Global Warming

[Sandy Eggo]

With all due respect...bullshit. You talk about being "good stewarts" without any conviction whatsoever because you believe the changes to be "subtle". You're wrong, science indicates that you're wrong, but dammit if your neighbor's uncle's grandpa's dog catcher says that humans have no bearing on global warming the by-gawd it must be so then.

[Henry Hawk]

bullshit right back at ya...

it is NOT my neighbor's uncle's grandpa's dog catcher that has anything to do with this....

here are some reasons why many, many people feel about this the way we do;

ClimateGate – This scandal began the latest round of revelations when thousands of leaked documents from Britain's East Anglia Climate Research Unit showed systematic suppression and discrediting of climate skeptics' views and discarding of temperature data, suggesting a bias for making the case for warming. Why do such a thing if, as global warming defenders contend, the "science is settled?"

SternGate – One excuse for imposing worldwide climate crackdown has been the U.K.'s 2006 Stern Report, an economic doomsday prediction commissioned by the government. Now the U.K. Telegraph reports that quietly after publication "some of these predictions had been watered down because the scientific evidence on which they were based could not be verified." Among original claims now deleted were that northwest Australia has had stronger typhoons in recent decades, and that southern Australia lost rainfall because of rising ocean temperatures. Exaggerated claims get headlines. Later, news reporters disclose the truth. Why is that?

SternGate II – A researcher now claims the Stern Report misquoted his work to suggest a firm link between global warming and more-frequent and severe floods and hurricanes. Robert Muir-Wood said his original research showed no such link. He accused Stern of "going far beyond what was an acceptable extrapolation of the evidence." We're shocked.

FOIGate – The British government has since determined someone at East Anglia committed a crime by refusing to release global warming documents sought in 95 Freedom of Information Act requests. The CRU is one of three international agencies compiling global temperature data. If their stuff's so solid, why the secrecy?

ChinaGate – An investigation by the U.K.'s left-leaning Guardian newspaper found evidence that Chinese weather station measurements not only were seriously flawed, but couldn't be located. "Where exactly are 42 weather monitoring stations in remote parts of rural China?" the paper asked. The paper's investigation also couldn't find corroboration of what Chinese scientists turned over to American scientists, leaving unanswered, "how much of the warming seen in recent decades is due to the local effects of spreading cities, rather than global warming?" The Guardian contends that researchers covered up the missing data for years.

HimalayaGate – An Indian climate official admitted in January that, as lead author of the IPCC's Asian report, he intentionally exaggerated when claiming Himalayan glaciers would melt away by 2035 in order to prod governments into action. This fraudulent claim was not based on scientific research or peer-reviewed. Instead it was originally advanced by a researcher, since hired by a global warming research organization, who later admitted it was "speculation" lifted from a popular magazine. This political, not scientific, motivation at least got some researcher funded.

PachauriGate – Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman who accepted with Al Gore the Nobel Prize for scaring people witless, at first defended the Himalaya melting scenario. Critics, he said, practiced "voodoo science." After the melting-scam perpetrator 'fessed up, Pachauri admitted to making a mistake. But, he insisted, we still should trust him.

PachauriGate II – Pachauri also claimed he didn't know before the 192-nation climate summit meeting in Copenhagen in December that the bogus Himalayan glacier claim was sheer speculation. But the London Times reported that a prominent science journalist said he had pointed out those errors in several e-mails and discussions to Pachauri, who "decided to overlook it." Stonewalling? Cover up? Pachauri says he was "preoccupied." Well, no sense spoiling the Copenhagen party, where countries like Pachauri's India hoped to wrench billions from countries like the United States to combat global warming's melting glaciers. Now there are calls for Pachauri's resignation.

AmazonGate – The London Times exposed another shocker: the IPCC claim that global warming will wipe out rain forests was fraudulent, yet advanced as "peer-reveiwed" science. The Times said the assertion actually "was based on an unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had little scientific expertise," "authored by two green activists" and lifted from a report from the World Wildlife Fund, an environmental pressure group. The "research" was based on a popular science magazine report that didn't bother to assess rainfall. Instead, it looked at the impact of logging and burning. The original report suggested "up to 40 percent" of Brazilian rain forest was extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall, but the IPCC expanded that to cover the entire Amazon, the Times reported.

PeerReviewGate – The U.K. Sunday Telegraph has documented at least 16 nonpeer-reviewed reports (so far) from the advocacy group World Wildlife Fund that were used in the IPCC's climate change bible, which calls for capping manmade greenhouse gases.

  RussiaGate – Even when global warming alarmists base claims on scientific measurements, they've often had their finger on the scale. Russian think tank investigators evaluated thousands of documents and e-mails leaked from the East Anglia research center and concluded readings from the coldest regions of their nation had been omitted, driving average temperatures up about half a degree.

  Russia-Gate II – Speaking of Russia, a presentation last October to the Geological Society of America showed how tree-ring data from Russia indicated cooling after 1961, but was deceptively truncated and only artfully discussed in IPCC publications. Well, at least the tree-ring data made it into the IPCC report, albeit disguised and misrepresented.

  U.S.Gate – If Brits can't be trusted, are Yanks more reliable? The U.S. National Climate Data Center has been manipulating weather data too, say computer expert E. Michael Smith and meteorologist Joesph D'Aleo. Forty years ago there were 6,000 surface-temperature measuring stations, but only 1,500 by 1990, which coincides with what global warming alarmists say was a record temperature increase. Most of the deleted stations were in colder regions, just as in the Russian case, resulting in misleading higher average temperatures.

IceGate – Hardly a continent has escaped global warming skewing. The IPCC based its findings of reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and in Africa on a feature story of climbers' anecdotes in a popular mountaineering magazine, and a dissertation by a Switzerland university student, quoting mountain guides. Peer-reviewed? Hype? Worse?

ResearchGate – The global warming camp is reeling so much lately it must have seemed like a major victory when a Penn State University inquiry into climate scientist Michael Mann found no misconduct regarding three accusations of climate research impropriety. But the university did find "further investigation is warranted" to determine whether Mann engaged in actions that "seriously deviated from accepted practices for proposing, conducting or reporting research or other scholarly activities." Being investigated for only one fraud is a global warming victory these days.

ReefGate – Let's not forget the alleged link between climate change and coral reef degradation. The IPCC cited not peer-reviewed literature, but advocacy articles by Greenpeace, the publicity-hungry advocacy group, as its sole source for this claim.

AfricaGate – The IPCC claim that rising temperatures could cut in half agricultural yields in African countries turns out to have come from a 2003 paper published by a Canadian environmental think tank – not a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

DutchGate – The IPCC also claimed rising sea levels endanger the 55 percent of the Netherlands it says is below sea level. The portion of the Netherlands below sea level actually is 20 percent. The Dutch environment minister said she will no longer tolerate climate researchers' errors.

AlaskaGate – Geologists for Space Studies in Geophysics and Oceanography and their U.S. and Canadian colleagues say previous studies largely overestimated by 40 percent Alaskan glacier loss for 40 years. This flawed data are fed into those computers to predict future warming.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/un_climate_reports_they_lie.html

and

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

and

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2010/02/12/blizzard-lies-debunking-warm-air-holds-more-moisture-defense

and this!!

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/06/29/an-inconvenient-voice-dr-alan-carlin/

[Sandy Eggo]

When I get back in front of a computer, I'll check your sources, but my guess is that you were better off w/the dog catcher.

Instead of trying to find every OPINION piece that you can to support only your point of view, why don't you read some of the actual scientific research and increase the chance that you'll have a valid opinion yourself.

[Henry Hawk]

When I get back in front of a computer, I'll check your sources, but my guess is that you were better off w/the dog catcher.

Instead of trying to find every OPINION piece that you can to support only your point of view, why don't you read some of the actual scientific research and increase the chance that you'll have a valid opinion yourself.

because the scientist YOU relied on admitted to hiding evidence and tampering with data.......why SHOULD I believe them?

there are plenty of significant information that leads me to my stance on this....

here is another very good article that supports WHY I have taken my stance...

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/04/EPAs-Global-Warming-Regulations-A-Threat-to-American-Agriculture

[Sandy Eggo]

You couldn't research w/out bias to save your life.

[dan foster]

bullshit right back at ya...

it is NOT my neighbor's uncle's grandpa's dog catcher that has anything to do with this....

here are some reasons why many, many people feel about this the way we do;

ClimateGate – This scandal began the latest round of revelations when thousands of leaked documents from Britain's East Anglia Climate Research Unit showed systematic suppression and discrediting of climate skeptics' views and discarding of temperature data, suggesting a bias for making the case for warming. Why do such a thing if, as global warming defenders contend, the "science is settled?"

SternGate – One excuse for imposing worldwide climate crackdown has been the U.K.'s 2006 Stern Report, an economic doomsday prediction commissioned by the government. Now the U.K. Telegraph reports that quietly after publication "some of these predictions had been watered down because the scientific evidence on which they were based could not be verified." Among original claims now deleted were that northwest Australia has had stronger typhoons in recent decades, and that southern Australia lost rainfall because of rising ocean temperatures. Exaggerated claims get headlines. Later, news reporters disclose the truth. Why is that?

SternGate II – A researcher now claims the Stern Report misquoted his work to suggest a firm link between global warming and more-frequent and severe floods and hurricanes. Robert Muir-Wood said his original research showed no such link. He accused Stern of "going far beyond what was an acceptable extrapolation of the evidence." We're shocked.

FOIGate – The British government has since determined someone at East Anglia committed a crime by refusing to release global warming documents sought in 95 Freedom of Information Act requests. The CRU is one of three international agencies compiling global temperature data. If their stuff's so solid, why the secrecy?

ChinaGate – An investigation by the U.K.'s left-leaning Guardian newspaper found evidence that Chinese weather station measurements not only were seriously flawed, but couldn't be located. "Where exactly are 42 weather monitoring stations in remote parts of rural China?" the paper asked. The paper's investigation also couldn't find corroboration of what Chinese scientists turned over to American scientists, leaving unanswered, "how much of the warming seen in recent decades is due to the local effects of spreading cities, rather than global warming?" The Guardian contends that researchers covered up the missing data for years.

HimalayaGate – An Indian climate official admitted in January that, as lead author of the IPCC's Asian report, he intentionally exaggerated when claiming Himalayan glaciers would melt away by 2035 in order to prod governments into action. This fraudulent claim was not based on scientific research or peer-reviewed. Instead it was originally advanced by a researcher, since hired by a global warming research organization, who later admitted it was "speculation" lifted from a popular magazine. This political, not scientific, motivation at least got some researcher funded.

PachauriGate – Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman who accepted with Al Gore the Nobel Prize for scaring people witless, at first defended the Himalaya melting scenario. Critics, he said, practiced "voodoo science." After the melting-scam perpetrator 'fessed up, Pachauri admitted to making a mistake. But, he insisted, we still should trust him.

PachauriGate II – Pachauri also claimed he didn't know before the 192-nation climate summit meeting in Copenhagen in December that the bogus Himalayan glacier claim was sheer speculation. But the London Times reported that a prominent science journalist said he had pointed out those errors in several e-mails and discussions to Pachauri, who "decided to overlook it." Stonewalling? Cover up? Pachauri says he was "preoccupied." Well, no sense spoiling the Copenhagen party, where countries like Pachauri's India hoped to wrench billions from countries like the United States to combat global warming's melting glaciers. Now there are calls for Pachauri's resignation.

AmazonGate – The London Times exposed another shocker: the IPCC claim that global warming will wipe out rain forests was fraudulent, yet advanced as "peer-reveiwed" science. The Times said the assertion actually "was based on an unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had little scientific expertise," "authored by two green activists" and lifted from a report from the World Wildlife Fund, an environmental pressure group. The "research" was based on a popular science magazine report that didn't bother to assess rainfall. Instead, it looked at the impact of logging and burning. The original report suggested "up to 40 percent" of Brazilian rain forest was extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall, but the IPCC expanded that to cover the entire Amazon, the Times reported.

PeerReviewGate – The U.K. Sunday Telegraph has documented at least 16 nonpeer-reviewed reports (so far) from the advocacy group World Wildlife Fund that were used in the IPCC's climate change bible, which calls for capping manmade greenhouse gases.

  RussiaGate – Even when global warming alarmists base claims on scientific measurements, they've often had their finger on the scale. Russian think tank investigators evaluated thousands of documents and e-mails leaked from the East Anglia research center and concluded readings from the coldest regions of their nation had been omitted, driving average temperatures up about half a degree.

  Russia-Gate II – Speaking of Russia, a presentation last October to the Geological Society of America showed how tree-ring data from Russia indicated cooling after 1961, but was deceptively truncated and only artfully discussed in IPCC publications. Well, at least the tree-ring data made it into the IPCC report, albeit disguised and misrepresented.

  U.S.Gate – If Brits can't be trusted, are Yanks more reliable? The U.S. National Climate Data Center has been manipulating weather data too, say computer expert E. Michael Smith and meteorologist Joesph D'Aleo. Forty years ago there were 6,000 surface-temperature measuring stations, but only 1,500 by 1990, which coincides with what global warming alarmists say was a record temperature increase. Most of the deleted stations were in colder regions, just as in the Russian case, resulting in misleading higher average temperatures.

IceGate – Hardly a continent has escaped global warming skewing. The IPCC based its findings of reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and in Africa on a feature story of climbers' anecdotes in a popular mountaineering magazine, and a dissertation by a Switzerland university student, quoting mountain guides. Peer-reviewed? Hype? Worse?

ResearchGate – The global warming camp is reeling so much lately it must have seemed like a major victory when a Penn State University inquiry into climate scientist Michael Mann found no misconduct regarding three accusations of climate research impropriety. But the university did find "further investigation is warranted" to determine whether Mann engaged in actions that "seriously deviated from accepted practices for proposing, conducting or reporting research or other scholarly activities." Being investigated for only one fraud is a global warming victory these days.

ReefGate – Let's not forget the alleged link between climate change and coral reef degradation. The IPCC cited not peer-reviewed literature, but advocacy articles by Greenpeace, the publicity-hungry advocacy group, as its sole source for this claim.

AfricaGate – The IPCC claim that rising temperatures could cut in half agricultural yields in African countries turns out to have come from a 2003 paper published by a Canadian environmental think tank – not a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

DutchGate – The IPCC also claimed rising sea levels endanger the 55 percent of the Netherlands it says is below sea level. The portion of the Netherlands below sea level actually is 20 percent. The Dutch environment minister said she will no longer tolerate climate researchers' errors.

AlaskaGate – Geologists for Space Studies in Geophysics and Oceanography and their U.S. and Canadian colleagues say previous studies largely overestimated by 40 percent Alaskan glacier loss for 40 years. This flawed data are fed into those computers to predict future warming.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/un_climate_reports_they_lie.html

and

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

and

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2010/02/12/blizzard-lies-debunking-warm-air-holds-more-moisture-defense

and this!!

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/06/29/an-inconvenient-voice-dr-alan-carlin/

A whole heap of horseshit, hank, and not one thing to do with the fact that the climate is changing and human activity has contributed to the change.  For one, you can start with climate-gate, as you call it:

Phil Jones Exonerated by British House of Commons

http://www.desmogblog.com/phil-jones-exonerated-british-house-commons

The really sad part to global warming is that if we hadn't polluted so much with particulates, the rise in temperature would have been much, much greater.  WE, (yes WE, Bill O junior) have dumped so much particulate pollution into the atmosphere, we have reduced the level of sunlight that reaches the ground, which can be seen in the reduced evaporative index of water on the surface.  I realize you have no idea what any of that means, so I don't see how you are qualified to judge any of the data/reports/scientific conclusions about any of this.  You can read more about the REAL REDUCTION IN SUNLIGHT reaching the ground;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2003/dec/18/science.research1

but I know you won't fucking get it.  The bottom line; we now have to be very careful how we fix the mess WE (yes WE, you Faux Gnus wet dream) made; a big reduction of particulate pollution as compared to high greenhouse gas levels, and we get runaway overheating very quickly.  So, shut the fuck up until you can understand (no time soon) and have some clue about the real data.

[Henry Hawk]

You couldn't research w/out bias to save your life.

all the mainstream media is post biased ....... I have to research to find anything that opposes what the MSM says....I simply do not trust the MSM...

it don't mean a hill of beans, I'm never going to change your opinion.....and I have enough proof for me to keep my opinion as it is....

Dan, suck it!!...you words don't mean squat to me.

[Sandy Eggo]

Dan's right - first you have to know the difference between real data and biased information. You don't have real evidence, but you're comfortable with it so who cares what the truth is, right? Why investigate further? :rolleyes;

[Exterminator]

...all the mainstream media is post biased...

This is tantamount to saying, "I don't care if everyone else says the sky is blue; I don't believe it because I don't trust everyone else."  Denial...not a river in Egypt.

Even more ridiculous is that you deny this even though it is tangible...you can see and feel the effects...and then you profess your undying belief in your invisible man living in the sky which is not tangible...because he undoubtedly doesn't exist.   

[Henry Hawk]

I can see and feel effects of what?..........we have had highs and low weather patterens for decades....


Are you guys willing to wreck the economy to fix something that may not even be broken?....I think we got to be careful on this.....I will say it again, I understand we need to take measures.....and seek better ways to keep the enviroment clean.....but there is some serious politics being played here and an agenda being driven....

[The Troll]

   Let an Troll pipefitter give his idea of global warming.  I have worked with all kind of compressed gas.   Air, oxygen carbon dioxide, propane and steam, which is a gas.

  Let's say we live in a 1200 square foot house with 8 foot ceilings.  That's 9600 cubic feet of air in it.  We then take a high pressure compressor and we remove 26.3 cubic feet of carbon dioxide out of it for 365 days.  We compress it to 1800 pound per square inch, so it won't take up to much space.  After we do all this we have 9600 cubic feet of pure carbon dioxide (CO2).

  Then one night we get a large leak in the CO2 system and your house is filled completely with CO2.  You will die in 3 minutes and you won't even wake up.

  Over millions and millions of years, carbon (Carbon Dioxide) has been stored in oil, natural gas and coal.  We are releasing it at an unheard amount, like over night, in burning gasoline, kerosene, natural and coal.  We have released billions and billions of carbon dioxide since WWII.

  AND WE DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH CARBON DIOXIDE.  HUMMMMMMMMMMM!

  THE TROLL   

[LOsborne]

....but there is some serious politics being played here and an agenda being driven....

Okay, what do you believe is the goal of the agenda? Let's use the familiar rule; Follow the Money. Now, I can see who profits from not enforcing conservation and alternative energy. But who lines their pockets if we do? That is a real question, Hank. Let's try to find out who the pirates are on both sides of the question.

[dan foster]

Okay, what do you believe is the goal of the agenda? Let's use the familiar rule; Follow the Money. Now, I can see who profits from not enforcing conservation and alternative energy. But who lines their pockets if we do? That is a real question, Hank. Let's try to find out who the pirates are on both sides of the question.

It IS always about the money.  And big oil is keeping its share by ensuring folks like hank stay ill informed.  Just as in the health care debate, big pharma and big insurance kept theirs.  They are all still winning at the expense of ALL the rest of us, ill informed, or not.

[dan foster]

Dan, suck it!!...you words don't mean squat to me.

So, just as I predicted, you didn't understand a word I said.

[Henry Hawk]

Okay, what do you believe is the goal of the agenda? Let's use the familiar rule; Follow the Money. Now, I can see who profits from not enforcing conservation and alternative energy. But who lines their pockets if we do? That is a real question, Hank. Let's try to find out who the pirates are on both sides of the question.

I can't help but find myself simply not trusting this whole thing when folks such as Al Gore and his Generation Investment Management (GIM) is worth close to 4 Billion dollars....and the IPCC, sponsored by the UN, (another group I distrust)....it IS politcally motivated and would love nothing more than to cripple Big Oil companies...