Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-02-2009, 09:22 AM
 
Location: Chapel Hill, NC
1,105 posts, read 2,736,812 times
Reputation: 602

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by triton74 View Post
Reminds me of the pervasive pictures showing a bear clinging to a tiny iceberg, and this is the picture seen in most of the global warming propaganda, and in children's books to sell the idea of global warming. Of course, what they don't disclose is that this is how polar bears travel, and this is a fact that any scientist knows. So why then resort to false advertisement to sell global warming?
Link? If it's truly pervasive, should be easy to dredge one up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-02-2009, 09:25 AM
 
Location: Chapel Hill, NC
1,105 posts, read 2,736,812 times
Reputation: 602
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Lane View Post
If Gore was a true liberal, then he would be spending his time and money on starting a Living Wage campaign in every city, like they have in Santa, Fe, NM ($10/hr). If the City of Flagstaff officials were true liberals, they would have raised their minimum wage to $12/hour by now (cost of living here 20% higher than our twin Mountain city of Santa Fe).
Awesome. Thanks for letting us know what "true liberals" should think, and what their priorities should be.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2009, 09:51 AM
 
1,048 posts, read 2,392,307 times
Reputation: 422
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff2v View Post
Link? If it's truly pervasive, should be easy to dredge one up.
Easy fiind. look halfway down.

Google Image Result for http://www.treehugger.com/Canadian%20Polar%20Bears%20Stranded%20Ice%20Photo. jpg
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2009, 12:07 PM
 
114 posts, read 180,794 times
Reputation: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff2v View Post
Link? If it's truly pervasive, should be easy to dredge one up.
1.Get on your favorite browser.
2.Type in http:// google. com in the address bar, without the spaces, of course!
3.After the page loads up, type in "polar bear and global warming" without the quotes, on the search box.
4. Click Search.
The first link that appears is:
Polar Bears and Global Warming - National Wildlife Federation (notice the graphic on the right side of the page)
Also, notice the images that appear right before the first link.

5. For fun, while still on the google search results, click on the link that says images.



Dredged up, and owned!
Now, care to explain why these images are being used for global warming, when in fact, this is just a normal day in a polar bear's life?

Last edited by triton74; 02-02-2009 at 12:31 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2009, 01:28 PM
miu
 
Location: MA/NH
17,772 posts, read 40,237,645 times
Reputation: 18135
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovingForward View Post
Climate change is not about things getting hotter. It's about radical and erratic changes in climate. Educate yourself. With every word you post, you expose your ignorance.

Oh, and you might think about actually reading the sources you post before you post them:

31,000 "Scientists" (Some Dead) Refute Global Warming | EcoGeek - Clean Technology
I basically told him the same thing two weeks ago in another stupid thread he made about global warming being a hoax. He's really all worked up about this topic... I wonder why?

//www.city-data.com/forum/massa...t-weather.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2009, 05:12 PM
 
1,360 posts, read 1,946,064 times
Reputation: 500
Robot...Warning.. Warning... Dr Smith...the climate change gloom and doomsayers are out in full force...Oh my..Oh dear...The end is near...But wait Dr Smith a glitter of hope read the following...

MIT Scientist Dr. Robert Rose, a professor of Materials Science and Engineering at MIT with approximately 50 years of experience teaching various scientific, linked warming and cooling cycles to the “orbit and the tilt and wobble of the axis of the Earth’s spin.” Rose also questioned climate model predictions on July 8, 2008, by stating, “Clearly, these are not ‘facts.’ They are computer models. They may be correct or at least lead us to the correct answer, but the earliest model appears to be incorrect,” Rose wrote. “Cooler heads [are] needed in global warming debate,” Rose wrote. “Global warming is occurring as it has many times in the past; and it will continue for some years before the cooling cycle begins and the glaciers take over, also as they have in the past. We are trying very hard to develop computer simulations to predict the contribution our activities are making to the warming, and the going has been difficult. These models can’t be tested experimentally (unless we can find another planet on which to conduct our experiments) and are tested mostly by fitting them to past behavior, pretty much the same approach as handicapping horse races.

Biologist and Neuropharmacologist Dr. Doug Pettibone, who has authored 120 scientific publications and holds ten patents and is a past member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, dissented in 2008. “There is currently no satisfactory answer to the central question: ‘What is the actual proof that humans are causing catastrophic global warming?’ All of the climate computer models in the world do not provide the proof,” Pettibone wrote to EPW on December 11, 2008. “It boils down to a matter of faith that the 30-year positive correlation between man-made CO2 and global temperature provides the proof. But correlations are not proof of cause-and-effect. Blaming global warming on human activity is terribly premature and any legislation designed to curtail CO2 will likely be misguided, costly and ineffective based on the available evidence. Since there has not been any significant increase in global temperatures in the last decade, it is not even clear where temperatures are going to go from here,” Pettibone explained.

Engineer and Physicist J.K. “Jim” August, formerly of the U.S. Navy nuclear power program, and former chair of professional standard committees in both the American Nuclear Society and the American Society of Mechanical Engineering, dissented from climate fears in 2008. “Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth is not scientifically based,” August wrote in a December 15, 2008 analysis titled “An Inconvenient Truth, or a Calculating Deception.” “The book denies the legitimacy of science for review. The irony is, of course, the treatise that Mr. Gore uses to make his points, which could only have any value based on some scientific certainty basis, is not based on science nor the scientific method—nor can scientists even use science to review it, or follow its logic,” August explained. “Gore argues we’re morally obliged to support his conclusions, precluding objective review with the same scientific methods that he claims to have supported his work. Presenting consequences as facts, he categorically rejects their testing with the same scientific method. Should we be surprised, then when Mr. Gore says that anyone who doubts this must be morally corrupt?” August added. “Fighting religion with reason, we scientists sadly can’t contest. Mr. Gore even shared a Nobel Prize with the IPCC. So, isn’t it ironic? The only truth that’s inconvenient here is that Mr. Gore’s successfully sold his message as if it were science!” he added.

Climate researcher Dr. Craig Loehle, formerly of the Department of Energy Laboratories and currently with the National Council for Air and Stream Improvements, who has published more than 100 peer-reviewed scientific papers, attended the skeptical 2008 International Conference on Climate Change in New York City in March 2008. ”The 2000-year [temperature] trend is not flat, so a warming period is not unprecedented,” Loehle said during the skeptical conference in March 2008. “The 1500-year [temperature] cycle as proposed by [Atmospheric physicist Fred] Singer and [Dennis] Avery is consistent with Loehle climate reconstruction,” Loehle explained. “The 1500-year cycle implies that recent warming is part of natural trend,” he added. (LINK) (LINK (http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/10/20/lorne-gunter-thirty-years-of-warmer-temperatures-go-poof.aspx - broken link)) (LINK) Loehl published a November 2007 study in Energy & Environment that found the Medieval Warm Period to be “0.3C warmer than the 20th century.” The study was titled “A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies.”

Atmospheric Scientist Robert L. Scotto, who has more than 30 years air quality consulting experience, served as zone-wide QA Manager on a $300 million EPA Superfund contract, is co-founder of Minnich and Scotto, Inc., a full-service air quality consulting firm and a past member of the American Meteorological Society (AMS). Scotto, a meteorologist who has authored or co-authored numerous technical publications and reports, joined the 650 international scientists dissenting from man-made warming claims in 2008. “Proponents of AGW (anthropogenic global warming) analyses of recent surface temperature records which are suspect at best, as they clearly contradict much more reliable satellite data,” Scotto told EPW on December 22, 2008. According to satellite data, “the Earth has been cooling since 1998,” Scotto wrote.
“This discrepancy is due principally to the spatially unrepresentative nature of the surface records, owing first to the fact that rural stations are increasingly being replaced by urban stations and, second, to the frequent failure of these new urban stations to meet basic siting criteria,” Scotto explained. “Based on the laws of physics, the effect on temperature of man’s contribution to atmospheric CO2 levels is minuscule and indiscernible from the natural variability caused in large part by changes in solar energy output. Acknowledgment of this true science is critical to implementation of much-needed practical measures for increasing domestic energy and world food supplies,” he added.

Award Winning Physicist Dr. Will Happer, Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and Former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy from 1990 to 1993, who has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences, dissented from warming fears and requested to be added to Senate dissenting scientist report in 2008. “I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism. I did not need the job that badly,” Happer told EPW on December 22, 2008. Happer, who was awarded the Alexander von Humboldt Award, the Broida Prize and the 1999 Davisson-Germer Prize of the American Physical Society, says he was fired by Gore (http://www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/controversies/happer.html - broken link) in 1993 for not going along with Gore’s environmental agenda. “I was told that science was not going to intrude on policy,” Happer said in 1993. In 2008, Happer publicly dissented from man-made warming fears. “I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect, for example, absorption and emission of visible and infrared radiation, and fluid flow.
Based on my experience, I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken,” Happer explained. “Mistakes are common in science and they can take a long time to correct, sometimes many generations. It is important that misguided political decisions do not block science’s capacity for self correction, especially in this instance when incorrect science is being used to threaten our liberties and wellbeing,” Happer added. “Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth’s climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past. We are currently in a warming cycle that began in the early 1800’s, at the end of the little ice age. Much of the current warming occurred before the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere were significantly increased by the burning of fossil fuels. No one knows how long the current warming will continue, and in fact, there has been no warming for the past ten years,” he continued.
“Carbon dioxide is a natural constituent of the atmosphere, and calling it a ‘pollutant’ is inaccurate. Humans exhale air containing 4 to 5 per cent carbon dioxide or 40,000 to 50,000 parts per million. Plants grow better with more carbon dioxide. The current levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are about 380 parts per million, exceptionally low by the standards of geological history. Over the past 500 million years since the Cambrian, when fossils of multicellular life first became abundant, the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have been much higher than current levels, about 3 times higher on average.
Life on earth flourished with these higher levels of carbon dioxide,” he added. “Computer models used to generate frightening scenarios from increasing levels of carbon dioxide have scant credibility. There is little debate that the direct effects of doubling carbon dioxide concentrations would be very small, perhaps 1 to 2 C of warming. To generate alarming scenarios, computer modelers must invent positive feedback mechanisms that increase the greenhouse effect of water vapor, which is responsible for over 90 percent of greenhouse warming. Observations indicate that the feedback is very small and may actually be negative. Changes in atmospheric water vapor and cloud cover may diminish, not increase, the small direct effects of carbon dioxide,” he concluded.

So you see Moving Forward like I keep saying the sky isn't falling...Relax...sit down... have yourself a nice hot coffee and "SHUT THE @#$$% UP"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2009, 06:06 PM
 
114 posts, read 180,794 times
Reputation: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by miu View Post
I basically told him the same thing two weeks ago in another stupid thread he made about global warming being a hoax. He's really all worked up about this topic... I wonder why?

//www.city-data.com/forum/massa...t-weather.html
And the earth has never ever gone erratic climate changes, correct?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2009, 07:16 AM
 
Location: Harrisonville
1,843 posts, read 2,374,889 times
Reputation: 401
Quote:
Originally Posted by miu View Post
I basically told him the same thing two weeks ago in another stupid thread he made about global warming being a hoax. He's really all worked up about this topic... I wonder why?

//www.city-data.com/forum/massa...t-weather.html

It's just a tactic to waste time and neutralize resources. When they get to the end of their "list" of mutually exclusive and thoroughly discredited propositions they'll want to blythely start over at the beginning as many times as you'll sit still for. We've listened to this bellicose pro-ignorance smarmy soapboxing for eight years now, because we had to. We don't have to anymore. If you've ever been involved in "formal" debate, you're familiar with the tactics that are excluded, or cost you points: Poisoning the well. Misplaced authority. Damning with faint praise. Using a negative to "prove" a positive. These people were never the majority and they've just been voted down by one of the largest margins in the past 100 years. Enough time has been wasted on this bombastic trash, Creationism (or unintelligent design), bizaare stem-cell paranoia, and theories of family planning that are straight out of Suadi Arabia. These were all concepts invented or promoted to faux legitimacy by one of the most unscrupulous and unpopular politicians in history. How much more resources needs to go down this rat hole?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


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 > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top