for drinking water? Will we let waves of "climate refugees" cross our borders?
 
Old 11-08-2010, 04:25 PM
 
108 posts, read 113,953 times
Reputation: 32
Some distressing News Chi Town from the NOAA- measurements at Mauna Loa HI for CO2;

October 2010 reading- 387.18
October 2009 reading 384.36

A rise of 3ppmv year to year for the month of October- remember the measurements rise in the winter, as the amount vegetation decreases in the Northern Hemisphere- so my mid spring we might conceivably see close to 400ppmv----

Interesting News also

Scientists Fight Back

Climate scientists plan campaign against global warming skeptics
Climate science: Climate scientists plan campaign against global warming skeptics - latimes.com

 
Old 11-09-2010, 03:55 AM
 
108 posts, read 113,953 times
Reputation: 32
Something of interest about a group called 'The Climate Insiders'

The Climate Insiders - Their Goal Is Doubt
I BRING fraternal greetings from the Mother of Parliaments to the Congress of your “athletic democracy”. I pray that God’s blessing may rest upon your counsels.

Viscount Christopher Monckton.
Testimony to The Energy&Commerce Committee of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, Wednesday, 25 March, 2009.
http://energycommerce.house.gov/.../testimony_monckton.pdf (http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090325/testimony_monckton.pdf - broken link)

The bringing of "fraternal greetings from the Mother of Parliaments" is only possible if one is a Member of Parliament or a member of the House of Lords. Since Viscount Monckton is not and never has been such a member, it follows that the implication conveyed by his greeting was a form of perjury.

Viscount Christopher Monckton is a member of the British 'governing class', but is not and never has been a Member of Parliament or a member of the House of Lords. Monckton is a Lord, but that does not entitle him to say or imply that is is a member of the House of Lords. In exactly the same way, I am a commoner, but that does not entitle me to say or imply that I am a member of the House of Commons.

On being confronted with having misled the US House of Representatives’ Global Warming Committee on that subject, Monckton, in a response to the Committee stated:

Never pretended otherwise? Hardly!


Viscount Monckton has attempted to influence the political process in America by pretending to be a scientist and a member of the House of Lords, and by using his scientific knowledge of propaganda.

This article is an attempt by an ordinary member of the British working class to expose Monckton's lies and secret manipulations in the hope of putting right some of the damage.


Propaganda

Propaganda is a powerful tool which may be used to try to convince people that snow is black, but it might be a lot cheaper to try to convince them that snow is dark gray, as Bertrand Russell so astutely observed in The Impact of Science On Society, 1951.

Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated.
Bertrand Russell, The Impact Of Science On Society, 1951

Propaganda is indeed a science. Observations from the various branches of cognitive science are used to determine how best to persuade people to accept as fact a proposition which may or may not be true.

It is exceedingly difficult to persuade one group of people that black is white, or to persuade another group that white is black. It is easier and cheaper to persuade enough people to doubt the evidence of their own eyes and accept that white and black are equally likely to be gray. In a true democracy it is doubtful if any amount of expenditure on propaganda can bring about an election victory for one side or the other. But a small amount spent on the propagation of doubt may well bring about an indecisive election result.

This approach has been taken by Christopher Monckton and other professional propagandists to cast doubt on the evidence of human-induced climate change. It is very hard to persuade voters that climate change is a myth when they can see news reports of the harsh effects of climate change across the planet. It is easier and cheaper to throw up a fog of doubt so that people who have no scientific training can be led to believe that there is no consensus of scientific opinion on climate change and its causes.

One way to cast doubt on climate science is to cast doubt on the honesty and integrity of climate scientists. A recurring theme coming from anti-science propagandists is that climate scientists communicate secretly and fabricate data in pursuit of an agenda driven by political and financial motives.

I present here evidence which shows that propagandists have themselves communicated in secret and fabricated data in pursuit of an agenda. Their common goal is to convince ordinary people that there is no scientific consensus on climate change. Their agenda is the promotion of climate inaction.

These 'climate insiders', anti-science propagandists collaborating via emails and a private web site, are Viscount Christopher Monckton, Anthony Watts, Steven Goddard, Joe D'Aleo, and Jennifer Marohasy.
This is something like a blog, but it is geared specifically for keeping a group of people in touch. My thinking here is that many in the AGW are very socially networked. Skeptics, being the minority, and far flung, don’t have that advantage. I’m hoping this will help us work more as a “team with a common goal” than as individuals.

Anthony Watts

About « Climate Insiders (http://climateinsiders.wordpress.com/about/ - broken link)
Hi All

Finally successful in signing up and logging on thanks to help from Tony. Houghton’s claim about the warming of 1980s and 1990s not questioned by anyone, only disagreement as to how much. Comments on Spencer uncalled for, he is a fine scientist who could run rings around most of the foxes in charge of the data chicken coups at NASA, NCDC, CRU where data manipulation is running rampant. Lord Monckton could have some sport with Houghton’s claims. I am sure they have crossed swords.

Jennifer your story got great coverage. Good job. Roy did 29 radio interviews on his new book. Slowly we will erode away at the consensus if we can continue to get help from the PDO/solar.

Joe D’Aleo

http://climateinsiders.wordpress.com/2008/03/30/hi-allfinally-successful... (http://climateinsiders.wordpress.com/2008/03/30/hi-allfinally-successful-in-signing/ - broken link)
Viscount Monckton is the most prominent member of this group. His grandfather was a propagandist in World War 2, his father was a public relations officer for the British Army. His brother, Anthony Monckton joined MI6 in 1987 and was appointed First Secretary (Political) to the British Embassy, Zagreb, Croatia in 1996. Viscount Monckton's brother-in-law is the journalist Dominic lawson, son of the former Chancellor Nigel Lawson. Nigel Lawson is chair of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, of which Benny Peiser is Director.

Viscount Monckton is generally cited as a former adviser to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. The only evidence for this seems to be unsubstantiated assertions made by Monckton himself. He was a member of the team of Downing Street journalists formed by Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher - a team somewhat resembling the White House press corps. It was as a journalist that he was invited by Alfred Sherman to take the minutes of a meeting of the Center For Policy Studies. Monckton was subsequently involved with the Center For Policy Studies - but that does not qualify him to claim that he was an adviser to Margaret Thatcher.

Viscount Monckton has no real grasp of the scientific method. As evidence, consider the following piece of pseudo-science:
There were Viking farms in Greenland: now they're under permafrost. There was little ice at the North Pole: a Chinese naval squadron sailed right round the Arctic in 1421 and found none.
Christopher Monckton, Sunday Telegraph, 05 Nov 2006
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1533290/Climate-chaos-Dont-believ...


Permafrost does not lie on top of soil, but under it. As to the Chinese sailing around the Arctic in 1421, that is a theory expounded by only one person and widely regarded as based on entirely bogus 'proofs'. The 'Chinese Fleet' idea is thoroughly debunked by various experts at The myth of Menzies' "1421 " exposed


The consensus on global warming.

Climate scientists don't just study the weather: weather is not climate. The term 'climate scientist' may be applied to a scientist from any field of science whatsoever whose primary interest is the discovery of information about our planet's climate, past or present. The relevant disciplines cover the whole domain of science. Evidence from botanists, geologists, cryologists and from disciplines too numerous to name demonstrates how our planet's climate has changed and is changing.

There is a broad cross-disciplinary agreement amongst climate scientists that the planet is warming and that the warming is mainly due to CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. This broad agreement, or consensus, is not an an outcome of a formal voting process but is simply an expression of what form of wording was acceptable to all parties concerned in the preparation of the 4th IPCC report.

This form of collaboration is common where a number of authors contribute to a piece of writing. It has long been an unremarkable part of the science publishing process. The idea of a consensus has only come under attack in the sphere of climate change. Papers published in other spheres by multiple authors go unremarked by climate change deniers.

Collaboration is a perfectly acceptable process where the goal is to discover what it is that everyone can agree on. If the start point is a story agreed on, and the purpose is to present that story to the public as if it is fact-based, then the process is not collaboration, but collusion.


The collusion on consensus

"Slowly we will erode away at the consensus ..."

In deciding to attack, destroy or erode something, one impliedly believes that it really exists. Evidence that the people named are attacking the climate consensus is evidence that they privately accept that there is in fact a scientific consensus on global warming. Publicly, they declare otherwise:
Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change
“Global warming” is not a global crisis

We, the scientists and researchers in climate and related fields, economists, policymakers, and business leaders, assembled at Times Square, New York City, participating in the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change,

Resolving that scientific questions should be evaluated solely by the scientific method;

Affirming that global climate has always changed and always will, independent of the actions of humans, and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all life;

Recognising that the causes and extent of recently-observed climatic change are the subject of intense debates in the climate science community and that oft-repeated assertions of a supposed ‘consensus’ among climate experts are false;
...
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?Itemid=54&id=37&opt...
The signatories to the Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change, having asserted that there is no consensus, go on to request:
"That all taxes, regulations, and other interventions intended to reduce emissions of CO2 be abandoned forthwith."
The following endorsers of The Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change were physically present at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change, which took place in New York City on March 2 - 4, 2008 at the Marriott New York Marquis Times Square Hotel:

24 - Joseph D’Aleo, MS, Meteorologist and Climatologist (retired), Executive Director, ICECAP (International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project), Hudson, New Hampshire, U.S.A.

76 - Jennifer Marohasy, BSc, PhD, Biologist, Writer, Senior Fellow, Institute of Public Affairs, Director, Australian Environment Foundation, Sydney, Australia

83 - Christopher Monckton, Viscount of Brenchley, Chief Policy Advisor, Science and Public Policy Institute, Quantification of Climate Sensitivity, Carie, Rannoch, Scotland

112 - Anthony Watts, ItWorks/IntelliWeather, Founder, surfacestation s.org, Chico, California, U.S.A.

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&...
These propagandists, and others, use a 'secret' web site to co-author articles and to exchange data. Occasionally, while pages from Anthony Watts' site wattsupwiththat.com are loading, it can be seen that data is coming from a site called Climate Insiders. Watts presumably did not wish to reveal the existence of the Climate Insiders site.
Climate Insiders
External shared authoring blog


“The Climate Insiders”.

It is a private, protected discussion group. It is not visible to search engines nor to prying eyes. It’s purpose is to give us a search-able post and thread system to give all of us far flung professionals a place to try out ideas, post graphics, ask questions, ask for reviews, and plead for help in projects of importance. It is not intended to replace email as a way to alert everyone of something happening, such as what Mr. Morano does, but rather you could think of it as an ongoing climate seminar in a safe zone. Membership is by invitation only.

This is a free and open forum, all participants will have equal rights to post new threads and to comment. There is no moderation. This forum will run independently of me 24/7.

This is something like a blog, but it is geared specifically for keeping a group of people in touch. My thinking here is that many in the AGW are very socially networked. Skeptics, being the minority, and far flung, don’t have that advantage. I’m hoping this will help us work more as a “team with a common goal” than as individuals."

About « Climate Insiders (http://climateinsiders.wordpress.com/about/ - broken link)
Not visible to prying eyes? Hardly!
This is an open format forum, any user can post, all posts are hidden from the outside world and from search engines. Feel free to express yourself and your thoughts. You may know of others that would benefit, and if so invite them to register with WordPress and have them contact me at awatts@tvweather.com to be added.

http://climateinsiders.wordpress.com/2008/03/23/hello-if-youve-reached-t... (http://climateinsiders.wordpress.com/2008/03/23/hello-if-youve-reached-this-page-you/ - broken link)
Hidden from the outside world? Hardly!

One of the claims made by climate insider Viscount Monckton is that he is very knowledgeable when it comes to computers. One might think that he would know enough to help Anthony Watts make his secret web site a little more secure by modifying the Wordpress defaults. As things stand, far from being hidden from the outside world, the machinations of these propagandists are searchable by any ordinary web user who cares to enter search terms in this box:

ox:

Screenshot of the search box - ***** « Search Results « Climate Insiders

If you are going to search that 'private' site, be quick, and if possible save screenshots or whole web pages. Anthony Watts censors his website whatsupwiththat.com by deleting comments and even articles, often without explanation.
"not only does Watts doctor up the information he takes and posts from reputable news sources (as Joe Romm pointed out in this post), he clearly censors and edits the information you are allowed to see on his site. "
Paul K, comment #28

http://climateprogress.org/2009/08/02/anthony-watts-wattsupwiththat-inan...


http://wattsupwiththat.com/.../climate-skepticism-could-soon-be-a-criminal-offence (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/19/climate-skepticism-could-soon-be-a-criminal-offence-in-uk/refs - broken link)



Last edited by shelby93; 11-09-2010 at 04:04 AM..
 
Old 11-09-2010, 02:38 PM
 
13,072 posts, read 11,396,728 times
Reputation: 2608
Quote:
Originally Posted by shelby93 View Post
Scientists Fight Back

Climate scientists plan campaign against global warming skeptics
Climate science: Climate scientists plan campaign against global warming skeptics - latimes.com

It is all about the science right? This isn't about politics... Nope, its about the science!

What have I been telling you from the start? They are political, have been political and that is where they seek to argue their case. When we look into the details of the science, it gets pretty thin on their evidence and so they must fight this in political realms where "claims" become fact.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...,3784003.story

Quote:
“This group feels strongly that science and politics can’t be divorced and that we need to take bold measures to not only communicate science but also to aggressively engage the denialists and politicians who attack climate science and its scientists,” said Scott Mandia, professor of physical sciences at Suffolk County Community College in New York.
So very scientific Associate Professor Abraham, you use those intellectual words like "denialists" in order to fallaciously attack those who argue against your position. You need to aggressively go after them do you not? Maybe with ad campaigns of blowing up children and others that disagree with your position right? You need to be forceful, aggressive correct? I mean, because actually defending your work scientifically doesn't seem to be working out for you, you need to get out there and campaign like a politician to gain support for your opinion!


It is obvious why you do not wish to divorce the politics from the science. It is because your position has placed too much weight in the politics part of it and can not stand up to the scrutiny of actual scientific evaluation.


Personally, I see such political style commentary from someone as such and I can not fathom how they were able to graduate. Then again, maybe it because those who taught him also do not practice science and place their position in that of politics.





Quote:
“We are taking the fight to them because we are … tired of taking the hits. The notion that truth will prevail is not working. The truth has been out there for the past two decades, and nothing has changed.”
You are tired of FOIA requests? You are tired of people looking too closely at your work and finding flaws in your methods? You are so darn tired that you are going to stamp your feet, proclaim yourself correct and seek social bullying as your convincing argument.

If one thing is sure, it is that we see quite clearly your main motivations and they have nothing to do with science.

What a joke climate science has become these days. I think we should now term it more properly, "climate politics" as it obviously has nothing to do with science.

I say let them come, let them go out and politic around. There are people just dying to show up to their presentations and debate their claims, but wait... we know it won't be a debate, but rather a climate propaganda circus where they show up to each town looking down their nose at anyone who asks honest questions and waving off any discrepancies in their own claims.

I await eagerly to see them step all over their faces when they find that their fascist political approach backfires for them.

What a joke!
 
Old 11-09-2010, 03:17 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
8,479 posts, read 6,100,721 times
Reputation: 8359
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
It is all about the science right? This isn't about politics... Nope, its about the science!

What have I been telling you from the start? They are political, have been political and that is where they seek to argue their case. When we look into the details of the science, it gets pretty thin on their evidence and so they must fight this in political realms where "claims" become fact.

Climate science: Climate scientists plan campaign against global warming skeptics - chicagotribune.com


So very scientific Associate Professor Abraham, you use those intellectual words like "denialists" in order to fallaciously attack those who argue against your position. You need to aggressively go after them do you not? Maybe with ad campaigns of blowing up children and others that disagree with your position right? You need to be forceful, aggressive correct? I mean, because actually defending your work scientifically doesn't seem to be working out for you, you need to get out there and campaign like a politician to gain support for your opinion!


It is obvious why you do not wish to divorce the politics from the science. It is because your position has placed too much weight in the politics part of it and can not stand up to the scrutiny of actual scientific evaluation.


Personally, I see such political style commentary from someone as such and I can not fathom how they were able to graduate. Then again, maybe it because those who taught him also do not practice science and place their position in that of politics.





You are tired of FOIA requests? You are tired of people looking too closely at your work and finding flaws in your methods? You are so darn tired that you are going to stamp your feet, proclaim yourself correct and seek social bullying as your convincing argument.

If one thing is sure, it is that we see quite clearly your main motivations and they have nothing to do with science.

What a joke climate science has become these days. I think we should now term it more properly, "climate politics" as it obviously has nothing to do with science.

I say let them come, let them go out and politic around. There are people just dying to show up to their presentations and debate their claims, but wait... we know it won't be a debate, but rather a climate propaganda circus where they show up to each town looking down their nose at anyone who asks honest questions and waving off any discrepancies in their own claims.

I await eagerly to see them step all over their faces when they find that their fascist political approach backfires for them.

What a joke!
I didn't click on it because I don't follow links from untrustworthy sources, but did you see its label - "climate skepticism could soon be a criminal offense"? Nothing more need be said.

No one who is paying even casual attention can begin to doubt the degree of danger these people pose to the rational world. They need to be watched very closely, IMO.
 
Old 11-10-2010, 07:03 AM
 
Location: Charleston, WV
3,105 posts, read 6,624,845 times
Reputation: 835
Has anyone else noticed the correlation between the amount of media attention on the subject of global warming and the Fed's push for Cap & Trade?

I don't mean GW being a news issue because of the controversy of the Cap & Trade bill. I mean all the TV specials, articles, etc. about GW that we were inundated with last year when the Feds were working hard to "sell" the Cap & Trade bill to the country.

Now (perhaps temporarily) that the Feds have backed off pushing Cap & Trade, there is no where near the number of TV specials, etc. on GW.

Interesting.

Which BTW, whether you believe in GW or not, if you didn't read the bill the House passed, you may want to. It was not a positive thing for our country, especially not at this economic time.

Last edited by vec101; 11-11-2010 at 08:35 AM..
 
Old 11-11-2010, 10:25 AM
 
13,072 posts, read 11,396,728 times
Reputation: 2608
Quote:
Originally Posted by vec101 View Post
Has anyone else noticed the correlation between the amount of media attention on the subject of global warming and the Fed's push for Cap & Trade?

I don't mean GW being a news issue because of the controversy of the Cap & Trade bill. I mean all the TV specials, articles, etc. about GW that we were inundated with last year when the Feds were working hard to "sell" the Cap & Trade bill to the country.

Now (perhaps temporarily) that the Feds have backed off pushing Cap & Trade, there is no where near the number of TV specials, etc. on GW.

Interesting.

Which BTW, whether you believe in GW or not, if you didn't read the bill the House passed, you may want to. It was not a positive thing for our country, especially not at this economic time.
Well using government strong arm is looking to be one of the last ditch efforts by the groups. In the scientific realms, they are being looked more closely at in their work resulting in the uncertainties of their conclusions, not to mention some poor behavior by some as well.

The media is no longer under their thumb resulting in more people seeking to look more closely at the issue rather than be content with being told what is truth at ones word. Socially the movement is losing steam and as it has, actions and declarations have been more and more wild by the supporters.

Naturally, when you can not show something to be true and you can not convince people to disregard such through a varying social argument tactics, then whats left is to enlist the government to mandate such.

Germany is dealing with this very issue at the moment and it is rather alarming, but then... its Germany and well... it isn't like this is the first time they have overstepped individual liberties to dictate their ideal.

Branding of Dissenters Has Begun – Clearing The Path To A Climate Science Pogrom


The interesting thing is that this is also being attempted here with various actions in our legislation and distribution of powers (EPA). It is amusing that while time changes, some things stay the same.
 
Old 11-11-2010, 11:42 AM
 
7 posts, read 14,638 times
Reputation: 16
New article out on global warming

Last edited by remotecontrolsoul; 11-11-2010 at 11:55 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top