Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
regarding environmental matters.
Jonno wrote:
The Chicken Little Award, a dubious achievement award given by the National Anxiety Center to people and organizations that they consider to be engaged in deliberately false, media-driven scare campaigns regarding environmental matters. http://www.anxietycenter.com/climate/main.htm This site is only for those who care about truth. I wonder if that is true. They start out with a reference to the mythological and mystical doom that awaits us in 2012. This gets people thinking about myths and media driven rubbish. This has nothing to do with climate change but it is a good debating trick. The trick is called guilt by association. It goes: A is rubbish, assume B is like A, therefore B is rubbish. They then go on to bring out the old climate change is caused by the sun canard. Specifically in this case it is the sunspot cycle. While it is thought that solar forcing is a component of climate change it is not the only factor. Something has caused a cycle of ice ages and warmer periods over millions of years - the sun. However the claim that the current cycle of warming is entirely due to the sun has been roundly debunked. The fact that they quote this Marusek as gospel and fail to even mention there is a good case against him, much less explain the case against his view, tells me that the author is not even handed and looking for truth but pushing an agenda. If it is or not, I dont know eather, but keep searching. This is my input. Well I suggest that you keep looking. So far all you are finding are sites (such as the above and junkscience.com) run by contrarians and lobbyists. Why won't you read anything by actual climate scientists? David |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
regarding environmental matters.
"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message ... Jonno wrote: The Chicken Little Award, a dubious achievement award given by the National Anxiety Center to people and organizations that they consider to be engaged in deliberately false, media-driven scare campaigns regarding environmental matters. http://www.anxietycenter.com/climate/main.htm This site is only for those who care about truth. I wonder if that is true. They start out with a reference to the mythological and mystical doom that awaits us in 2012. This gets people thinking about myths and media driven rubbish. This has nothing to do with climate change but it is a good debating trick. The trick is called guilt by association. It goes: A is rubbish, assume B is like A, therefore B is rubbish. They then go on to bring out the old climate change is caused by the sun canard. Specifically in this case it is the sunspot cycle. While it is thought that solar forcing is a component of climate change it is not the only factor. Something has caused a cycle of ice ages and warmer periods over millions of years - the sun. However the claim that the current cycle of warming is entirely due to the sun has been roundly debunked. The fact that they quote this Marusek as gospel and fail to even mention there is a good case against him, much less explain the case against his view, tells me that the author is not even handed and looking for truth but pushing an agenda. If it is or not, I dont know eather, but keep searching. This is my input. Well I suggest that you keep looking. So far all you are finding are sites (such as the above and junkscience.com) run by contrarians and lobbyists. Why won't you read anything by actual climate scientists? David Read the emails hitting the news. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
regarding environmental matters.
"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message ... Jonno wrote: "David Hare-Scott" wrote in message ... Jonno wrote: The Chicken Little Award, a dubious achievement award given by the National Anxiety Center to people and organizations that they consider to be engaged in deliberately false, media-driven scare campaigns regarding environmental matters. http://www.anxietycenter.com/climate/main.htm This site is only for those who care about truth. I wonder if that is true. They start out with a reference to the mythological and mystical doom that awaits us in 2012. This gets people thinking about myths and media driven rubbish. This has nothing to do with climate change but it is a good debating trick. The trick is called guilt by association. It goes: A is rubbish, assume B is like A, therefore B is rubbish. They then go on to bring out the old climate change is caused by the sun canard. Specifically in this case it is the sunspot cycle. While it is thought that solar forcing is a component of climate change it is not the only factor. Something has caused a cycle of ice ages and warmer periods over millions of years - the sun. However the claim that the current cycle of warming is entirely due to the sun has been roundly debunked. The fact that they quote this Marusek as gospel and fail to even mention there is a good case against him, much less explain the case against his view, tells me that the author is not even handed and looking for truth but pushing an agenda. If it is or not, I dont know eather, but keep searching. This is my input. Well I suggest that you keep looking. So far all you are finding are sites (such as the above and junkscience.com) run by contrarians and lobbyists. Why won't you read anything by actual climate scientists? David The truth is always surrounded by some mistruth. You have to wade thru a lot of crap to get to the truth. At least I was looking. More than many citizens are doing. Have you considered also reading sources other than from contrarians and lobbyists? David Some one wrote where is the ocean rising exactly? not according to any Government tide bureaus, not according to any investigation by scientists in the Maldives by the director of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University,Nils Axel Morner. Not on the Island of the dead Tasmania where the tide was marked ln the 1800s. There was a story about islanders leaving their island in NZ territory by alarmists a couple of years ago but that was refuted by the NZ government. We live beside the ocean and canals and have for 50 years and nothing is happening, sorry to be a wet blanket but nothing at all. I could build computer models that would show alarming results but the climate really doesn't care it.. If anyone really thinks that the majority of the worlds scientists are in agreement about this then go to the US senate site http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...d-6e2d71db52d9 where you will find that the vast majority of climate scientists debunk Global Warming altogether. Jonno's comment: So while the Arctic ocean is opening up, the antarctic is undecided, and a large proportion arent following the Government line, do you really think man kind can change the weather? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
regarding environmental matters.
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
regarding environmental matters.
Taken from Washington Post:
"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 said this week. Happer is a Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy from 1990 to 1993, 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. US senate site Still tracking this link it dioesnt work at the moment.... http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...d-6e2d71db52d9 where you will find that the vast majority of climate scientists debunk Global Warming altogether. Jonno's comment: So while the Arctic ocean is opening up, the antarctic is undecided, and a large proportion arent following the Government line, do you really think man kind can change the weather? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
regarding environmental matters.
This page is as close as I can get....
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...Minority.Facts "Jonno" wrote in message ... Taken from Washington Post: "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 said this week. Happer is a Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy from 1990 to 1993, 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. US senate site Still tracking this link it dioesnt work at the moment.... This link appears to be removed http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...d-6e2d71db52d9 where you will find that the vast majority of climate scientists debunk Global Warming altogether. Jonno's comment: So while the Arctic ocean is opening up, the antarctic is undecided, and a large proportion arent following the Government line, do you really think man kind can change the weather? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
regarding environmental matters.
"SG1" wrote in message ... "David Hare-Scott" wrote in message ... Jonno wrote: The Chicken Little Award, a dubious achievement award given by the National Anxiety Center to people and organizations that they consider to be engaged in deliberately false, media-driven scare campaigns regarding environmental matters. http://www.anxietycenter.com/climate/main.htm This site is only for those who care about truth. I wonder if that is true. They start out with a reference to the mythological and mystical doom that awaits us in 2012. This gets people thinking about myths and media driven rubbish. This has nothing to do with climate change but it is a good debating trick. The trick is called guilt by association. It goes: A is rubbish, assume B is like A, therefore B is rubbish. They then go on to bring out the old climate change is caused by the sun canard. Specifically in this case it is the sunspot cycle. While it is thought that solar forcing is a component of climate change it is not the only factor. Something has caused a cycle of ice ages and warmer periods over millions of years - the sun. However the claim that the current cycle of warming is entirely due to the sun has been roundly debunked. The fact that they quote this Marusek as gospel and fail to even mention there is a good case against him, much less explain the case against his view, tells me that the author is not even handed and looking for truth but pushing an agenda. If it is or not, I dont know eather, but keep searching. This is my input. Well I suggest that you keep looking. So far all you are finding are sites (such as the above and junkscience.com) run by contrarians and lobbyists. Why won't you read anything by actual climate scientists? David Read the emails hitting the news. Youre not up to date re these emails David? http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009...l-cooling/Then how about this.Inhofe Comments on Obama Copenhagen AnnouncementWashington, D.C.-Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of theSenate Committee on Environment and Public Works, today commented on thenews that President Obama will travel to Copenhagen, Denmark for the UnitedNations Climate Conference."I suspect President Obama is making the trip to Copenhagen in order to'save' the climate conference," Sen. Inhofe said. "Yet no amount of loftyrhetoric or promises of future commitments can save it. This is due in largepart to the fact cap-and-trade legislation in the Senate is dying on thevine, and, as important, recent revelations of leading climate scientistswho appear to have manufactured the climate 'consensus'-revelations thatcast doubt over the entire global warming enterprise."Moreover, it's clear that China, India, and the developing world, whichwill soon be responsible for the vast bulk of greenhouse gas emissions, willnot accept mandatory cuts in emissions-despite entreaties from PresidentObama. The U.S. Senate has made clear on numerous occasions that unilateralaction by the United States is unacceptable, because it will harm oureconomy and have virtually no effect on climate change." |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
regarding environmental matters.
Im gonna stop posting now
I think we have said enough. Those that know seem to have won out. Im not a skeptic. Im a realist. Show me the proof. Weve seem proof of lies, found out by honest men. Youre all alowed to be fooled once,b ut twice is cutting it for me.... "Jonno" wrote in message ... "SG1" wrote in message ... "David Hare-Scott" wrote in message ... Jonno wrote: The Chicken Little Award, a dubious achievement award given by the National Anxiety Center to people and organizations that they consider to be engaged in deliberately false, media-driven scare campaigns regarding environmental matters. http://www.anxietycenter.com/climate/main.htm This site is only for those who care about truth. I wonder if that is true. They start out with a reference to the mythological and mystical doom that awaits us in 2012. This gets people thinking about myths and media driven rubbish. This has nothing to do with climate change but it is a good debating trick. The trick is called guilt by association. It goes: A is rubbish, assume B is like A, therefore B is rubbish. They then go on to bring out the old climate change is caused by the sun canard. Specifically in this case it is the sunspot cycle. While it is thought that solar forcing is a component of climate change it is not the only factor. Something has caused a cycle of ice ages and warmer periods over millions of years - the sun. However the claim that the current cycle of warming is entirely due to the sun has been roundly debunked. The fact that they quote this Marusek as gospel and fail to even mention there is a good case against him, much less explain the case against his view, tells me that the author is not even handed and looking for truth but pushing an agenda. If it is or not, I dont know eather, but keep searching. This is my input. Well I suggest that you keep looking. So far all you are finding are sites (such as the above and junkscience.com) run by contrarians and lobbyists. Why won't you read anything by actual climate scientists? David Read the emails hitting the news. Youre not up to date re these emails David? http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009...l-cooling/Then how about this.Inhofe Comments on Obama Copenhagen AnnouncementWashington, D.C.-Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of theSenate Committee on Environment and Public Works, today commented on thenews that President Obama will travel to Copenhagen, Denmark for the UnitedNations Climate Conference."I suspect President Obama is making the trip to Copenhagen in order to'save' the climate conference," Sen. Inhofe said. "Yet no amount of loftyrhetoric or promises of future commitments can save it. This is due in largepart to the fact cap-and-trade legislation in the Senate is dying on thevine, and, as important, recent revelations of leading climate scientistswho appear to have manufactured the climate 'consensus'-revelations thatcast doubt over the entire global warming enterprise."Moreover, it's clear that China, India, and the developing world, whichwill soon be responsible for the vast bulk of greenhouse gas emissions, willnot accept mandatory cuts in emissions-despite entreaties from PresidentObama. The U.S. Senate has made clear on numerous occasions that unilateralaction by the United States is unacceptable, because it will harm oureconomy and have virtually no effect on climate change." |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
regarding environmental matters.
Seems like someone is blocking things....
This site has al lthe relevant links... for reasons why now the Australian Liberal part is in disagreement re Climate change causes. I am not involved in any of these power seekers. Nor am I part of any political party, but its obvious "there's something rotten in the state of Denmark" Shakespeare said it. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...Minority.Facts |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
regarding environmental matters.
"Jonno" wrote in message ... Well I suggest that you keep looking. So far all you are finding are sites (such as the above and junkscience.com) run by contrarians and lobbyists. Why won't you read anything by actual climate scientists? David The truth is always surrounded by some mistruth. You have to wade thru a lot of crap to get to the truth. At least I was looking. More than many citizens are doing. Have you considered also reading sources other than from contrarians and lobbyists? David If you could come up with something we may get there. Try this: http://www.realclimate.org/ It's run by actual climate scientists David |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
regarding environmental matters.
Real scientists who agree with Al Gore?
"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message ... "Jonno" wrote in message ... Well I suggest that you keep looking. So far all you are finding are sites (such as the above and junkscience.com) run by contrarians and lobbyists. Why won't you read anything by actual climate scientists? David The truth is always surrounded by some mistruth. You have to wade thru a lot of crap to get to the truth. At least I was looking. More than many citizens are doing. Have you considered also reading sources other than from contrarians and lobbyists? David If you could come up with something we may get there. Try this: http://www.realclimate.org/ It's run by actual climate scientists David |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
regarding environmental matters.
Resignations
a.. Tony Abbott b.. Nick Minchin c.. Sophie Mirabella d.. Stephen Parry e.. Eric Abetz f.. Michael Johnson g.. Tony Smith h.. Judith Adams i.. David Bushby j.. Mathias Cormann k.. Mitch Fifield l.. Brett Mason They cant agree either. Youre not up to their class, and neither am I but I can see who is going to pay for it. But there is no garantee on a real solution either. "ArSee" wrote in message ... Real scientists who agree with Al Gore? "David Hare-Scott" wrote in message ... "Jonno" wrote in message ... Well I suggest that you keep looking. So far all you are finding are sites (such as the above and junkscience.com) run by contrarians and lobbyists. Why won't you read anything by actual climate scientists? David The truth is always surrounded by some mistruth. You have to wade thru a lot of crap to get to the truth. At least I was looking. More than many citizens are doing. Have you considered also reading sources other than from contrarians and lobbyists? David If you could come up with something we may get there. Try this: http://www.realclimate.org/ It's run by actual climate scientists David |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
regarding environmental matters.
A real scientist, not one with shares.
I'm sure you know who said it. if you had any grasp on science you would know that consensus is not a word that is used in the world of science. One thousand people could support your theory or supposition, and one person can falsify it and completely destroy it. Since the IPCC has observed in its 2001 report that of all the CO2 in the atmosphere, only 4% is of anthropogenic origin. Another recent report has indicated that this ratio of natural to anthropogenic CO2 has remained the same for over 15 years. So, you could take every one off this planet, and every trace of them ever being here, and reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by only 17 ppm, which considering there is currently 388 ppm, is bugger all. An ETS will not help this situation, nor anything that man can do, what we need is the courage and sense to do nothing. "David Hare-Scott" wrote in message ... "Jonno" wrote in message ... Well I suggest that you keep looking. So far all you are finding are sites (such as the above and junkscience.com) run by contrarians and lobbyists. Why won't you read anything by actual climate scientists? David The truth is always surrounded by some mistruth. You have to wade thru a lot of crap to get to the truth. At least I was looking. More than many citizens are doing. Have you considered also reading sources other than from contrarians and lobbyists? David If you could come up with something we may get there. Try this: http://www.realclimate.org/ It's run by actual climate scientists David |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
regarding environmental matters.
"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
... "Jonno" wrote in message ... Well I suggest that you keep looking. So far all you are finding are sites (such as the above and junkscience.com) run by contrarians and lobbyists. Why won't you read anything by actual climate scientists? David The truth is always surrounded by some mistruth. You have to wade thru a lot of crap to get to the truth. At least I was looking. More than many citizens are doing. Have you considered also reading sources other than from contrarians and lobbyists? David If you could come up with something we may get there. Try this: http://www.realclimate.org/ It's run by actual climate scientists David ArSee wrote: Real scientists who agree with Al Gore? Real scientists who are qualified and have made a career in their discipline and publish in peer reviewed scientific journals. Unlike many others who are scientists in some other discipline or who are just lobbyists, journalists or politicians without any particular qualification, who publish only in the popular press and internet. We had the same contrast in sources of information and reliability of opinion with the issue of the dangers of tobacco smoking. Not surprising some of the so called experts who lobbied for Big Tobacco now lobby for Big Oil and Big Coal. For example Miloy and Singer. David |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
regarding environmental matters.
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 05:39:42 +0000, ArSee wrote:
A real scientist, not one with shares. I'm sure you know who said it. if you had any grasp on science you would know that consensus is not a word that is used in the world of science. One thousand people could support your theory or supposition, and one person can falsify it and completely destroy it. correcto. Since the IPCC has observed in its 2001 report that of all the CO2 in the atmosphere, only 4% is of anthropogenic origin. The point is whether that additional (and very rapidly) CO2 is the tipping point to a greenhouse effect. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
regarding environmental matters. | Australia | |||
regarding environmental matters. | Australia | |||
regarding environmental matters. | Australia |