Reply With Quote
Yeah, because I said the McCarthyism applied to me, personally.
GTFOH
not only has no one stifled or suppressed your point of view, your critics have done you the courtesy of reposting it, in detail.
lol McCarthyism
Yeah, because I said the McCarthyism applied to me, personally.
GTFOH
to whom does it apply?
who are the victims of AGW McCarthyism?
Here’s the movie you should send your climate-apathetic friends to see
There are a few things about Merchants of Doubt, a new do entary about the scientists who are paid to deny human-made climate change,
The crux of the film is that the “climate change debate” is not a scientific one — it’s entirely political. People don’t deny climate change because they hate science or because they are stupid — they deny it because they’re afraid of government, and, ultimately, any change that would disrupt life as they know it.
The obvious response to that is, well, several meters’ worth of sea level rise will be pretty disruptive to human life — but hey, why think about it?
None of this is news, probably, for regular Grist readers, but that’s not the point. And though it’s well done overall, it’s not a feel-good movie.
But the worst part is that one gets the impression that the people who actually need to see this film just … won’t.
http://grist.org/living/heres-the-mo..._campaign=feed
I read where the (deep red state) Outer Banks are already disappearing.
Seven scientists were singled out by Democrat Rep. Raul Grijalva, based on the heresy of holding non-alarmist views:
David Legates, John Christy, Judith Curry, Robert Balling, Roger Pielke Jr., Steven Hayward and Richard Lindzen
American Meteorological Society was not too happy about it
http://www.ametsoc.org/sss/letter_on...edom_Feb15.pdf
gotta admit, you've got one leg to stand on. any other examples come to mind?
He is obviously quoting part of an article with the names and not linking as he is wont to do. If you google it, it pulls up again a whos who of climate denial rags. This is typical Darrin. Of course he cites the good source.
What he is not mentioning is that the hearing is not a withc hunt but was called after Soon, a Harvard researcher and denialist congressional expert, was found to have not disclosed a conflict of interest.
http://www.nature.com/news/do ents...ceptic-1.16972
That is an article discussing the issue when it arose. The local denialists have ignored and buried any mention of it here when it was brought up several weeks ago in favor of this 'what is a denialist' semantic argument.
The congresswoman is asking if any of these other scientists giving similar testimony as Soon also have a conflict of interest. A witch hunt implies you are searching for a mythical figure when in this case there is a huge smoking gun.
Hey, dumb , here you go
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post7844939
Here is a link to my "article"
http://democrats.naturalresources.ho...hange-research
Darrin's mad.
Well, sophist, let's see. first your link does not have those quotes in it. You didn't get it there. this is what makes you look like such a duplicitous piece of . You clearly are posting quotes without citation. it's typical Darrin.
And again I said that it was buried with a litany of 'what is a denier' posts from dumbass and yourself. I never said it wasn't posted.
WTF are you talking about?
Well, sophist, let's see. first your link does not have those quotes in it. You didn't get it there. this is what makes you look like such a duplicitous piece of . You clearly are posting quotes without citation. it's typical Darrin.
And again I said that it was buried with a litany of 'what is a denier' posts from dumbass and yourself. I never said it wasn't posted.
Interesting data set from the perspective of satellite imagery (1979 to present):
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
Polar Sea ice coverage has been trending downward, while Antartic Sea ice has been on the rise... combined average coverage however has been relatively steady over the last 35 years:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph....withtrend.jpg
Ice sheets may have already passed point of no return
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...l#.VQdvZY7F8-g
Updated ice sheet model matches wild swings in past sea levels
http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/...st-sea-levels/
There a lot of scientists watching the land ice sheets, glaciers very carefully, and they aren't a happy bunch.
Ice sheets.
Yawn...
Just another alarmists prediction.
Tired of Chicken Little papers. If ever a doomsday prediction of theirs is corrtect, they doomed us all by all their Chicken Little antics.
Interesting article from the Greenpeace founder...
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-...change-skeptic
Kind of mirrors my sentiment. Climate changes. Trying to blame global warming on man generated CO2 (even though there has been no warming in 10 years) has become an academic cash cow where you are either on the global warming team or you are ostracized for questioning the quack science. I could give a that Boo and Fuzzyboo lite will now call me stupid for being a skeptic. No matter how loudly you shout it the science is not "settled".
[Editor’s Note: Patrick Moore, Ph.D., has been a leader in international environmentalism for more than 40 years. He cofounded Greenpeace and currently serves as chair of Allow Golden Rice. Moore received the 2014 Speaks Truth to Power Award at the Ninth International Conference on Climate Change, July 8, in Las Vegas. Watch his presentation about this piece at the video player to the left.]
I am skeptical humans are the main cause of climate change and that it will be catastrophic in the near future. There is no scientific proof of this hypothesis, yet we are told “the debate is over” and “the science is settled.”
My skepticism begins with the believers’ certainty they can predict the global climate with a computer model. The entire basis for the doomsday climate change scenario is the hypothesis increased atmospheric carbon dioxide due to fossil fuel emissions will heat the Earth to unlivable temperatures.
In fact, the Earth has been warming very gradually for 300 years, since the Little Ice Age ended, long before heavy use of fossil fuels. Prior to the Little Ice Age, during the Medieval Warm Period, Vikings colonized Greenland and Newfoundland, when it was warmer there than today. And during Roman times, it was warmer, long before fossil fuels revolutionized civilization.
The idea it would be catastrophic if carbon dioxide were to increase and average global temperature were to rise a few degrees is preposterous.
Recently, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) announced for the umpteenth time we are doomed unless we reduce carbon-dioxide emissions to zero. Effectively this means either reducing the population to zero, or going back 10,000 years before humans began clearing forests for agriculture. This proposed cure is far worse than adapting to a warmer world, if it actually comes about.
IPCC Conflict of Interest
By its cons ution, the IPCC has a hopeless conflict of interest. Its mandate is to consider only the human causes of global warming, not the many natural causes changing the climate for billions of years. We don’t understand the natural causes of climate change any more than we know if humans are part of the cause at present. If the IPCC did not find humans were the cause of warming, or if it found warming would be more positive than negative, there would be no need for the IPCC under its present mandate. To survive, it must find on the side of the apocalypse.
The IPCC should either have its mandate expanded to include all causes of climate change, or it should be dismantled.
Political Powerhouse
Climate change has become a powerful political force for many reasons. First, it is universal; we are told everything on Earth is threatened. Second, it invokes the two most powerful human motivators: fear and guilt. We fear driving our car will kill our grandchildren, and we feel guilty for doing it.
Third, there is a powerful convergence of interests among key elites that support the climate “narrative.” Environmentalists spread fear and raise donations; politicians appear to be saving the Earth from doom; the media has a field day with sensation and conflict; science ins utions raise billions in grants, create whole new departments, and stoke a feeding frenzy of scary scenarios; business wants to look green, and get huge public subsidies for projects that would otherwise be economic losers, such as wind farms and solar arrays. Fourth, the Left sees climate change as a perfect means to redistribute wealth from industrial countries to the developing world and the UN bureaucracy.
So we are told carbon dioxide is a “toxic” “pollutant” that must be curtailed, when in fact it is a colorless, odorless, tasteless, gas and the most important food for life on earth. Without carbon dioxide above 150 parts per million, all plants would die.
Human Emissions Saved Planet
Over the past 150 million years, carbon dioxide had been drawn down steadily (by plants) from about 3,000 parts per million to about 280 parts per million before the Industrial Revolution. If this trend continued, the carbon dioxide level would have become too low to support life on Earth. Human fossil fuel use and clearing land for crops have boosted carbon dioxide from its lowest level in the history of the Earth back to 400 parts per million today.
At 400 parts per million, all our food crops, forests, and natural ecosystems are still on a starvation diet for carbon dioxide. The optimum level of carbon dioxide for plant growth, given enough water and nutrients, is about 1,500 parts per million, nearly four times higher than today. Greenhouse growers inject carbon-dioxide to increase yields. Farms and forests will produce more if carbon-dioxide keeps rising.
We have no proof increased carbon dioxide is responsible for the earth’s slight warming over the past 300 years. There has been no significant warming for 18 years while we have emitted 25 per cent of all the carbon dioxide ever emitted. Carbon dioxide is vital for life on Earth and plants would like more of it. Which should we emphasize to our children?
Celebrate Carbon Dioxide
The IPCC’s followers have given us a vision of a world dying because of carbon-dioxide emissions. I say the Earth would be a lot deader with no carbon dioxide, and more of it will be a very positive factor in feeding the world. Let’s celebrate carbon dioxide.
How Big Oil and Big Tobacco get respected scientists to lie for them
By the 1950s, Big Tobacco knew smoking caused cancer. By the 1960s, the companies knew nicotine was addictive and that smoking could lead to heart disease.
But three decades later, tobacco executives stood up before Congress and, under oath, denied the facts.
The same story has played out with other major scientific issues of our time, from climate change to the health harms of various chemicals. As scientists build consensus, industry tries to obscure their findings outside the ivory tower, turning non-debates into ginned-up controversies.
http://www.vox.com/2015/3/21/8267049/merchants-of-doubt
when did tobacco executives testify in the 90's to congress?
They started putting warning labels on in the 60's.
OK, looked it up. 94.
Reading the transcript they testified and admitted that smoking might cause heart disease and cancer.
As for it being addictive that gets back to the same physiological vs. Psychological addiction argument used against smoking pot.
As a two pack a day smoker in my 20's I can say from personal experience that when I quit cold turkey I missed the process but suffered no physiological symptoms typical of drug addiction.
Last edited by CosmicCowboy; 03-21-2015 at 05:39 PM.
So, Boo...
You claim that AGW supporters motives are as pure as Bostons 10 feet of wind driven snow?
And anyone that disagrees with AGW is a corporate ?
How convenient for your preconceived premise.
your words, not mine.
It's obvious to serious people that BigCarbon, ALEC, etc are hiring scientists, right-wing hate media, etc to spew FUD and LIES about AGW. The science of GHG IS SETTLED.
Negative Boo. It is only settled in your closed mind. Clearly GHG now and always has existed and many times in the past has exceeded current levels. Where the problem comes is when you start claiming out of control AGW from GHG.
Last edited by CosmicCowboy; 03-21-2015 at 06:00 PM.
While much of Antarctica is below sea level, its mostly land. When the glaciers on land move to the sea is the problem. Sea ice floats and doesn't displace additional area.Interesting data set from the perspective of satellite imagery (1979 to present):
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
Polar Sea ice coverage has been trending downward, while Antartic Sea ice has been on the rise... combined average coverage however has been relatively steady over the last 35 years:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph....withtrend.jpg
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
