Whistle blowing on Global Warming

[saggs]

If you need a Chilton diagram to figure out how to change an alternator, you gotta be pretty dense. 

To use your mechanic analogy, I'm not an ASE certified mechanic, just a shade tree one who works on his own vehicles.  But I know enough to tell when a mechanic is trying to rip me off.  Likewise I'm not a Ph.D climatologist, but I am smart enough to tell that when one hides, and manipulates data in order to keep political power on their side, something very fishy is going on.

I don't need a doctorate degree to realize scientists, who intentionally manipulate and hid data to mislead the public, obviously have some less then ethical motives.  And politicians who accept one side of the scientific debate unquestionably, and refuse to even entertain ideas from the opposition -despite public opinion- are even worse.

In a recent Pew research poll of US citizens biggest concerns, global warming comes in at #21.  Only 28% of Americans rate it as a "top priority"
http://people-press.org/report/584/policy-priorities-2010
Yet some political powers are still pushing it as one of their top 3 priorities.   Hmmmmmm...  suspicious, I think so.

So you gotta ask yourself the question;  Their constituents don't give a hoot about GW, so why are they so gung-ho on passing cap & trade, and signing worldwide GW treaties?  Is there something in it for them?

BTW: those are rhetorical questions, any thinking person already knows the answer.

And I'm sure you would ridicule anyone who tried to claim one or two storms amount to proof AGAINST GW.  (so would I, one storm in a worldwide climate is insignificant right?)  Yet you defend Bill Nye when he cites those same storms as proof OF GW.

Again how come:

Warmer = Global warming
Not warmer = Global warming
Cooler = Global warming
More precipitation = Global warming
Less precipitation = Global warming
More hurricanes = Global warming
Less hurricanes = Global warming

That's the way AGW advocates argue, EVERYTHING is evidence of GW to them, it's completely absurd.

Moray: I know you understand the science and believe GW is a significant threat.  BUT... so did those scientist who predicted doom from global cooling in 1974-75  they had PH.D's and they were WRONG.  Having a PH.D in a subject does not make one infallible.  I studied biology in school, remember when the scientific "consensus" was that La Marck's theory of evolution was correct.  La Marck's theory made sense, and fit with the available data at the time.  Of course we know how that story ends.  So to many people think man made GW is true because it makes sense to them, and fits the data available at the time.  But I think in the end the man made GW theory will end up the same way that La Marckism did.

I'm gonna go find the edge of the earth now, cause I think it's flat of course.   By all means keep mocking and insulting the intelligence of anyone who disagrees with you.  Makes you seem like such a gentleman.


PS. I think anyone interested in this debate should read the whole Jones-BBC interview.  I found it very revealing.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm

[MORAY37]

Moray: I know you understand the science and believe GW is a significant threat.  BUT... so did those scientist who predicted doom from global cooling in 1974-75  they had PH.D's and they were WRONG.  Having a PH.D in a subject does not make one infallible.  I studied biology in school, remember when the scientific "consensus" was that La Marck's theory of evolution was correct.  La Marck's theory made sense, and fit with the available data at the time.  Of course we know how that story ends.  So to many people think man made GW is true because it makes sense to them, and fits the data available at the time.  But I think in the end the man made GW theory will end up the same way that La Marckism did.

By all means look into that one line.  Do the research.  http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11643

Update: A survey of the scientific literature has found that between 1965 and 1979, 44 scientific papers predicted warming, 20 were neutral and just 7 predicted cooling. So while predictions of cooling got more media attention, the majority of scientists were predicting warming even then.

http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/10/killing-the-myth-of-the-1970s-global-cooling-scientific-consensus/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/
http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/~brianpm/download/charney_report.pdf  NAS (National Academy of Sciences) SUMMARY 1979


As well, attacking Lamarck as an example of failure, is incredibly myopic.  His theory was Darwin's starting point, and he missed the mechanism after actually postulating it, natural selection, in some of his work.  His theory was parallel to Darwin's in many aspects.  He postulated inheritance, and other points in Evolution.  Lamarck's views were never thought to be "consensus"...far from it.  He, along with Darwin were mercilessly attacked and ridiculed by the gentile and academic for their careers' entireties, who were heavily favoring a creationist platform.

But Lamarck's works never became popular during his lifetime, and Lamarck never won the respect or prestige enjoyed by his patron Buffon or his colleague Cuvier. While Cuvier respected Lamarck's work on invertebrates, he had no use for Lamarck's theory of evolution, and he used his influence to discredit it. Most of Lamarck's life was a constant struggle against poverty; to make matters worse, he began to lose his sight around 1818, and spent his last years completely blind, cared for by his devoted daughters (he had been married four times). When he died, on December 28, 1829, he received a poor man's funeral (although his colleague Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire gave one of the orations) and was buried in a rented grave; after five years his body was removed, and no one now knows where his remains are.

Maybe you should re-read those sections again..although he is never more than a passing mention in Bio 101 courses.  You were taught about him, not because he was wrong, but because he was almost right, and laid the foundation for Darwin's work...

You really couldn't be further from being correct in that entire paragraph you addressed to me.

[MORAY37]

but did you notice the silence after my answer? the very loud silence?

There really wasn't anything worth commenting on from you. Sorry.

I wonder if you question the need for Doctors, since, by your reasoning with climate scientists, they must have a vested interest in disease....and they have all the power.  

Have a nice day.

[Bronk]

[CAP1]

There really wasn't anything worth commenting on from you. Sorry.

I wonder if you question the need for Doctors, since, by your reasoning with climate scientists, they must have a vested interest in disease....and they have all the power.  

Have a nice day.

(Image removed from quote.)

i do not question the need for doctors....but then, doctors have helped me. they've fixed my broken hands, wrist, arm, ect.

this is not the same thing though. when i'm told that what i see and feel is wrong, then i feel i'm being lied to.

 i find it difficult to believe that you don't see through their crap yet.

[Shuffler]

Too bad years ago we started fighting natural selection allowing those that would not be here to multiply at our expense. Now it is easy for those like al gore to bilk millions of dollars because so many are gullible.


I'll keep my money, my guns, and my freedom. You can keep the "change".

[Sonicblu]

Moray can you answer some  questions?

How much warmer is the earth getting in how much time?

And is it possible to heat the earths water 1degree with air? How hot would the air have to be?

What part is natural climate change and what percent of that would be man made? 

If the water is warmer woulnt that mean more evaporation and more water in the atmosphere to come back in the from of snow rain ect?

If the water is warmer doesnt it release more co2 into the atmosphere? Could the higher levels of Co2 be from the oceans warming first ( maybe undergound volcanos) then releasing more co2 into the air?

Thanks

[Westy]

Snow has two simple ingredients: cold and moisture. Warmer air collects moisture like a
sponge until it hits a patch of cold air. When temperatures dip below freezing, a lot of
moisture creates a lot of snow.  A rise in global temperature can create all sorts of havoc,
ranging from hotter dry spells to colder winters, along with increasingly violent storms,
flooding, forest fires and loss of endangered species. That's simple science.


Course global-warming skeptics like to point to these snowtorms as thier "proof" all
the while conveniently ignoring snow droughts like those in Vancouver.

I guess it just depends on how much Faux news and talk radio one takes in. Like
salt and arteries too much Limbaugh or Beck can clog your brain.

[Chalenge]

I wonder if Gore will show up and will we get to see him sweat under questioning about the 'Suppressed Climate Change Report' and the inaccuracies in his movie?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/29/sen-inhofe-calls-inquiry-suppressed-climate-change-report/

Will he return his Nobel?   

[JonDoe999]

If you people really belive in Global Warming, you shouldn't listen to Al-Gore! He did that to get everybody fraked out. My science teacher, Mr.Moore, doesn't belive in that! I don't! What about the "Medival Warm Period"? What about the "Ice Age"?! The Earth will warm and cool. Don't get worried!!!

[Flipperk]

Marking down the day till i can laugh at Moray....2011...2012...crap.. .earth is gone!

[sluggish]

Didn't I read somewhere that the ultimate goal of the warmists is to reduce the earth's population by 4/5?  Wasn't it the Sierra Club that put out a study that concluded that the maximum sustainable population of the earth is 500 mil?

I'm all for that...  BUT... How do we get there?

Actually it's 1 -2 bil...

http://www.ecofuture.org/pop/rpts/mccluney_maxpop.html

[CAP1]

Didn't I read somewhere that the ultimate goal of the warmists is to reduce the earth's population by 4/5?  Wasn't it the Sierra Club that put out a study that concluded that the maximum sustainable population of the earth is 500 mil?

I'm all for that...  BUT... How do we get there?

soylent green?

[pallero]

Green is good. Or is it? *click*

[CAP1]

Green is good. Or is it? *click*

that article borders on getting political.......but that kind of crap is a large part of what makes it nearly impossible to believe in global warming(manmade). the larger part is common sense.