Vents: Random Acts of Venting!

[Henry Hawk]

And you both wonder why no one even bothers to try to maintain a dialog with you. . . Your approach to everything flies int he face of accredited science and life long learning. 

Not even ONCE have I ever wondered or even remotely worried if any of you "bother" to maintain a dialog with me.......NOT once, but yet you continue to do so.


from the baltimore sun:
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-10-25/news/bs-ed-global-warming-20111025_1_global-warming-climategate-regional-greenhouse-gas-initiative
Doubt is rising on a link between human activity and greenhouse gases, yet we are still saddled with climate change regulations

it is NOT a fact that humans ARE causing this so-called global warming........or climate change.  It is a fact there IS some climate change occurring.

It is also a fact that a lagre amount of money is involved in the man-made global warming community  ie. IIPC and such.......and politic IS playing some hard ball in this issue.

there has already been proof that some scientist have fudged the numbers to make them look bleek for the world....the "hide the decline" crowd.
there is corruption involved in the scientific community...for some who want money given to them by federal governments.

[The Troll]

Pretty amazing just how lame some people are who scream global warming EVERY hot day we have........simply incredible.  It is supposed to be a high of 68 degrees next friday........are we in an ice age next week? 

It was 93 degrees back in 1991 on this week end.  In 2005 we had a low of 28 degrees on memorial weekend.

You don't believe there is a God.........I don't believe there is man made global warming going on right now. 

The warming we are experiencing has zero do to with man......

  Since you believe that that there is a great sky guy, god and he created everything including oil and coal out of dead vegetation over million and million of years.  Actually only 4000 years like most devout Christians believe.  The oil and coal that we are burning at a incredible rate and with you not believing in any scientific research or science.  I can see were you come up your numbnuts ideas.      Damn Skippy you are not to bright. 

[me]

And you both wonder why no one even bothers to try to maintain a dialog with you. . . Your approach to everything flies int he face of accredited science and life long learning. 

Ok, what was the cause of the ice age?  Was it man?  Was it flatulence from the big guys?  Could science have prevented it?  Maybe if the dinosaurs had eaten differently it could have all been prevented.  Ya think? 

[Sandy Eggo]

Seriously, you're both delusional if you honestly think the over-population of the earth has not had a negative impact and increased the effects of the natural processes 10 fold. A science degree isn't needed to see the logic of it. Geez!!!

[The Troll]

Ok, what was the cause of the ice age?  Was it man?  Was it flatulence from the big guys?  Could science have prevented it?  Maybe if the dinosaurs had eaten differently it could have all been prevented.  Ya think?

  The Ice Age, hell we are not experiencing an Ice Age.  Big Red    we are talking about global warming.  Just where in hell do your get your education in global warming.  It come from carbon dioxide that come from fossil fuels, coal, oil and natural gas.  But you and I won't live to see the coming disaster that is coming.  I don't know about your kids.  Damn I am so glad you're so intelligent. 

[me]

  The Ice Age, hell we are not experiencing an Ice Age.  Big Red    we are talking about global warming.  Just where in hell do your get your education in global warming.  It come from carbon dioxide that come from fossil fuels, coal, oil and natural gas.  But you and I won't live to see the coming disaster that is coming.  I don't know about your kids.  Damn I am so glad you're so intelligent. 

Read Troll read.  There was nothing could be done about the ice age and there's nothing that can be done about warming either.  Its Mother Nature doing what she does.  Yes, we can clean things up and conserve and make the air cleaner but to go to the lengths some are wanting will not make enough difference to warrant the expense.  Just like the ice age it will happen period. It's an aging process.

[The Troll]

Read Troll read.  There was nothing could be done about the ice age and there's nothing that can be done about warming either.  Its Mother Nature doing what she does.  Yes, we can clean things up and conserve and make the air cleaner but to go to the lengths some are wanting will not make enough difference to warrant the expense.  Just like the ice age it will happen period. It's an aging process.

      on this dumb shit.   

[Henry Hawk]

It come from carbon dioxide that come from fossil fuels, coal, oil and natural gas.

WRONG!  CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle.  WTF, is the matter with you Troll?  You have NO clue to what is even going on........you just mimic what your liberal pals tell you, and say we are doomed.  that is BS!!

Al Gore said eight years ago, when the hype was full bore.....and said we had only 10 years to save the earth....that it would scorch and waters would rise!

The bottom line is this......."Follow the money!"

That is exactly what this is all about.......the biggest scam in World History...

More and more scientist are starting to realize the following:

There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to "decarbonize" the world's economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.

a number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.

Please read this for a clearer understanding on my personal view of this whole GW::

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html

[The Troll]

WRONG!  CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle.  WTF, is the matter with you Troll?  You have NO clue to what is even going on........you just mimic what your liberal pals tell you, and say we are doomed.  that is BS!!

Al Gore said eight years ago, when the hype was full bore.....and said we had only 10 years to save the earth....that it would scorch and waters would rise!

The bottom line is this......."Follow the money!"

That is exactly what this is all about.......the biggest scam in World History...

More and more scientist are starting to realize the following:

There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to "decarbonize" the world's economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.

a number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.

Please read this for a clearer understanding on my personal view of this whole GW::

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html

  Yep, I would believe everything that is in the Wall Street Journal/Rupert Murdoch has to say.  Why I would bet my life on it.  Old Rupert couldn't say it any better.   

[Palehorse]

WRONG!  CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle.  WTF, is the matter with you Troll?  You have NO clue to what is even going on........you just mimic what your liberal pals tell you, and say we are doomed.  that is BS!!

Al Gore said eight years ago, when the hype was full bore.....and said we had only 10 years to save the earth....that it would scorch and waters would rise!

The bottom line is this......."Follow the money!"

That is exactly what this is all about.......the biggest scam in World History...

More and more scientist are starting to realize the following:

There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to "decarbonize" the world's economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.

a number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.

Please read this for a clearer understanding on my personal view of this whole GW::

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html

As usual you are misinformed and very quick to take an opinion piece as scientific fact; as in this case the administratively pressured publication of the controversial Soon and Baliunas paper that was presented as accredited and peer reviewed but none the less exposed as something far more insidious.

Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas sent their paper, "which used data from previous papers to argue that the Medieval Warm Period had been warmer than the 20th century, and that recent warming was not unusual", to Climate Research and its editor Chris de Freitas, an opponent of action to curb carbon dioxide emissions who has been characterized by Fred Pearce as a "climate contrarian".

All of this in response to:

In 1998, Mann, Bradley and Hughes published a multiproxy study (MBH98) which used a new statistical approach to find patterns of climate change in both time and global distribution.[8] In 1999 they extended their approach to 1,000 years in a study (MBH99) summarised in a graph which showed relatively little change until a sharp rise in the 20th century, earning it the nickname of the hockey stick graph. In 2001 the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) included a version of this graph which was frequently featured in literature publicising the findings of the IPCC report that the 1990s were likely to have been the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, of the past millennium in the Northern Hemisphere.[9]

Chris de Freitas as an editor at the journal Climate Research accepted the paper written by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas, and it was published in the journal on 31 January 2003 under the title Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years.[14][12] The article reviewed 240 previously published papers and tried to find evidence for temperature anomalies in the last thousand years such as the Medieval warm period (MWP) and the Little Ice Age (LIA). The authors pointed out their disagreement with the Mann, Bradley and Hughes hockey stick studies; "Our results suggest a different interpretation of the multiproxy climates compared to recent conclusions of Mann et al. (1998, 1999, 2000)." Their abstract concluded that "Across the world, many records reveal that the 20th century is probably not the warmest or a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium". The paper acknowledged funding support from the American Petroleum Institute, the Air Force Office of Scientific Research and NASA, while stating that the views were those of the authors and were independent of the sponsoring agencies.[15]

They used data from others selectively and made the science support their assertions; assertions that were funded by the gas and oil industry among others.

The scientists responsible for the work soon dismissed this "article" as lacking in scientific fact and credibility, and such work would never be published in any accredited journal. It was data manipulation pure and simple.

Subsequent to this their paper and the funding conflict of interest it was produced by, were subjected to a congressional hearing. And the Bush administration meddled with the EPA and its position on the subject.

The Bush administration was involved in editing the first Environmental Protection Agency Report on the Environment prior to the draft being made public. The administrations Council on Environmental Quality chief of staff Philip Cooney deleted all references to surface temperature reconstructions showing world temperatures rising over the last 1,000 years, and on 21 April 2003 sent a memo to Kevin O'Donovan in the Office of the Vice President stating "The recent paper of Soon-Baliunas contradicts a dogmatic view held by many in the climate science community that the past century was the warmest in the past millennium and signals human induced "global warming." ...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy

In a Climate Research editorial pre-published on 5 August 2003, its publisher Otto Kinne expressed regrets about the resignations of von Storch, Goodess, and a third editor, Mitsuru Ando. Kinne described the main conclusions of the Soon and Baliunas paper; that the late 20th century was probably not the warmest period nor uniquely extreme in the last 2,000 years, and most of the proxy records had warmer anomalies at earlier times. He wrote "While these statements may be true, the critics point out that they cannot be concluded convincingly from the evidence provided in the paper. CR should have requested appropriate revisions of the manuscript prior to publication."[36] Kinne told the New York Times that "I have not stood behind the paper by Soon and Baliunas. Indeed: the reviewers failed to detect methodological flaws."[37]
On 19 August 2003, Tom Wigley wrote to a colleague that "I have had papers that I refereed (and soundly rejected), under De Freitas's editorship, appear later in the journal -- without me seeing any response from the authors. As I have said before to others, his strategy is first to use mainly referees that are in the anti-greenhouse community, and second, if a paper is rejected, to ignore that review and seek another more 'sympathic' reviewer. In the second case he can then (with enough reviews) claim that the honest review was an outlier."
Wigley supported the suggestion of an ethics committee, which he would be willing to serve on. Until then, he urged others to "dissociate themselves from Climate Research". The editors who had not resigned appeared to him to be mostly "a rogues' gallery of skeptics", and he thought any reputable scientists still listed as editors should resign.[28]
By this time four editors had left the journal: von Storch, Clare Goodess, Mitsuru Ando and Shardul Argawala. In mid September Andrew Comrie also withdrew,[30] so five editors had resigned; half of the journal's editorial board. The five remaining editors included de Freitas.[22]


In 2006, Osborn and Briffa published a paper on "The Spatial Extent of 20th-Century Warmth in the Context of the Past 1200 Years", and concluded that "comparison with instrumental temperatures shows the spatial extent of recent warmth to be of greater significance than that during the medieval period."[38] They reexamined the questions raised in the Baliunas and Soon study, but used different statistical methodology, restricted themselves to records that were validated as temperature proxies, and considered the timing of temperature anomalies in different regions to examine whether they had happened at the same time, or were from different periods reflecting local rather than global changes. They found that by far the most widespread warming had occurred after the mid 20th century.[39]

So the opinions expressed within your linked article are nothing more than fruit from the poisoned tree. . .

[followsthewolf]

Again, it is a valiant try, but you are casting pearls again.

Trying to explain how data can be used selectively and used to subtly manipulate results is useless because it is the result of a long and tedious paper trail that is necessary to trace the misdirection and twisting.

Those who have never had to maintain a pure research path will rarely understand the honest path, much less the dishonest (requires too much specialized knowledge), and is the boon of those intent on skewing it to prove their own ends.

[Palehorse]

Again, it is a valiant try, but you are casting pearls again.

Trying to explain how data can be used selectively and used to subtly manipulate results is useless because it is the result of a long and tedious paper trail that is necessary to trace the misdirection and twisting.

Those who have never had to maintain a pure research path will rarely understand the honest path, much less the dishonest (requires too much specialized knowledge), and is the boon of those intent on skewing it to prove their own ends.

I guess even pigs have to be fed. . . But I do wish they'd stop wearing the lipstick! 

[libby]

Again, it is a valiant try, but you are casting pearls again.

Trying to explain how data can be used selectively and used to subtly manipulate results is useless because it is the result of a long and tedious paper trail that is necessary to trace the misdirection and twisting.

Those who have never had to maintain a pure research path will rarely understand the honest path, much less the dishonest (requires too much specialized knowledge), and is the boon of those intent on skewing it to prove their own ends.

Well said. 

[Henry Hawk]

spin, spin spin.....

Time will tell us the truth....according to Al, we only have a couple of years until the earth is scorched.

[Palehorse]

spin, spin spin.....

Time will tell us the truth....according to Al, we only have a couple of years until the earth is scorched.

Exactly the response I expected. You are so lethargic that you will not devote a small number of brain cells toward the basic task of reading through the research and validated scientific fact to determine the truth for yourself. (Exactly what the fossil fuel industry is counting on). Instead you just off-handedly dismiss truth as tripe and endorse the propaganda that feeds your skewed version of "happy-land" forever and a day until you reach your expiration date.

You children and grandchildren will not have that luxury because they will fry up like bacon in a hot pan. . .