I was watching the BBC this past weekend and they amassed a team of scientist to counter the IPCC (something like 300, paltry compared to the 2,500 scientist cherrypicker - I mean respectfully selected - by the IPCC) on global warming facts. This is the same BBC that produced the Great Global Warming Swindle, which obviously had holes......and the IPCC never have holes in their arguments (like when they got all their weather predictions wrong for the past 3 years and had to revise them). Remember - there are holes in the ozone but not in the IPCC. It's what my newest bumper sticker says. Now the BBC has this http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/732799.stm "Mr Jarraud told the BBC that the effect was likely to continue into the summer, depressing temperatures globally by a fraction of a degree. This would mean that temperatures have not risen globally since 1998 when El Nino warmed the world. " The article also states that 1998 - and not 2005 - was the warmest year of the past 100 years. But how? Bush wasn't President in 1998 so how could that be? I'm sticking with the 2005 number. and the above article was referenced here and well.....just read it http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/no...c-change-global-temperatures-decrease-article The Heidelberg Appeal in full effect boyeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!
I hate you and think you're a bum. At least, that's what all of the people in Poli forum say about you, and I believe them. Even if you say that you're not, why should I believe a bum?
Ha ha ha! There are still people who don't believe in global warming! Do you also not believe that cigarettes cause cancer or in peak oil?
In a class I took a couple of quarters ago at the GSB, we discussed the 20th century history of the cigarette/tobacco industry, complete with detailed information from their internal documents and analysis of the settlement from several years ago. One tidbit stood out. In the 1950s and 60s, as studies started confirming that smoking caused lung cancer, the tobacco industry responded by "clouding" the data. They didn't dispute the study results, per se, so much as attempt to claim that questions regarding the link between smoking and cancer still hadn't been answered. ("Does smoking cause cancer? We don't know, but we here at Tobacco Co. are interested in finding out the truth, whatever that may be.") In essence, they used various means to promote skepticism in the sciences, even though we later learned that they knew damn well that skepticism was unwarranted: smoking causes lung cancer, period. The industry continued such clouding as recently as the late 90s, when the carcinogenic properties of second-hand smoke became revealed. One of the industry's means of clouding the issue and promoting phony skepticism to the public involved the use of fake grassroots organizations. Those organizations would promote research that seemed to negate the smoking-cancer link (or the links between smoking and other diseases). My professor thought that they were evil geniuses, and I agree: I can recall when Bob Dole said, in 1996, that he "wasn't sure" whether smoking caused cancer, as if there were still reasons to doubt that the link existed. I bring this up because the global warming skeptics have used the exact same tactics to promote phony skepticism about the link between carbon emissions and climate change. In fact, I'm understating how closely these two players have used the same tactics: they even, in some cases, use the exact same front/agenda-promoting organizations, such as The Heartland Institute. Obviously, there's still a lot to be learned about climate change, but the notion that climate change is a myth? Please.
nowhere did you reference your classes on climatology. Climate change is real, it's just whether it's man made is debatable, which is why in every poll out there up to 30% of scientist show some level of skepticism, which you always ignore or cry for "peer review" (even though when Al Gore was ripped apart when his peers reviewd his movie you STILL defended Gore). It's also why the BBC don't have to try very hard to find scientist who show skepticism. It's also why the IPCC seem to get ALL their predictions wrong. All stuff you consistently ignore.
One thing that a global warming-caused-by-CO2 believer must have (even if he doesn't realize it): an almost religious belief in pointy heads with computer models of the earth's atmosphere. That's where the proof lies and I am highly skeptical that those models are worth much. This is an issue far different from, and much less obvious than smoke in the lungs.
And your side seems to ignore the complaints that come from some scientists when they find their names listed among the climate change skeptics by other skeptics who misrepresent their views.
So, Bo's criticism of "global warming skeptics" for clouding the argument was to cloud Ted's argument. Brilliant!
I believe that water vapor is a vastly bigger component of the 'greenhouse effect" than CO2, so clouding arguments is appropriate. That's all you really need to know. This isn't settled science, it's settled politics for the left.
My view is that we should be doing more to protect the environment but not at the cost of industry, which seems to be the view of some at the BBC. I think there should be greenzones. I think we have cut too much forest down. I think our water should be cleaner with stricter laws that the Bush/Whitman EPA relaxed. However I still havn't seen anyone explain why they are so panicked over the current warming cycle (which may or may not be tied to el nino) yet we know there have been greater periods of warming in the past. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/11/011120045859.htm And they can't seem to explain why there is global cooling now in a year that the IPCC said would be warmer than last year. However, I am not a scientist and have no clue. All I have to go on is what I read from other scientist. The ones who say that man made greenhouse gases are to blame seem to be IPCC yes men who have shown they get alot of stuff wrong and can't account for why they get it wrong.....and the skeptics are often tied to oil companies or whatever. There seems to be alot of questions left unanswered and I am not sure why we are willing to hurt the global economy while these questions are still out there. This is interesting too http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm It is interesting because there were a comparable amount of co2 in the air yet the earth was cooling up until 1979. The last paragraph is why I am a skeptic (of sorts). what about this then? http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2008/20080304113132.aspx I once posted quotes from climatologist from the 80's and everything they predicted (doomsday stuff) was way off. I can't find it now though, I will keep looking. I would feel more confident if they got their predictions right more, than I could join their side.
What bodies of water are dirtier today than 7 years ago? Honest question because every major body of water in this area is on the up and up, including the former floating cesspools named the Hudson, Hackensack and Passaic Rivers, Newark and Jamaica Bay and Jersey/ Staten Island shores of the NY Bay and the Atlantic Ocean. Is this not true throughout the country?