BuSh Adm. Attempts to Hide Facts on Global Warming

JohnnyBz00LS

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2004
Messages
1,978
Reaction score
0
Location
NE Indiana
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,248580,00.html?sPage=fnc.science/naturalscience

Rep. Waxman: Bush Admin. Misled Public About Global Warming
Tuesday, January 30, 2007

WASHINGTON — The Democratic chairman of a House panel examining the government's response to climate change said Tuesday there is evidence that senior Bush administration officials sought repeatedly "to mislead the public by injecting doubt into the science of global warming."

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said he and the top Republican on his oversight committee, Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia, have sought documents from the administration on climate policy but repeatedly been rebuffed.

"The committee isn't trying to obtain state secrets or documents that could affect our immediate national security," said Waxman, opening the hearing. "We are simply seeking answers to whether the White House's political staff is inappropriately censoring impartial government scientists."

"We know that the White House possesses documents that contain evidence of an attempt by senior administration officials to mislead the public by injecting doubt into the science of global warming and minimize the potential danger," Waxman said.

Administration officials were not scheduled to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. In the past the White House has said it has only sought to inject balance into reports on climate change. Present Bush has acknowledged concerns about global warming but strongly opposes mandatory caps of greenhouse gas emissions, arguing that approach would be too costly.

Waxman said his committee had not received documents it requested from the White House and other agencies, and that a handful of papers received on the eve of the hearing "add nothing to our inquiry."

Two private advocacy groups, meanwhile, presented to the panel a survey of government climate scientists showing that many of them say they have been subjected to political pressure aimed at downplaying the threat of global warming.

The groups presented a survey that shows two in five of the 279 climate scientists who responded to a questionnaire complained that some of their scientific papers had been edited in a way that changed their meaning. Nearly half of the 279 said in response to another question that at some point they had been told to delete reference to "global warming" or "climate change" from a report.

The questionnaire was sent by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a private advocacy group. The report also was based on "firsthand experiences" described in interviews with the Government Accountability Project, which helps government whistleblowers, lawmakers were told.

At the same time, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., sought to gauge her colleague's sentiment on climate change. She opened a meeting where senators were to express their views on global warming in advance of a broader set of hearings on the issue.

Among those scheduled to make comments were two presidential hopefuls — Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Barack Obama, D-Ill. Both lawmakers favor mandatory reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, something opposed by President Bush, who argues such requirements would threaten economic growth.

The intense interest about climate change comes as some 500 climate scientists gather in Paris this week to put the final touches on a United Nations report on how warming, as a result of a growing concentration of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere, is likely to affect sea levels.

They agree sea levels will rise, but not on how much. Whatever the report says when it comes out at week's end, it is likely to influence the climate debate in Congress.

At the Waxman hearing, the two advocacy groups said their research — based on the questionnaires, interviews and documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act — revealed "evidence of widespread interference in climate science in federal agencies."

The groups report described largely anonymous claims by scientists that their findings at times at been misrepresented, that they had been pressured to change findings and had been restricted on what they were allowed to say publicly.

The survey involved scientists across the government from NASA and the Environmental Protection Agency to the department's of Agriculture, Energy, Commerce, Defense and Interior. In all the government employees more than 2,000 scientists who spend at least some of their time on climate issues, the report said.
 
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,249659,00.html?sPage=fnc.science/naturalscience

U.N. Report: Global Warming Man-Made, Basically Unstoppable
Friday, February 02, 2007

AP

PARIS — Scientists from 113 countries issued a landmark report Friday saying they have little doubt global warming is caused by man, and predicting that hotter temperatures and rises in sea level will "continue for centuries" no matter how much humans control their pollution.

A top U.S. government scientist, Susan Solomon, said "there can be no question that the increase in greenhouse gases are dominated by human activities."

Environmental campaigners urged the United States and other industrial nations to significantly cut their emissions of greenhouse gases in response to the long-awaited report by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

"It is critical that we look at this report ... as a moment where the focus of attention will shift from whether climate change is linked to human activity, whether the science is sufficient, to what on earth are we going to do about it," said Achim Steiner, the executive director of the U.N. Environment Program.

"The public should not sit back and say 'There's nothing we can do'," Steiner said. "Anyone who would continue to risk inaction on the basis of the evidence presented here will one day in the history books be considered irresponsible."

The 21-page report represents the most authoritative science on global warming as the panel comprises hundreds of scientists and representatives.

It only addresses how and why the planet is warming, not what to do about it.

Another report by the panel later this year will address the most effective measures for slowing global warming.

One of the authors, Kevin Trenberth, said scientists are worried that world leaders will take the message in the wrong way and throw up their hands.

[Betcha can't guess what the Shrubbies will do!]

Instead, world leaders should reduce emissions and adapt to a warmer world with wilder weather, he said.

"This is just not something you can stop. We're just going to have to live with it," said Trenberth, the director of climate analysis for the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. "We're creating a different planet. If you were to come up back in 100 years time, we'll have a different climate."

The scientists said global warming was "very likely" caused by human activity, a phrase that translates to a more than 90 percent certainty that it is caused by man's burning of fossil fuels. That was the strongest conclusion to date, making it nearly impossible to say natural forces are to blame.

It also said no matter how much civilization slows or reduces its greenhouse gas emissions, global warming and sea level rise will continue on for centuries.

"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global mean sea level," the scientists said.

The report blamed man-made emissions of greenhouse gases for fewer cold days, hotter nights, killer heat waves, floods and heavy rains, devastating droughts, and an increase in hurricane and tropical storm strength — particularly in the Atlantic Ocean.

Sharon Hays, associate director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy at the White House, welcomed the strong language of the report.

"It's a significant report. It will be valuable to policy makers," she told The Associated Press in an interview in Paris.

Hays stopped short of saying whether or how the report could bring about change in President Bush's policy about greenhouse gas emissions.

The panel predicted global average temperature rises of 2 to 11.5 degrees Fahrenheit by the year 2100. That was a wider range than in the 2001 report.

However, the panel also said its best estimate was for temperature rises of 3.2 to 7.1 degrees Fahrenheit. In 2001, all the panel gave was a range of 2.5 to 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit.

On sea levels, the report projects rises of 7 to 23 inches by the end of the century. An additional 3.9 to 7.8 inches are possible if recent, surprising melting of polar ice sheets continues.

The panel, created by the United Nations in 1988, releases its assessments every five or six years, although scientists have been observing aspects of climate change since as far back as the 1960s. The reports are released in phases; this is the first of four this year.

"The point here is to highlight what will happen if we don't do something and what will happen if we do something," said another author, Jonathan Overpeck at the University of Arizona. "I can tell if you will decide not to do something the impacts will be much larger than if we do something."

As the report was being released, environmental activists repelled off a Paris bridge and draped a banner over a statue used often as a popular gauge of whether the Seine River is running high.

"Alarm bells are ringing. The world must wake up to the threat posed by climate change," said Catherine Pearce of Friends of the Earth.

Stephanie Tunmore of Greenpeace said "if the last IPCC report was a wake up call, this one is a screaming siren."

"The good news is our understanding of the climate system and our impact on it has improved immensely. The bad news is that the more we know, the more precarious the future looks," Tunmore said in a statement. "There's a clear message to governments here, and the window for action is narrowing fast."
 
"to mislead the public by injecting doubt into the science of global warming"....questioning the "science" of global warming is an attempt to mislead?!

I love how all these arguments for global warming are preceded with terms like "there can be no doubt...", which is ment to squash debate on this matter. The FACT is that the "science" behind these arguements is based on mathematical and computer models that have been proven unreliable countless times. The models miss many factors and are mostly rigged to reach a certian conclusion. This is hardly "science". In fact any hard science (direct measuments, historical record, ect) shows a completely different picture.
 
Besides that, Johnny's thread title is misleading. He's asserting something, which implies that he is about to post some facts to back up his assertion, but in reality he's only parroting someone else's assertion, Henry Waxman, who has very little credibility.

Aaaaiiiiiirrrrrrbaaaallllll! Aaaaiiiiiirrrrrrbaaaallllll! Aaaaiiiiiirrrrrrbaaaallllll!
 
shagdrum said:
"to mislead the public by injecting doubt into the science of global warming"....questioning the "science" of global warming is an attempt to mislead?!

I love how all these arguments for global warming are preceded with terms like "there can be no doubt...", which is ment to squash debate on this matter. The FACT is that the "science" behind these arguements is based on mathematical and computer models that have been proven unreliable countless times. The models miss many factors and are mostly rigged to reach a certian conclusion. This is hardly "science". In fact any hard science (direct measuments, historical record, ect) shows a completely different picture.

Please share your "hard scientific facts" that indicates that global warming is not occuring. You can't, because if you'd bother to research the issue yourself (instead of relying on the RWW rhetoric spewed forth from the "non believers"), you'd see that the FACTS are that the global average temperatures have grown higher that they have EVER been, that the area of the ice caps at the north and south poles have shrunk and are now smaller than they've EVER been, average SST (sea surface temperatures) have risen and are now higher than they've EVER been, etc, etc, etc. There is no longer a dispute whether or not global warming is occuring (except amongst you non-believers who have no facts on your side). There is very little dispute that global warming is caused by man's presence on earth and his burning of fossil fuels creating the rising levels of green house gasses (which in fact are higher than they've EVER been). The only thing that is still disputed is whether or not it's too late for us to reverse or even slow the damage that's already done.

But hey, if you've got "facts" and "hard scientific data" that shows otherwise, PLEASE share! I'm all ears.
:cool:
 
"America releases 1.6 Pg of carbon per year into North American air by burnign fossil fuels. (A Pg, or "petagram" is a million billion grams). Prevailing winds blow west to east. This means carbon dioxide concentrations should be 0.3 parts per million (ppm) higher in the North Atlantic that in the North Pacific, but in fact they are about .3 ppm lower." That is direct measurement. "All in all, North America doesn't dump carbon dioxide into the air, it sucks the gas out. " Bottom line, America takes in about 1.7 Pg of carbon dioxide per year while we put out only 1.6 Pg per year.

"A Large Terrestrial Carbon Sink in North America Implied by Atmospheric and Oceanic Carbon Dioxide Data and Models," Science 282 (October 16, 1998): 442-446
 
JohnnyBz00LS said:
There is very little dispute that global warming is caused by man's presence on earth...

There is dispute, the problem is one side doesn't wanna hear it and instead tries to demonize and marginalize any opposing point (playground logic "your stupid, ect...") and can't defend the holes anyone finds in their point of view.
 
The mammoth west Antarctic ice sheet, which contains enough water to lift the world's sea levels by 20 feet, isn't melting after all. Instead, it's actually thickening and Antarctica itself is getting cooler.1

A new study by researchers from the California Institute of Technology's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the University of California at Santa Cruz, published in the respected journal Science, found that the ice sheets of Antarctica, far from melting, actually are expanding by some 26.8 billion tons of ice a year.2

The scientists, Ian Joughlin, a geologist at CIT, and Slawek Tulaczyk, a professor of earth sciences at UC Santa Cruz, speculate the thickening ice sheets are repeating a pattern that occurred from 1650 -1850 when the Earth went through what became known as the Little Ice Age.3

1 For more information on recent temperature readings in Antarctica, see Gretchen Randall, Ten Second Response #TSR11502, "Antarctica Cooling Despite Supposed Global Warming," January 15, 2002, available online at http://www.nationalcenter.org/TSR11502.html, and Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon, "Antarctica is Freezing Cold," TechCentralStation.com, January 15, 2002.

2 For articles about these issues, see Joseph Perkins, "Scientific Findings Run Counter to Theory of Global Warming," San Diego Union-Tribune, January 25, 2002, and Steve Connor, "Ice Is Becoming Thicker in Parts of West Antarctica," The Toronto Star, January 19, 2002.

3 During the Little Ice Age, reports John Carlisle in The National Center for Public Policy Research's National Policy Analysis #203, "Sun to Blame for Global Warming": "Temperatures in this era fell to as much as 2° F below today's temperature, causing the glaciers to advance, the canals in Venice to freeze and major crop failures." This paper is available online at http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA203.html.
 
shagdrum said:
The mammoth west Antarctic ice sheet, which contains enough water to lift the world's sea levels by 20 feet, isn't melting after all. Instead, it's actually thickening and Antarctica itself is getting cooler.1

A new study by researchers from the California Institute of Technology's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the University of California at Santa Cruz, published in the respected journal Science, found that the ice sheets of Antarctica, far from melting, actually are expanding by some 26.8 billion tons of ice a year.2

The scientists, Ian Joughlin, a geologist at CIT, and Slawek Tulaczyk, a professor of earth sciences at UC Santa Cruz, speculate the thickening ice sheets are repeating a pattern that occurred from 1650 -1850 when the Earth went through what became known as the Little Ice Age.3

And why is this happening??? Every 1500 years the earth magnetic field 'flips'. Isn't it probable that that might have something to do with global warming?

Global warming. What a joke.

How much under ocean volcanic activity is there? You think that 2000 degree lava might be wraming the water a tad?

Bottom line. Scientists dont' no sh!t.
 
shagdrum said:
"to mislead the public by injecting doubt into the science of global warming"....questioning the "science" of global warming is an attempt to mislead?!

I love how all these arguments for global warming are preceded with terms like "there can be no doubt...", which is ment to squash debate on this matter. The FACT is that the "science" behind these arguements is based on mathematical and computer models that have been proven unreliable countless times. The models miss many factors and are mostly rigged to reach a certian conclusion. This is hardly "science". In fact any hard science (direct measuments, historical record, ect) shows a completely different picture.
There is no science behind the theory of "global warming." It's just a bunch of conjecture based on a bunch of assumptions.

Undoubtedly, many of those scientist that support the theory of “global warming” are also atheists. They don’t believe in God because they contend there is no scientific evidence proving the existence of God. They refuse to even consider the possibility of the existence of God despite the improbability that such a vast and complex universe (of which humans know very little about) could suddenly spring into existence as a result of a so-called "perfect vacuum" or other method. Nevertheless, the same atheist have no problem believing in the existence of global warming despite that fact that it too has no scientific data to support it. In other words, some are willing to use science or a lack thereof as an excuse to ignore what they don't want to believe or to promote an agenda.
 
Additionally, the same activists who hope to change our economic and political structures through the manipulation of the Global Warming Fear, seem to have no understanding or concern as to what the consequences will be of adopting their anti-capitalist goals in order to prevent climate change.

They fail to identify or recognize the true, immediate threats in the world, in pursuit of this religion of environmentalism and their contempt for capitalism and the United States.
 
JohnnyBz00LS said:
Please share your "hard scientific facts" that indicates that global warming is not occuring. You can't, because if you'd bother to research the issue yourself (instead of relying on the RWW rhetoric spewed forth from the "non believers"), you'd see that the FACTS are that the global average temperatures have grown higher that they have EVER been, that the area of the ice caps at the north and south poles have shrunk and are now smaller than they've EVER been, average SST (sea surface temperatures) have risen and are now higher than they've EVER been, etc, etc, etc. There is no longer a dispute whether or not global warming is occuring (except amongst you non-believers who have no facts on your side). There is very little dispute that global warming is caused by man's presence on earth and his burning of fossil fuels creating the rising levels of green house gasses (which in fact are higher than they've EVER been). The only thing that is still disputed is whether or not it's too late for us to reverse or even slow the damage that's already done.

But hey, if you've got "facts" and "hard scientific data" that shows otherwise, PLEASE share! I'm all ears.
:cool:

First of all, you haven't documented any of the assertions you just made. The fact that the average temperature of the earth has risen slightly over the last hundred years ignores the fact that most of the increase happened before 1940. The fact that scientists recently admitted that they were calculating wind chill factor wrong for the last 50 years proves that they really don't know how to accurately gauge the world's so-called "average temperature."

I don't know what the big deal is anyway. There is a larger percentage of the world population living at or near the equator than anywhere else in the world. Wonder why that is, if global warming is so bad?

And your assertion that the ice caps are both shrinking is FALSE. In fact, the north pole has shrunk slightly, while the south pole has INCREASED IN SIZE. Furthermore, if you did any research, you would know that there is increased calving of glaciers in the poles, which indicates GROWTH, not SHRINKAGE.

Furthermore, there IS a HUGE dispute concerning global warming and its CAUSES, which we've covered exhaustively in numerous threads on this forum, and which I will also add have rarely ever been commented on by you. There is the Oregon Petition where 17,800 scientists and experts signed off on this report saying that global warming isn't man made. There are numerous books on the subject, including this one by Dr. Fred Singer, who has been attacked by the Gore camp for his views which dispute theirs.

Senator James Inhofe has been on TV several times with Miles O'Brien and has absolutely OWNED him on the subject of global warming. His most recent bout was last week, and the transcript is here.

You must have missed Larry King the other night, where Bill Nye the science guy, who comes down on the side of the environmentalists on the global warming "scare theory," was OWNED by Richard Lindzen from M.I.T. That's the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Johnny. Lindzen even had Larry King scolding Nye at one point. Transcript here.

In fact, the real suppression going on is from the Al Gore camp, where they are attempting to stifle any opposition from those scientists who say it's too soon to claim that man is causing global warming. You are also ignoring the fact that there is now global warming on Mars. Is that caused by evil Rethuglikkkans also?

Here's a snip of the Mars article:

"Mars has global warming, but without a greenhouse and without the participation of Martians," he told me. "These parallel global warmings -- observed simultaneously on Mars and on Earth -- can only be a straightline consequence of the effect of the one same factor: a long-time change in solar irradiance."

The sun's increased irradiance over the last century, not C02 emissions, is responsible for the global warming we're seeing, says the celebrated scientist, and this solar irradiance also explains the great volume of C02 emissions.


"It is no secret that increased solar irradiance warms Earth's oceans, which then triggers the emission of large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. So the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."

Dr. Abdussamatov goes further, debunking the very notion of a greenhouse effect. "Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated," he maintains. "Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away."


We just had a deep freeze in California and Florida. We just had an ice storm in San Antonio, something that almost never happens. Are you going to say that these things are a RESULT of global warming? Don't make me laugh. Using the logic employed by Al Gore's camp, I can just as easily use those events to claim we are having global cooling.

Finally, let me remind you about Michael Crichton, or I should say Doctor Michael Crichton, who gave a speech on so-called scientific consensus. He also wrote a book called State of Fear, which anyone who is honest with themselves and wants to know the truth about global warming, and/or really likes good fiction, should read.

Some questions for you to answer, O thou faithful believer in the religion of global warming:

1) If the Kyoto Protocol addresses a GLOBAL problem called GLOBAL warming, why are China, Mexico, and India, among other countries, exempt from it?

2) Why does the Kyoto Protocol not address, at all the issue of tropical deforestation, which is the cause of 20% of global greenhouse emissions?

3) Why no major Atlantic hurricanes in 2006?

4) How come the world's highest recorded temperature was recorded in 1922?

5) Why did it snow south and east of San Antonio for Christmas 2004? San Antonio RARELY if EVER gets snow.

6) Why did it snow in Lisbon and New Delhi in the winter of 2005-2006? Why did it snow in Johannesburg in July 2006 during the austral winter?

7) Exit Glacier has been melting since at least 1780. What human activity back then was causing the glacier to melt?

8) Explain the appearance of icebergs in the Chukchi Sea and the Beaufort Sea in the Barrow area at the end of July 2004.

9) Why aren't the Leftists screaming for more nuclear power generation; you know, the power source that supplies 78.5% of France's needs, a nation that doesn't even have a permanent disposal site for nuclear waste?

10) Why did we just have an ice storm in San Antonio? I thought this global warming thing was supposed to make such events more rare, not more common...

11) Twenty years ago, we were told again and again that the effects of global warming would be very noticeable right about....now. Let's see here...we are still occasionally getting snow where there isn't supposed to be any, record lows are getting set somewhere in the country every given day, and the world's record high still stands after well over 80 years. When is this thing supposed to happen, if it is supposed to happen?

12) Why are you so eager to destroy the world's most advanced economy on a hunch? Are you extremely angry that there are people who are content all around you (and thus you HAVE to make them ALL as miserable as you are), or is it acute self-loathing and guilt?)


(Hat tip to Unsane on newsbusters.org)

I could go on and on, I'm really just getting started. If you want to debate the science of this, bring it on.

And if you're really "all ears," as you put it, listen to this very carefully:

*owned*
 
And let's not forget that in the 1970s scientists warned the world of an impending ice-age. :rolleyes:

Here is a portion of an article entitled The Death Of Rational Thought by Kim Weissman, April 15, 2001, which briefly discusses global warming.

The Death Of Rational Thought

Public policy in this country is no longer premised on rational thought and educated public debate, it is increasingly being driven by fear, hysteria, ignorance, and media disinformation.

Last winter, the U.S. was cold. Growing seasons are moving south. Orange groves in central Florida that used to be productive several decades ago, can no longer grow oranges because it's gotten too cold. Floridians complained that they couldn't remember a winter as cold as that just ending. Yet while they sat around their homes in sweaters, they earnestly discussed imminent world disaster from global warming. Fifteen hundred scientists, solely on the basis of computer models, predict doom from human caused global warming; and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issues increasingly apocalyptic warnings about impending disaster. Yet over nineteen thousand scientists see no such danger from human caused global warming (a silent majority ignored by the media, because stories about disaster sell newspapers and boost viewers, but stories concluding "no problem" do not).

NASA has had satellites in space for over 20 years with the mission of measuring the earth's temperature, and has found that there has been a slight cooling over the past 20 years. NOAA issued a report that last November and December were the coldest such periods on record. Scientists measure ocean floor sediments and ice cores and find that the planet routinely undergoes significant fluctuations in climate, and that it has been doing so for thousands of years without any help from man. Twelve thousand years ago the planet emerged from the last great ice age. A century and a half ago the earth emerged from a mini ice age. When the planet emerges from an ice age, it gets warmer, without any help from man. But cynics in politics and global government types at the United Nations continue to demand we "do something" about global warming, and pandering politicians with a lust for power are only too happy to oblige. Completely forgotten are the dire warnings of a mere thirty years ago that we were all about to die from global cooling, with the same fearmongers warning of a looming, human-induced ice age. Hot, cold, no matter. Ignorant fear is the order of the day. Emulating the rooster that thinks its crowing causes the sun to rise, human ignorance, arrogance, and vanity causes some people to think that they have the power to fundamentally alter the climate of the planet.
 
fossten said:
First of all, you haven't documented any of the assertions you just made. The fact that the average temperature of the earth has risen slightly over the last hundred years ignores the fact that most of the increase happened before 1940. The fact that scientists recently admitted that they were calculating wind chill factor wrong for the last 50 years proves that they really don't know how to accurately gauge the world's so-called "average temperature."

I don't know what the big deal is anyway. There is a larger percentage of the world population living at or near the equator than anywhere else in the world. Wonder why that is, if global warming is so bad?

And your assertion that the ice caps are both shrinking is FALSE. In fact, the north pole has shrunk slightly, while the south pole has INCREASED IN SIZE. Furthermore, if you did any research, you would know that there is increased calving of glaciers in the poles, which indicates GROWTH, not SHRINKAGE.

Furthermore, there IS a HUGE dispute concerning global warming and its CAUSES, which we've covered exhaustively in numerous threads on this forum, and which I will also add have rarely ever been commented on by you. There is the Oregon Petition where 17,800 scientists and experts signed off on this report saying that global warming isn't man made. There are numerous books on the subject, including this one by Dr. Fred Singer, who has been attacked by the Gore camp for his views which dispute theirs.

Senator James Inhofe has been on TV several times with Miles O'Brien and has absolutely OWNED him on the subject of global warming. His most recent bout was last week, and the transcript is here.

You must have missed Larry King the other night, where Bill Nye the science guy, who comes down on the side of the environmentalists on the global warming "scare theory," was OWNED by Richard Lindzen from M.I.T. That's the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Johnny. Lindzen even had Larry King scolding Nye at one point. Transcript here.

In fact, the real suppression going on is from the Al Gore camp, where they are attempting to stifle any opposition from those scientists who say it's too soon to claim that man is causing global warming. You are also ignoring the fact that there is now global warming on Mars. Is that caused by evil Rethuglikkkans also?

Here's a snip of the Mars article:

"Mars has global warming, but without a greenhouse and without the participation of Martians," he told me. "These parallel global warmings -- observed simultaneously on Mars and on Earth -- can only be a straightline consequence of the effect of the one same factor: a long-time change in solar irradiance."

The sun's increased irradiance over the last century, not C02 emissions, is responsible for the global warming we're seeing, says the celebrated scientist, and this solar irradiance also explains the great volume of C02 emissions.


"It is no secret that increased solar irradiance warms Earth's oceans, which then triggers the emission of large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. So the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."

Dr. Abdussamatov goes further, debunking the very notion of a greenhouse effect. "Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated," he maintains. "Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away."


We just had a deep freeze in California and Florida. We just had an ice storm in San Antonio, something that almost never happens. Are you going to say that these things are a RESULT of global warming? Don't make me laugh. Using the logic employed by Al Gore's camp, I can just as easily use those events to claim we are having global cooling.

Finally, let me remind you about Michael Crichton, or I should say Doctor Michael Crichton, who gave a speech on so-called scientific consensus. He also wrote a book called State of Fear, which anyone who is honest with themselves and wants to know the truth about global warming, and/or really likes good fiction, should read.

Some questions for you to answer, O thou faithful believer in the religion of global warming:

1) If the Kyoto Protocol addresses a GLOBAL problem called GLOBAL warming, why are China, Mexico, and India, among other countries, exempt from it?

2) Why does the Kyoto Protocol not address, at all the issue of tropical deforestation, which is the cause of 20% of global greenhouse emissions?

3) Why no major Atlantic hurricanes in 2006?

4) How come the world's highest recorded temperature was recorded in 1922?

5) Why did it snow south and east of San Antonio for Christmas 2004? San Antonio RARELY if EVER gets snow.

6) Why did it snow in Lisbon and New Delhi in the winter of 2005-2006? Why did it snow in Johannesburg in July 2006 during the austral winter?

7) Exit Glacier has been melting since at least 1780. What human activity back then was causing the glacier to melt?

8) Explain the appearance of icebergs in the Chukchi Sea and the Beaufort Sea in the Barrow area at the end of July 2004.

9) Why aren't the Leftists screaming for more nuclear power generation; you know, the power source that supplies 78.5% of France's needs, a nation that doesn't even have a permanent disposal site for nuclear waste?

10) Why did we just have an ice storm in San Antonio? I thought this global warming thing was supposed to make such events more rare, not more common...

11) Twenty years ago, we were told again and again that the effects of global warming would be very noticeable right about....now. Let's see here...we are still occasionally getting snow where there isn't supposed to be any, record lows are getting set somewhere in the country every given day, and the world's record high still stands after well over 80 years. When is this thing supposed to happen, if it is supposed to happen?

12) Why are you so eager to destroy the world's most advanced economy on a hunch? Are you extremely angry that there are people who are content all around you (and thus you HAVE to make them ALL as miserable as you are), or is it acute self-loathing and guilt?)


(Hat tip to Unsane on newsbusters.org)

I could go on and on, I'm really just getting started. If you want to debate the science of this, bring it on.

And if you're really "all ears," as you put it, listen to this very carefully:

*owned*
Actually......he isn't owned. The weather anomolies you explained are not trends. In statistical terms, they would be considered outliers.
Global warming may not be wholly caused by human action, however, it can also not be ruled out as a contributing factor.
Even IF industry had NOTHING to do with global warming, they still need to be pushed to be cleaner because of the adverse health effects that smog has on the population of metropolitan areas......which in turn affects the topography of surrounding areas in term of acid rain.
 
MAC1 said:
There is no science behind the theory of "global warming." It's just a bunch of conjecture based on a bunch of assumptions.

Undoubtedly, many of those scientist that support the theory of “global warming” are also atheists. They don’t believe in God because they contend there is no scientific evidence proving the existence of God. They refuse to even consider the possibility of the existence of God despite the improbability that such a vast and complex universe (of which humans know very little about) could suddenly spring into existence as a result of a so-called "perfect vacuum" or other method. Nevertheless, the same atheist have no problem believing in the existence of global warming despite that fact that it too has no scientific data to support it. In other words, some are willing to use science or a lack thereof as an excuse to ignore what they don't want to believe or to promote an agenda.
I believe in evolution........I do not believe God created Man in the way it is depicted in the Bible. My personal opinion on this subject goes as such: The reason people believe in God is because it gives them something they can understand. People cannot begin to comprehend how the universe began and therefore have manufactured something which is comprehendible in the form of a God. It is the fear of the unknown.
Conversely......your last statement could be as follows: SOME ARE WILLING TO USE RELIGION AS AN EXCUSE TO IGNORE WHAT THEY DON'T WANT TO BELIEVE OR PROMOTE AN AGENDA.
 
MonsterMark said:
And you can?! Oh do pray tell.
And scientists think they have all the answers. :rolleyes: Here we are sitting on one planet out of billions of planetary bodies just in our Milky Way (which is just one of billions of galaxies in the universe) and scientists on this tiny planet (which is placed inside the Milky Way in the perfect spot, as in any other spot Earth would be uninhabitable) think they know all the secrets of the universe. What arrogance and stupidity.
 
DLS8K said:
I believe in evolution........I do not believe God created Man in the way it is depicted in the Bible. My personal opinion on this subject goes as such: The reason people believe in God is because it gives them something they can understand. People cannot begin to comprehend how the universe began and therefore have manufactured something which is comprehendible in the form of a God.
You would be wrong! I don't understand God. One reason I believe in God is because I am able to comprehend that there are too many perfect conditions for all of what we know to exist by mere chance, including Earth itself.
 
MonsterMark said:
And you can?! Oh do pray tell.
I am including myself in those that can not provide an answer that can be proven. I side not with scientists nor religioius persons. So I guess I have the same question.....and you can? Oh do pray tell.
 
MAC1 said:
You would be wrong! I don't understand God. One reason I believe in God is because I am able to comprehend that there are too many perfect conditions for all of what we know to exist by mere chance, including Earth itself.
That is your choice. However, it can not be argued that we may be here by mere chance. There is not ONE definitive answer as to how the universe began.
Now as I said before, I do not believe in God. However, I do believe there MAY be a higher power responsible for the creation of the universe. At the same time though, I believe there MAY be a scientific explanation for the creation. In essence, I would be a person who accepts the fact that there are some things for which an answer can not be found.
Religion.....must like science is a belief. Nothing can be proven with absolute certainty in this world (you should have learned that in school).
 
MAC1 said:
And scientists think they have all the answers. :rolleyes: Here we are sitting on one planet out of billions of planetary bodies just in our Milky Way (which is just one of billions of galaxies in the universe) and scientists on this tiny planet (which is placed inside the Milky Way in the perfect spot, as in any other spot Earth would be uninhabitable) think they know all the secrets of the universe. What arrogance and stupidity.
They don't know all the secrets to the universe.......otherwise, we not be continuing to search for other Earth like planet. Nor would we be searching Mars for forms of life. I think it is arrogant and stupid to place all your chips in the God pot and ignore other possibilities.
 
DLS8K said:
They don't know all the secrets to the universe.......otherwise, we not be continuing to search for other Earth like planet. Nor would we be searching Mars for forms of life. I think it is arrogant and stupid to place all your chips in the God pot and ignore other possibilities.

It is just as arrogant and stupid to speak condescendingly of those who profess belief in God and strive to have a relationship with him, which you did in your earlier post. Get down off your high horse.

The fact is that evolutionary scientists haven't even gotten to first base when it comes to proving evolution as FACT. They posit a bunch of theories and then race around like headless chickens making up ideas on how the theory MIGHT have happened. And then they put it in a textbook and teach our children.

As an atheist, you must come to grips with the fact that if you are not a created being, but just a collection of molecules, then you have no purpose in life. This also means that no matter what you do or say next, it will be the deed or word of a collection of molecules, and have no actual identity.

If you have no soul, then nothing you do on this earth means anything, and you are not accountable to a higher power for your actions.
 
I must say that DLS8K is one of the more civil debaters that I have come across on the topic of atheism vs. believe in God. Likewise, those of us who believe in God can be pretty nasty too. I had the whole debate about evolution vs. creation at another site and there were a few that hurled one insult after another.

Anyway, I apologize for drawing attention away from the subject of global warming with my comment about atheists and global warming. Again, my view of global warming is that it is basically being shoved down our throats even though there are thousands of scientists that do not agree with the theory. And again, I reiterate the last time scientists predicted doom was back in the 70s when they said Earth was heading toward another ice age. So I'm not willing to fall hook, line and sinker for the latest scientific fad called "global warming." I'm sure many of the scientists that now say there is global warming are the same ones that also predicted an impending ice age. If they were wrong the first time, they can be wrong again.
 
fossten said:
It is just as arrogant and stupid to speak condescendingly of those who profess belief in God and strive to have a relationship with him, which you did in your earlier post. Get down off your high horse.

The fact is that evolutionary scientists haven't even gotten to first base when it comes to proving evolution as FACT. They posit a bunch of theories and then race around like headless chickens making up ideas on how the theory MIGHT have happened. And then they put it in a textbook and teach our children.

As an atheist, you must come to grips with the fact that if you are not a created being, but just a collection of molecules, then you have no purpose in life. This also means that no matter what you do or say next, it will be the deed or word of a collection of molecules, and have no actual identity.

If you have no soul, then nothing you do on this earth means anything, and you are not accountable to a higher power for your actions.
Do you even bother to think about what you are saying? I am not disputing the scientists of evolution don't have facts. But what is your religious theory? It is no more a belief than those of the scientists.
Parents who take their children to church are putting them at the mercy of a pastor/preist/head of church telling them how the world began........it is no different than a teacher telling them how the world began except for the fact that you believe differently. I said I do not know how the universe began and neither do you.....so get off your high horse.
I have not shut my mind off to any possibility of how the universe began. And does it make me an aethiest because I do not believe in the form of Higher Power that you do?
But if you want, you can be completely close-minded towards the subject.......it seems you have that down well enough.
 
MAC1 said:
I must say that DLS8K is one of the more civil debaters that I have come across on the topic of atheism vs. believe in God. Likewise, those of us who believe in God can be pretty nasty too. I had the whole debate about evolution vs. creation at another site and there were a few that hurled one insult after another.

Anyway, I apologize for drawing attention away from the subject of global warming with my comment about atheists and global warming. Again, my view of global warming is that it is basically being shoved down our throats even though there are thousands of scientists that do not agree with the theory. And again, I reiterate the last time scientists predicted doom was back in the 70s when they said Earth was heading toward another ice age. So I'm not willing to fall hook, line and sinker for the latest scientific fad called "global warming." I'm sure many of the scientists that now say there is global warming are the same ones that also predicted an impending ice age. If they were wrong the first time, they can be wrong again.
Thanks for the compliment. It is not my attention to say one view is wrong while saying mine is right. Rather, I leave the door open to many scenarios. Just because I do not believe in the God that is fortold in the Old Testament does not mean I do not believe in a higher power of some sort.
 

Members online

Back
Top