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.
Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view.
"Research which heaped doubt on the rate of global warming was deliberately suppressed by scientists because it was “less than helpful” to their cause, it was claimed last night. In an echo of the infamous “Climategate” scandal at the University of East Anglia, one of the world’s top academic journals rejected the work of five experts after a reviewer privately denounced it as “harmful”. "
True. But the atmosphere on Venus is 93 times thicker than that of earth, which exerts more pressure on the surface. More pressure = more heat. It's the thickness, not the composition that matters.
There are actually four reasons Venus is so much hotter than earth...The one you mention above, the greenhouse effect, the fact that it is closer to the sun and the very slow spin....One day on Venus is 243 Earth days.
Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view.
"Research which heaped doubt on the rate of global warming was deliberately suppressed by scientists because it was “less than helpful” to their cause, it was claimed last night. In an echo of the infamous “Climategate” scandal at the University of East Anglia, one of the world’s top academic journals rejected the work of five experts after a reviewer privately denounced it as “harmful”. "
Did a google on this, and the only places I find it are on tabloids and denier's blogs...I could not find it on even one legitimate news paper. I wonder why?....You would think it would be on all of them
Hey, if it turns out they aren't real, what's the harm?
Believing in leprechauns IS harmless; believing in global warming is not.
If we embrace a false or inaccurate premise, the "remedy" will then, of course, be flawed and probably detrimental:
1. increased taxes on business with lower economic output
2. increased regulations with lower economic output
3. with #1-2, higher unemployment
4. misallocation of resources to energy sources which yield less energy per $ invested
5. embracing some "green" energy sources which cause toxic pollution (solar)
6. increased costs to consumers- with less money available for spending, a decrease in total consumer spending
7. "remedies" which may be disasterous- some of those proposed include:
a. coating deserts in reflective plastic material
b. releasing Sulpher dioxide into the atmosphere
8. Placing the US, as a nation, relatively vunerable to those nations (from an economic and military standpoint) who do not embrace "global warming" (China)
Did a google on this, and the only places I find it are on tabloids and denier's blogs...I could not find it on even one legitimate news paper. I wonder why?....You would think it would be on all of them
So-called "legitimate" news sources will avoid it for the same post-normal, anti-science reason the paper was rejected - it may hurt the political cause:
"Actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of 'errors' and worse from the climate sceptics media side."
Believing in leprechauns IS harmless; believing in global warming is not.
If we embrace a false or inaccurate premise, the "remedy" will then, of course, be flawed and probably detrimental:
1. increased taxes on business with lower economic output
2. increased regulations with lower economic output
3. with #1-2, higher unemployment
4. misallocation of resources to energy sources which yield less energy per $ invested
5. embracing some "green" energy sources which cause toxic pollution (solar)
6. increased costs to consumers- with less money available for spending, a decrease in total consumer spending
7. "remedies" which may be disasterous- some of those proposed include:
a. coating deserts in reflective plastic material
b. releasing Sulpher dioxide into the atmosphere
8. Placing the US, as a nation, relatively vunerable to those nations (from an economic and military standpoint) who do not embrace "global warming" (China)
I wonder how many times I'm going to have to repeat this.....
British Columbia’s carbon levy has not only succeeded in reducing emissions in that province, but has done so without impairing economic growth. Because the B.C. government reduced other taxes as it imposed the carbon levy, taxpayers in the provinces have actually benefited, the study said.Between July 1, 2008, and July 1, 2012, the greenhouse gas emissions in B.C. fell 17.4 per cent, while they rose in the rest of the country by 1.5 per cent over the period, the report found. At the same time, B.C.s economy slightly outperformed the rest of the country. B.C. carbon tax showing positive results - The Globe and Mail
So-called "legitimate" news sources will avoid it for the same post-normal, anti-science reason the paper was rejected - it may hurt the political cause:
"Actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of 'errors' and worse from the climate sceptics media side."
Oh, I guess you guys think that even all the major news sources are in on this climate change conspiracy.........Do you realize how goofy that sounds?
It's not conspiracy, it's ideological bias - similar to the way the media played heavily on Romney's "47%" while ignoring Obama's "clinging to guns and bible".
Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view.
"Research which heaped doubt on the rate of global warming was deliberately suppressed by scientists because it was “less than helpful” to their cause, it was claimed last night. In an echo of the infamous “Climategate” scandal at the University of East Anglia, one of the world’s top academic journals rejected the work of five experts after a reviewer privately denounced it as “harmful”. "
This is EXACTLY the problem with those citing "peer review". In the current scientific climate, peer review apparently means weeding out any research that doesn't comply with the dominant climate alarmism orthodoxy.
But hey, the NSA, the EPA and a few liberal universities investigated Climategate and *surprise* found no wrongdoing. That's a bit like asking Bernie Madoff to audit his own books
Let me tell you something about Climategate that the article above proves..
Climategate were just the emails that WE KNOW ABOUT because someone hacked into them. Can you imagine how many more there must be that we DON'T know about? If you think this was isolated you are HOPELESSLY naive!
Oh, I guess you guys think that even all the major news sources are in on this climate change conspiracy.........Do you realize how goofy that sounds?
Are you serious?
Are you SERIOUSLY going to say that the MSM is not in the tank for climate alarmism?
They love it. Alarmism sells newspapers, gets page hits and gets viewers. You ever hear the expression, "if it bleeds, it leads"? The MSM found an easy, almost never ending supply of alarmism and "the sky is
falling" sensationalism and they've been milking it almost constantly since the late 80's. If there's a bad storm somewhere… It MUST be man made climate change!! Every time there is another alarmist report, the MSM is all over it.
Give me a break!
Last edited by voiceofreazon; 05-16-2014 at 07:41 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.
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.
........Do you realize how goofy that sounds?
