So, the truth has finially come out...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html
Man created global warming has been politicized to the point that scientists have been rigging the results of tests to get the desired result. This is not science, and all those "scientists" should lose their grants, teaching licenses, and be barred from ever touching a beaker
Seriously, has science died? What has the world come to that the nations of the world were getting close to passing greatly limiting, taxing and controling treaties all based on false information? What should be done with the whole "green" agenda that has now been proven to be based on lies?
Thoughts?
--- Over 1000 replies makes this a very hot topic ---
Therefore I will continue to update with the unraveling of the IPCC and politicized science. (new articles will be placed first)
Please keep the topics a little more on point from here on out, thanks.
- Glacer calculation show to be false, and scientist refuses to apologize...
- More errors in report?
- Opinion paper - Rigging climate 'consensus'
Personally I do believe we are responsible for global warming and any action we take to clean up our impact on the enviroment can only be a good thing. As the saying goes better be safe than sorry.
How about some news that has more potential for agreement.
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/developing-nations-walk-out-of-climate-talks/story-e6frfku0-1225810384368
This is perfectly fine by me since I have no support for any plan that requires developed countries to reduce their emissions while paying developing countries for past sins. If everyone can agree to reasonable limits that apply equally to all then I'm for that but I'm not for what amounts to the US and EU carrying the rest of the world on their backs.
If we are going to say that science is wrong and moan about twisting results to match our theories Evolution should be put on the table as well
Hello there, I have a certain finger pointing right atcha, and it's not the index finger. Take a hike, loser.
Leaving work soon, so I'll just post this to get some comments to read later
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/
Not sure if its been mentioned but read State of Fear by Michael Crichton
talks about how Global Warming is a hoax and is being used as a sort of economic and moral 'terrorism'
State of Fear was debunked almost 5 years ago but people keep dredging up the same old crap time and time again.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/michael-crichtons-state-of-confusion/
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/02/06/checking_crichtons_footnotes/
I guess like Brad says it all boils down to a matter of faith. I prefer to put my faith in peer reviewed articles, authored by acknowledged, credentialed and experienced experts in the field that are published in reputable journals.
I also put my faith in the fact that “An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. Some organisations hold non-committal positions.”
Even the American Association of Petroleum Geologists acknowledges AGW exists and simply argues against “the maximum case scenarios forecast in some models.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_consensus
However if you want to put your faith in a climate skeptic whose only qualification is that he’s a former TV weatherman that as far as anyone can tell never graduated from college then by all means the choice is yours.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Anthony_Watts
You are so predictable.
I look forward to seeing the "debunking".
Most of the "debunking" you get on left-wing sites like RealClimate.org really wrest on one person's opinion versus another.
In the case of what we have here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/
This is pretty serious. If the raw temperature data is being monkeyed with like this, then it casts doubt on the whole movement.
I don't really feel that strongly on this issue except that they're trying to use it as an excuse for the government to confiscate more money from its citizens in the name of the green religion.
Sorry, another sorta drive-by link drop, but this was on the PBS Newshour today.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/july-dec09/china_12-14.html
Just something to think about when you see a windmill.
The petroleum industry is in agreement with global warming because the petroleum industry decided you were too dumb to not buy into it. Surprise, a trillion dollar industry got something right! It shouldn't be surprising that the same liberal arts college graduates that work for them aren't being prevented from joining the chorus of idiots.
Where the population goes, business must follow. It's either join you or die in the fallout when nothing goes wrong with the political games and they succeed in fucking the world into a depression that makes the last one look like a joke. They have the best chances of mitigating the catastrophic damage to their industry if they can get their fingers in the cookie jar directly. If that crap stuck in congress passes, they'll be trying to use all that land they have sewn up to sell carbon credits instead of drilling for oil. Being able to and being barred from doing so is just one line in a bill.
You should really get over your worship of scientists, college doesn't make someone smart. If it did, fortune five hundred companies wouldn't be built by highschool dropouts and run into the ground by Harvard MBA's. If even ten percent of them have bothered to check for themselves before signing onto it, I'll be very surprised. Stupidity is cured by screwing up, something they'll eventually realize they've done with the world as a stage.
The thing is, its so hard to find truly objective research. even if someone who couldnt care less either way were to sit down on the web or in a library and look up stuff, he would find arguements that support one or the other only, and depending on luck he would probably make his decision based on whichever side of the arguement happeend to have more articles (and atm, i can imagine there being many more that are pro-global warming than not, because its simply popular to be so), even those 2 websites that 'debunked' Crichtons book, only pick and chose which points to discuss, with a few agreements throw in to make the whole thing look objective.
the only way to do it is to go out and do your own research, and unfortunately, unless you have a few hundred years and alot of spare cash lying around, its gonna be pretty hard to do this.
the only thing i have to say is: how long have we been accurately recording temperatures? over what percentage of the globe?
The Earth has been around for a fair few million/billion years, and yet the shit is going to hit the fan within a couple of centuries?
thats usually what you say when you lose so...
Lose...
He is citing the sources. He's writing entire books trying to explain why citing fiction books by a former weatherman is not a good source.
YOU claimed you were so smart. YOU claimed that you work at a particle collider. YOU claimed that 95% of the scientific community does not believe in Einstein's theories. I have not claimed anything, I'm the first to admit that I have no credentials in physics or any related field.
So please just admit you were wrong and then we can all chitterchatter about global warming.
and yet he cant tell me how we've based the end of the world (that is a billion years old) as we know it based on a few centuries worth of what is sketchy data at best
Learn to read
4.6 billion to be precise. Indeed the world will not "end" and it depends on the model but for a lot of the developing nations it will be absolutely disasterous.
Sketchy Data? Reread the cources please, those are peer-reviewed journals.
obviously i was generalising, thats why i said 'a' billion, not '1' billion, and considering the difference between centuries and billions of years, i dont see how it makes a difference whether its 1 or 4 billion, the fact remains
Is it impossible to mine and/or destroy a mountain that's 100 million years old? Does the age of something really affect our ability to damage it?
a few hundred thousands for humans, 10 for civilization.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
