Global Warming Update/s [Archive] - Page 3

View Full Version : Global Warming Update/s

Pages : 1 2 [3]

ac4r

05-18-2008, 12:08 AM

Polar bear insanity.

Despite the fact that polar bear populations have increased from 5,000–10,000 in the early 1970s to between 20,000 and 25,000 today it was listed as a threatened species by the dept. of Interior. Never before in history has a thriving species been listed as a threatened species.

We've gone insane.

Another thing to appease the enviro-nuts.

W4HAY

05-18-2008, 01:00 PM

It's good to see a politician rewarded for a courageous and unpopular stand, as John McCain has been over Iraq. History will show he was as central to the battle of Washington as Gen. David Petraeus has been to the battle of Baghdad. Our enemies strategized that America lacks staying power. Mr. McCain's role deprived them of their plan for victory.

But honor, the value that underlined Mr. McCain's stand, is no use on an issue like global warming. Here, he could use a little more Mitt Romney, his vanquished nemesis whose name has now resurfaced in the veep sweepstakes.

*****
In his climate speech on Monday, Mr. McCain exhibited (as the press usually does) a complete lack of consciousness of the fact that evidence of warming is not evidence of what causes warming. Yet policy must be a matter of costs and benefits, adjusted for the uncertainties involved. Which brings us to today's irony: He who finds a six-figure earmark an affront to humanity is prepared to wave through a trillion-dollar climate bill without, as far as anyone can tell, a single systematic thought about costs and benefits.

*****
Then what, as a practical matter, would be the aim of global warming policy? Our political system permits only one answer: to please the special interests that even now are gathering at the trough for subsidies in the name of climate change.

*****
Politics is often a business of adaptive dishonesty, and never more so than when dealing with an issue like climate change. Real solutions are lacking so politicians can only devote themselves to telling voters what they want to hear while dishing out favors to whatever lobbyists are handy (and Mr. McCain picked a venue to do both on Monday, a wind turbine factory in Oregon). But let's also concede: Nobody who seriously wants to be president in 2008 is going to question the "consensus" on global warming.

*****
Mr. McCain's virtues are many, but he's a politician. Yet, happily, the spheres are moving and whatever energy boondoggles are coming, they are likely to be less costly than the boondoggles that might have been enacted even a year or two ago when Al Gore was riding high. For this, we will be able to thank the climate gods and no one else.

Warming to McCain (http://online.wsj.com/article/business_world.html)

*****
*****

While no one knows who first uttered the sentiment "It’s better to say nothing and seem a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt," Republican presidential hopeful John McCain’s speech this week on climate change certainly supports the phrase’s validity.

McCain spoke at the facilities of Vestas Wind Technology, an Oregon-based firm that manufactures wind-power systems. The irony of the setting was rich given McCain’s outspoken opposition to pork-barrel spending.

*****
McCain lauded wind as a "predictable source of energy." He must have missed this Feb. 27 headline from Reuters: "Loss of wind causes Texas power grid emergency." The electric grid operator was forced to curtail 1,100 megawatts of power to customers within 10 minutes.

*****
McCain then demonstrated how little he knows about the science of global warming.

"No longer do we need to rely on guesswork and computer modeling, because satellite images reveal a dramatic disappearance of glaciers, Antarctic ice shelves and polar ice sheets. And I’ve seen some of this evidence up close…"

Global warming alarmism, however, is entirely based on the "guesswork and computer modeling" that McCain says isn’t necessary. The reason the United Nations relies on "guesswork and computer modeling" is because the glaciers that are receding have been doing so since at least the 19th century, before significant human output of greenhouse gases.

*****
As to global temperature, the world has cooled since 1998 and the latest research from U.N.-approved researchers indicates that more global cooling is on the way. With respect to extreme weather events, I can’t think of a single scientist — even an alarmist scientist — who has the temerity to stand up and link specific weather events with climate change.

McCain’s apparent climate mentor, Al Gore, learned this lesson the hard way last fall.

*****
Undaunted by facts, McCain appears to be programmed with every nonsensical green platitude and policy — a truly worrisome situation since global warming regulation is shaping up to be the most important domestic policy issue of the upcoming election.

Many McCain supporters believe he is the candidate to lead the country at a time of war. But there is a war of sorts at home, too — the struggle against the greens for control over vital domestic energy and economic policy. We can’t afford to lose the latter war, either.

Junk Science: McCain’s Embarrassing Climate Speech (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,356097,00.html)

K3XR

05-18-2008, 01:06 PM

What took them so long??

http://newsbusters.org/node/21303/print

n2ize

05-18-2008, 01:19 PM

Warming to McCain (http://online.wsj.com/article/business_world.html)

*****
*****

Junk Science: McCain’s Embarrassing Climate Speech (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,356097,00.html)

Yeah, Steve "Junk Science" Milloy is also known to be well funded by the tobacco companies and Exxon Mobil.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steve_Milloy

He's also been debunked repeatedly on several occaisions, with regards to climate change as well as many other topics.
[/URL]

[URL]http://info-pollution.com/milloy.htm (http://http//info-pollution.com/milloy.htm)

N5NPO

05-18-2008, 03:37 PM

A guy looking much like one of the Gieco Cavemen from one of their commercials, sitting in a cave (with drawings on the wall behind him) at a rudementary desk wearing animal skins of some sort, holding stone tablets in his hands (with picture drawings painted or engraved on them) telling us that if something isn't done very soon, the glaciers that cover much of North America will soon begin to melt and life as we know it will end...

CO2 is a trace element...
Of every 1,000,000 atmosphere molecules, 384 are CO2...
Is that something like .000384%?
Very dangerous stuff if that small amout can cause so much problems.
Sounds like a beurecratic power grab based on scare tactics.

K3XR

05-18-2008, 08:06 PM

What's up with Charlie??

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/theroyalfamily/1961719/Prince-Charles-Eighteen-months-to-stop-climate-change-disaster.html?service=print

K3XR

05-19-2008, 03:01 AM

Standby for the truth......

http://newsbusters.org/node/21325/print

N4VGB

05-19-2008, 03:58 AM

Yeah, Steve "Junk Science" Milloy is also known to be well funded by the tobacco companies and Exxon Mobil.
He's also been debunked repeatedly on several occaisions, with regards to climate change as well as many other topics.

Shades of Al Gore!? I guess the fact that Al is heavily personally invested in alcohol production for fuel and his push for alcohol in gasoline to save mother earth doesn't register as a bit of a profit venture for old Al? :rolleyes:

N5NPO

05-19-2008, 04:06 AM

Shades of Al Gore!? I guess the fact that Al is heavily personally invested in alcohol production for fuel and his push for alcohol in gasoline to save mother earth doesn't register as a bit of a profit venture for old Al? :rolleyes:

Wonder what the going rate for carbon credits are these days?
Will they ever be rationed?

N4VGB

05-19-2008, 04:16 AM

Wonder what the going rate for carbon credits are these days?
Will they ever be rationed?

Beats me, ask the man with all the answers, Al himself or his rep on QRZ, N2IZE. :)

No E85 around here, evrybody is fairly ticked over the reduction in MPG from just 10% alcohol. Al's big buck investment in corn ethanol for gasoline may be in big trouble! :eek:

I'd love to see that man go bust! :D

NL7W

05-19-2008, 09:30 AM

Beats me, ask the man with all the answers, Al himself or his rep on QRZ, N2IZE. :)

No E85 around here, evrybody is fairly ticked over the reduction in MPG from just 10% alcohol. Al's big buck investment in corn ethanol for gasoline may be in big trouble! :eek:

I'd love to see that man go bust! :D

I'd settle for him just being busted! Sins of the Father... :D

W8EJO

05-19-2008, 12:15 PM

K3XR

05-19-2008, 04:04 PM

Yo Barry, it's time to dump Al.

http://newsbusters.org/node/21334/print

n2ize

05-19-2008, 04:32 PM

31,072 American scientists Al Gore (and McCain, Obama, Hillary, et al) needs to talk to.

10 AM, Monday May 19

Where: Holeman Lounge at the National Press Club, 529 14th St., NW, Washington, DC

Why: the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) will announce that more than 31,000 scientists have signed a petition rejecting claims of human-caused global warming. The purpose of OISM’s Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climate damage is wrong,

http://www.petitionproject.org/index.html

You are aware that this petition is a load of bull, aren't you ? Anybody with as little as a Bachelors Degree in any science, engineering or related discipline can become a signatory. To sign on to this does not require that the so called "scientist" has any knowledge of climate research whatsoever. It doesn't even require any devotion of time to the study of climate science. Any high school teacher, or undergrad student can sign on. Your doctor, lab technician, radiologist, accountant, computer programmer, Unix/Windows administrator, electronics technician, automotive engineer, etc. can sign on. Being that I hold a graduate degree in Math I can most definately sign on and have my name listed among the signatories. Matter of fact look at the breakdown of the signatories and notice something interesting. The smallest number of signatories are climate scientists with only 40 signatories. The largest number of signatories are engineers. So much for the petition.

Let's see,any idiot can download the petition, fill it out and mail it in. The people perpetrating this deception scam must think the American people are extremely stupid. Well,maybe they are. Time will tell.

N4VGB

05-19-2008, 05:03 PM

Anybody with as little as a Bachelors Degree in any science, engineering or related discipline can become a signatory.

Al Gore's requirements to play on his team, 1-have a PhD, 2- agree with me, 3- invest in my corn ethanol venture (we're gonna make a killing on the ethanol and by skyrocketing the price of corn). :rolleyes:

KV1M

05-19-2008, 08:00 PM

I'd settle for him just being busted! Sins of the Father... :D

Sweet, so you have no problems with Bush Sr going to the docket for Prescott's Nazi deals eh?:D

K3XR

05-20-2008, 10:59 AM

Are 31,000 scientists wrong??

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=64734

N5NPO

05-20-2008, 11:29 AM

You are aware that this petition is a load of bull, aren't you ? Anybody with as little as a Bachelors Degree in any science, engineering or related discipline can become a signatory. To sign on to this does not require that the so called "scientist" has any knowledge of climate research whatsoever. It doesn't even require any devotion of time to the study of climate science. Any high school teacher, or undergrad student can sign on. Your doctor, lab technician, radiologist, accountant, computer programmer, Unix/Windows administrator, electronics technician, automotive engineer, etc. can sign on. Being that I hold a graduate degree in Math I can most definately sign on and have my name listed among the signatories. Matter of fact look at the breakdown of the signatories and notice something interesting. The smallest number of signatories are climate scientists with only 40 signatories. The largest number of signatories are engineers. So much for the petition.

Let's see,any idiot can download the petition, fill it out and mail it in. The people perpetrating this deception scam must think the American people are extremely stupid. Well,maybe they are. Time will tell.

The Idiots include scientists witch field of study include:
114-Atmospheric Science
341-Meterology
58-Astronomy
25-Astrophysics
107-Earth Science
62-Geochemistry
1,601-Geology
334-Geophysics
23-Geoscience
21-Hydrology
473-Enviromental Engineering
256-Enviromental Science
156-Foresrty
86-Oceanography
217-Computer Science (models tell us the earth will overheat right?)
575-Mathematics
111-Statistics
2,310-Physics
215-Nuclear Engineering
2,581-Mechanical Engineering
585-Aerospace Engineering
3,156-CHemisrty
1,640-Chemical Engineering
703-Biochemistry
65-Biophysics
985-Biology
72-Ecology
57-Entomology
145-Zoology
106-Animal Science
314-Agricultural Science
111-Agricultural Engineering (Bet these guys can grow some hemp)
292-Plant Science
74-Food Science

I won't go into the medical fields.

Ok, so only 40 Climatologists and no Former VIce President....
You are right, what do Oceanographers, Enviromental Engineers, Geologists and Meterologists know about Earths Climate anyway?

K3XR

05-20-2008, 03:48 PM

Don't forget, skip lunch today.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/05/19/obama-lets-eat-less-so-that-we-can-lead-by-example-on-climate-change-by-eating-less/?print=1

KV1M

05-20-2008, 04:30 PM

The Idiots include scientists witch field of study include:...

Hmmm, really?
Are you sure?
ANYONE can download and sign up.
That means ANYONE can claim to be ANYTHING they want.

And given the immaturity of you wingnut types I'd bet quite a percentage of those people are lying about their credentials.

N4VGB

05-20-2008, 04:42 PM

And given the immaturity of you wingnut types I'd bet quite a percentage of those people are lying about their credentials.

That would mean that you've personally verified the credentials of the 'chicken little, the sky is falling' group. How about listing them for us? Don't bother with their leader Al Gore, he has none in any filed. :)

K3XR

05-20-2008, 06:07 PM

Are you sure?
ANYONE can download and sign up.
That means ANYONE can claim to be ANYTHING they want.

Yes, we noticed....

NL7W

05-20-2008, 10:37 PM

Global warming, more accurately Climate Change, does not just mean it gets hotter, it means more extreme weather overall, or more variable weather.

Hotter summer, harsher winters, stronger storms.

Cooler here, warmer there (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier)

What is it and what are the affects (http://www.globalissues.org/EnvIssues/GlobalWarming/Intro.asp)

Global Warming is now "Climate Change", people... It's a more politically correct term -- encompassing so much more -- now that GW is rightfully receiving extraordinary levels of factually-based flack. It'll be harder to shoot down and disprove such a vague and moving target. :mad:

...anything to keep environmentalists' and the governments' bureaucrats politically-motivated movement in-the-money.

What crappola!

N4VGB

05-21-2008, 02:03 AM

Global Warming is now "Climate Change", people... It's a more politically correct term -- encompassing so much more -- now that GW is rightfully receiving extraordinary levels of factually-based flack. It'll be harder to shoot down and disprove such a vague and moving target. :mad:

...anything to keep environmentalists' and the governments' bureaucrats politically-motivated movement in-the-money.

What crappola!

"Climate change", ain't it funny. Covers their butts, no matter what happens. I can actually go along with that one, the earth's climate will indeed change, it always has been changing. ;) Even before man was on the planet, pretty safe bet on that one. ;)

W4DFW

05-21-2008, 02:03 AM

The people perpetrating this deception scam must think the American people are extremely stupid. Well,maybe they are. Time will tell.

My thoughts exactly!!

K3XR

05-26-2008, 11:09 AM

When enviro-Nazis go wild....

http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB121158357510318781.html

W8EJO

05-26-2008, 12:08 PM

Climate Change Spreads To Jupiter, Mars
| 5/23/2008 | Staff

"According to Philip S. Marcus, a professor of fluid dynamics at UC Berkeley, analysis of the Hubble and Keck images may support his 2004 conjecture that Jupiter is in the midst of global climate change"

"Mars, too, is being hit by rapid climate change and it is happening so fast that the red planet could lose its southern ice cap, according to scientists. Scientists from NASA say that Mars has warmed by about 0.5C since the 1970s. This is similar to the warming experienced on Earth over approximately the same period.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/i ... geId=65165

N5NPO

05-26-2008, 12:29 PM

K4GUN

05-26-2008, 02:33 PM

(1) Halliburton is up to something sinister again....

(2) It's those neocon knucle-dragging mouth-breathing Martians and Jupiterians (?) driving thier gas guzzling Hummers....OR

(3) THE SUN....

... and if its the SUN on those planets, could somebody please explain why its not the sun on this planet? Are we not just a wee bit closer to ol' Sol anyway and therefore even more at its mercy?

n2ize

05-26-2008, 03:54 PM

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192

K3XR

05-26-2008, 05:52 PM

And how much of this waste comes from the US taxpayer??

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/shocker-un-wastes-billions-on-global-warming/print

wa6ccw

05-26-2008, 06:25 PM

And how much of this waste comes from the US taxpayer??

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/shocker-un-wastes-billions-on-global-warming/print

From the article:

How shocking. That is to say, it is shocking any media outlet (let alone the Guardian) would bother to report on this.

Indeed.

KB5FVS

05-27-2008, 09:29 PM

Tsk, tsk, now there you go trying to inject common sense into the hysteria. Good luck, it hasn't worked for any of us yet. :)

LMAO, you said it, friend. Everywhere on the net I see the issue discussed- the GW'ers manage to not give any serious consideration to any evidence that suggests anything other than the so-called 'consensus'. Over at Wikipedia, the global warming discussion page where folks post things and say what they think should be included on the page as valid evidence- never gets any significant updates that balance the info on the page. If you read the discussion page regularly, the "powers that be" almost always shoot down other evidence to the contrary with things like "<insert name> can hardly be considered credible because blah blah blah" or "ten years of cooling hardly makes a 'trend' ", and there's ALWAYS a reason they can cite to attempt to discredit whatever anyone attempts to have included on the page.

The govt has succeeded in demonizing anyone who would have an intellligent conversation (like some of the content in this thread). It doesn't matter if decades and even longer ago, the people that influence policy in this country flat out said that global warming/climate change and terrorism would "fit the bill" in order to further the cause a having one world-wide government.

It doesn't matter those who keep mentioning tin-hats. I used to be one myself as did other friends who have at their own pace woken up and realized what is going on. The bottom line after you read enough information about how it's being orchestrated, you either wake up or you are employed by Centcom. The evidence is exponentially stronger than any so called global warming/climate change 'theory' that we are all going to die from anytime soon.

Folks can cite hurricanes and weather patterns and the so called 'rate' at which things are changing as the indicator that we're doomed- while ignoring that the govt has admitted DECADES ago that we can control the weather, make it rain, steer hurricanes, and whatever else. But THAT info doesn't cast doubt on this global warming theory to the hardcore believers. Just about everything that the tin-hat name callers pull out the name calling to try and discredit, isn't even rumor anymore, it's flat out admitted in documents by the government. They don't even worry much about putting it out and declassifying it because they know that the news media will keep perpetuating the lies. They know that MOST people won't bother to go and research and check out things for themselves. They know that folks will keep building up straw men and tearing them down and the average person buys it without question. To use a term I heard somewhere else, it's a Scientific Dictatorship, and it's working very well.

LOL, right now the UK is trying to get folks duped into the idea of "personal carbon emission allowances" and doing so by telling them that they will be able to 'make money' from it. Everyone in the UK would be allocated an annual carbon emission allowance and it's stored electronically like the supermarket loyalty card and credits would be deducted everytime you use non-renewable energy such as "running appliances in the home", "traveling somewhere by plane", and even "buying petrol for your car", and any points leftover could then be sold. (I put some of this here verbatim from a bbc broadcast.)

That is just one of the ways they are using to get everyone used to buying and selling electronically. Everything will be taxed. You won't have any control over your own finances. If you disagree, what are you going to do, go down to the local bank and protest??? Yah, right. Break into the computer and re-credit yourself??? :D Paper money will have RFID's in it, and be able to be 'turned off' or 'invalidated'...it won't matter if you have a suitcase full if it's turned off, will it?

These things aren't anything new in terms this plan being announced a long long time ago. It's just that it's starting to be allowed into the news media and publically announced.

KC4HGH

05-27-2008, 09:34 PM

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64734

"Global warming" is just the latest control tactic for someone to try and control our lives. What a hoax.

n2ize

05-27-2008, 10:00 PM

Folks can cite hurricanes and weather patterns and the so called 'rate' at which things are changing as the indicator that we're doomed- while ignoring that the govt has admitted DECADES ago that we can control the weather, make it rain, steer hurricanes, and whatever else.

Huh ?? What ?? :confused::eek::confused::confused:

W8EJO

05-27-2008, 10:04 PM

Czech President Klaus ready to debate Gore on climate changeMay 27, 2008, 21:18 GMT

'I many times tried to talk to have a public exchange of views with him, and he's not too much willing to make such a conversation,' Klaus said. 'So I'm ready to do it.'

Klaus was speaking a the National Press Building in Washington to present his new book, Blue Planet in Green Shackles - What Is Endangered: Climate or Freedom?, before meeting with Vice President Dick Cheney Wednesday.

'My answer is it is our freedom and, I might add, and our prosperity,' he said.

Klaus, an economist, said he opposed the 'climate alarmism' perpetuated by environmentalism trying to impose their ideals, comparing it to the decades of communist rule he experienced growing up in Soviet-dominated Czechoslovakia.

'Like their (communist) predecessors, they will be certain that they have the right to sacrifice man and his freedom to make their idea reality,' he said.

'In the past, it was in the name of the Marxists or of the proletariat - this time, in the name of the planet,' he added.

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/europe/news/article_1407867.php/Czech_President_Klaus_ready_to_debate_Gore_on_clim ate_change

n2ize

05-27-2008, 10:25 PM

N4VGB

05-28-2008, 01:30 AM

I wonder if these same people go to shoe repair shop when they need a root canal.

Hmmmm, come to think of it, the guy at my shoe shop uses a lot of the same tools and sometimes appears more adapt at using them than my dentist! He charges a lot less than my dentist!? Overlapping job skills!? :rolleyes:

KC9IUX

05-29-2008, 04:56 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by KB5FVS View Post

Folks can cite hurricanes and weather patterns and the so called 'rate' at which things are changing as the indicator that we're doomed- while ignoring that the govt has admitted DECADES ago that we can control the weather, make it rain, steer hurricanes, and whatever else.
Huh ?? What ??

Yep.

Made it rain on the VC supply routes.

I'll find it.

KC9IUX

05-29-2008, 04:59 AM

http://www.weathermod.com/

Navy Research Paper: 'Disrupt Economies' with Man-Made 'Floods,' 'Droughts'
By Noah Shachtman EmailFebruary 11, 2008 | 11:29:00 AMCategories: Bizarro, History Lesson, Science!

Hurricane_andrew A recently-unearthed U.S. Navy research project calls for creating mad-made floods and droughts to "disrupt [the] economy" of an enemy state.

"Weather modification was used successfully in Viet Nam to (among other things) hinder and impede the movement of personnel and material from North Viet Nam to South Viet Nam," notes a Naval Air Warfare Weapons Division - China Lake research proposal, released last month through the Freedom of Information Act. But "since that time military research on Weather Modification has dwindled in the United States."

The proposal suggests a study of the latest weather manipulation techniques, to "give the U.S. military a viable, state-of-the-art weather modification capability again." With that in hand, American forces would be able...

To impede or deny the movement of personnel and material because of rains-floods, snow-blizzards, etc.

(2) To disrupt economy due to the effect of floods, droughts, etc.

The proposal is undated. But it's pretty clearly from the Cold War. Not only is "the Soviet Union (Russia)" mentioned. The money is also relatively small, by today's standards -- less than a half-million dollars, over two years.

A military in-house newspaper calls "weather modification" an "area of China Lake preeminence. Between 1949 and 1978, China Lake developed concepts, techniques, and hardware that were successfully used in hurricane abatement, fog control, and drought relief. Military application of this technology was demonstrated in 1966 when Project Popeye was conducted to enhance rainfall to help interdict traffic on the Ho Chi Minh Trail." (Here's a picture of China Lake's "Cold Cloud Modification System."

In 1980, the United States ratified a treaty banning military weather manipulation. But every once in a while, someone in the armed forces floats the idea of doing it again. "Our vision is that by 2025 the military could influence the weather on a mesoscale [theater-wide] or microscale [immediate local area] to achieve operational capabilities," a 1996 Air Force-commissioned study reads.

Today, Chinese officials are trying to figure out ways to keep it from raining over Beiing, during this summer's Olympics.

KC9IUX

05-29-2008, 05:01 AM

EXPERT - U.S. HAS WEATHER CONTROL
Saturday, October 15, 2005 - FreeMarketNews.com

Ben Livingston, now 77, has a master's degree in cloud physics from the Naval Weapons Center and Navy Post Graduate School in California. He also recently appeared on alternative 'Net radio to claim that even in the 1960s, the U.S. Army was using weather technology to harass the enemy and cause storms and rain where there were none. "[Livingston] seeded clouds and dramatically increased rainfall in his theater of war, creating impassably muddy roads, slowing down the Vietnamese and Korean troops, and saving lives and entire towns from occupation," reads a recent 'Net post on an alternative news site describing the program.

Livingstone briefed then-President Lyndon B. Johnson on the effectiveness of weather control activities and asserted that at the time, "hurricane control was a national priority of the government ... and they had the ability to do it."

Today, he works at Weather Modification Inc., in Fargo, N.D., and his research has been confirmed by the Stanford Research Institute. His flying experience with some 265 hurricane "eyes" have him on record as "most disgusted" with the results of Hurricane Katrina, since he "knows that the storm itself could have been minimized." He apparently claims that as far back as 1974, the United States has had the knowledge and ability, "to reduce or redirect a ... hurricane. [It] would not be that difficult." He reportedly then outlined the process in detail, noting that it was possible both to minimize a storm's damage or exagerate its impact. - ST

KB5FVS

05-29-2008, 05:26 AM

Huh ?? What ?? :confused::eek::confused::confused:

Ok, one example, have you heard of H.A.A.R.P.? If memory serves me correctly, it stands for High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program.

It's amazing how the average person just hasn't heard of these things before, or the news media didn't publicize them, or the tin foil hat makers and handers out, just dismissed it as bunk or 'conspiracy theory'.

Here, I googled you a quick link, though you could probably find the source
document mentioned and others with a little research, but I'm not going to do it all for ya.

http://current.com/items/88983575_weather_warfare_is_it_here_already (http://current.com/items/88983575_weather_warfare_is_it_here_already)

KB5FVS

05-29-2008, 05:30 AM

Wow, two people that have nothing to do with climate research or science are going to debate science and are viewed by people as "experts". I wonder if these same people go to shoe repair shop when they need a root canal.

Well, our good buddy Gore is the one who made Global Warming uh, i mean Climate Change as it's popularly named now, famous, and he knew his stuff so well that he was confident enough to play the lead in his movie about it- so, why would he not be the PERFECT person to be debated and debunked and 'taken down' a notch or ten so to speak,or the so called "hockey stick" was used to give him a boot in the tail so to speak- it would serve to get alot of these climate change religion followers to take a more serious look when their poster boy was put in his place... on second thought, maybe not, that kool-aid must taste pretty good. And I'm sure the 'green' kool-aid tastes pretty good for those who just happen to be in the carbon credit and related fields aren't going to want to give up that green and won't go out of business without a fight, either.

P.S. no I don't wish any physical harm on anyone or any govt official, so please don't visit me.:D

N5NPO

05-29-2008, 09:19 AM

w2amr

05-29-2008, 10:12 AM

Huh ?? What ?? :confused::eek::confused::confused:
Yup, it's true. Just dump some dry ice into a cloud and you got yourself a monsoon my friend.

N5NPO

05-29-2008, 04:58 PM

Yup, it's true. Just dump some dry ice into a cloud and you got yourself a monsoon my friend.

Do you know what DRY ICE is?
It is CO2!!!!
See, the Halliburton Weather-O-Matic has a duality of sinister purpose.
Dry ice in the cloud causes a monsoon and the CO2 causes global warming which increases storm intensity creating a typhoon!!!
We are doomed!

n2ize

05-29-2008, 05:34 PM

Well, our good buddy Gore is the one who made Global Warming uh, i mean Climate Change as it's popularly named now, famous,

No, Global warming was "famous" long before Al Gore latched onto it. Global warming is a product of science. It was brought into the forefront by scientists all over the world. Not by Al Gore.

and he knew his stuff so well that he was confident enough to play the lead in his movie about it- so, why would he not be the PERFECT person to be debated and debunked and 'taken down'

No, Al Gore doesn;t appear to know much more about climate science and global warming than any other non-researcher. Al Gore's movies doesn't really say much about global warming. Anyone who has read any of the scientific periodicals and peer reviewed journals would understand that Gore barely scratches the surface of climate research. Climate research is the result of large aggregates of data and complex interrelationships between various mechanisms that control temperatge, weather and overall climactic conditions over time.

A real discussion or debate on climate change should involve real scientists who understand the research in depth. Al Gore does not fit the criteria for such a person.
rch. Namely men and women with degrees in climate related sciences

a notch or ten so to speak,or the so called "hockey stick" was used to give him a boot in the tail so to speak-
The "hockey stick" graph is but one small tidbit of data in the large aggregate of collected data that comp[rises climate research.

it would serve to get alot of these climate change religion followers to take a more serious look when their poster boy was put in his place..
Climate change is no more a "religion:" than xchemistry, physics, mathematics, relativity, atomic theory, etc. If Al Gore decides to make a movie that is his business. he is free to do so. Nobody that I know working in climate research picked Al Gore to be the "poster boy"

. on second thought, maybe not, that kool-aid must taste pretty good. And I'm sure the 'green' kool-aid tastes pretty good for those who just happen to be in the carbon credit and related fields aren't going to want to give up that green and won't go out of business without a fight, either.
Carbon credits are a band-aid solution to what is in all probability a real problem.

If you really want to understand climate change, global warming, or whatever you chose to call it I would advise forgetting about Gore and start reading about some science.

n2ize

05-29-2008, 05:36 PM

Yup, it's true. Just dump some dry ice into a cloud and you got yourself a monsoon my friend.

Hah, and I'm pretty sure they can divert hurricanes, create tornados and turn winter into summer and summer into winter too. And give me an accurate palm reading while I wait. :D:D

n2ize

05-29-2008, 05:40 PM

The Idiots include scientists witch field of study include:
114-Atmospheric Science
341-Meterology
58-Astronomy
25-Astrophysics
107-Earth Science
62-Geochemistry
1,601-Geology
334-Geophysics
23-Geoscience
21-Hydrology
473-Enviromental Engineering
256-Enviromental Science
156-Foresrty
86-Oceanography
217-Computer Science (models tell us the earth will overheat right?)
575-Mathematics
111-Statistics
2,310-Physics
215-Nuclear Engineering
2,581-Mechanical Engineering
585-Aerospace Engineering
3,156-CHemisrty
1,640-Chemical Engineering
703-Biochemistry
65-Biophysics
985-Biology
72-Ecology
57-Entomology
145-Zoology
106-Animal Science
314-Agricultural Science
111-Agricultural Engineering (Bet these guys can grow some hemp)
292-Plant Science
74-Food Science

I won't go into the medical fields.

Ok, so only 40 Climatologists and no Former VIce President....
You are right, what do Oceanographers, Enviromental Engineers, Geologists and Meterologists know about Earths Climate anyway?

And what does a food scientist, nutritionist, mechanical engineer, high school matgh teacher, and your dentist know about it either.

Go back to the site and look at the petition. Anyone can claim they are a "scientist" and mail it in. They don't even ask what school you earned your degree in. According to the petition I am an expert in climate research and so is your local veterinarian and the xray technician at your local hospital.

N5NPO

05-29-2008, 07:08 PM

And what does a food scientist, nutritionist, mechanical engineer, high school matgh teacher, and your dentist know about it either.

Go back to the site and look at the petition. Anyone can claim they are a "scientist" and mail it in. They don't even ask what school you earned your degree in. According to the petition I am an expert in climate research and so is your local veterinarian and the xray technician at your local hospital.

114-Atmospheric Science
341-Meterology
58-Astronomy
25-Astrophysics
107-Earth Science
62-Geochemistry
1,601-Geology
334-Geophysics
23-Geoscience
21-Hydrology
473-Enviromental Engineering
256-Enviromental Science
156-Foresrty
86-Oceanography
217-Computer Science (models tell us the earth will overheat right?)
ETC....
Ok, you can start weeding out the ones on the list who dont have the credentials they claim to have. Some may be afraid to put their name on the list because it is not PC to disagree with GW or GCC.

N4VGB

05-29-2008, 07:39 PM

College degrees mean nothing, Al Gore failed at attaining all three of the degrees he attempted to achieve. :eek:

n2ize

05-29-2008, 07:49 PM

114-Atmospheric Science
341-Meterology
58-Astronomy
25-Astrophysics
107-Earth Science
62-Geochemistry
1,601-Geology
334-Geophysics
23-GeoscienceOk, you can start weeding out the ones on the list who dont have the credentials they claim to have. Some may be afraid to put their name on the list because it is not PC to disagree with GW or GCC.

21-Hydrology
473-Enviromental Engineering
256-Enviromental Science
156-Foresrty
86-Oceanography
217-Computer Science (models tell us the earth will overheat right?)
ETC....
Ok, you can start weeding out the ones on the list who dont have the credentials they claim to have. Some may be afraid to put their name on the list because it is not PC to disagree with GW or GCC.[/QUOTE]

Okay, and how many of those 473 who claim to have degrees in "environmental engineering" are involved in, have read and understood, or are qualified to speak on or judge climate research ? How many of them are high school or elementary school teachers ? How many of them earned a bachelors degreee and went no further and don't even work in the field. How many of them hold Ph.D's, Masters degrees, or Bachelors degrees and from what schools did they acquire them. What kind of work have they been doing since they've graduated ?

The point is, the petition is a joke, anyone can qualify, fill it out, and send it in, there is absolutely nothing to guarantee that the person signing it has any understanding of the science behing global climate research or has even read or understood a single piece of literature regarding the subject. When viewed in the proper perspective one quickly realizes that this petition carries no weight whatsoever and if anythinfg will probably make us the laughing stock of the world (which we already are). Suddenly that list of 31,000 so called "experts" looks quite small.

Ok, you can start weeding out the ones on the list who dont have the credentials they claim to have. Some may be afraid to put their name on the list because it is not PC to disagree with GW or GCC.
[/quote]

yeah right, that all powerful band of tree huggers with an unlimited supply of money will come after them unless they wear their tinfoil hats while they sign it.

Theatre de l' Absurd...

N4VGB

05-29-2008, 07:55 PM

Yo, John Boy, please list your degrees for us. You seem to get frustrated that many of us don't instantly accept every word spoken on the subject by you, what are your qualifications on the subject? :rolleyes:

ke4pkb

05-30-2008, 02:55 AM

The SAME Scientists that are predicting ON MODELS in a lab that we are going to burn... said this in 1974!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1663607/posts

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/19/nasa-scientists-predicted-new-ice-age-1971

These are only 2 of MANY major magazines and scientists that were all convinced that there was a coming ice age in 50 years or so...

These are pretty much the same identical scientists and magazines that now are saying we are going to burn...

I remember the TV and all the talking heads on TV were absolutely convinced of this 34 years ago! Do you who put your faith in the scientists not recognize the fact that this is a huge money-making machine at work! If you do not have killer asteroids, holes in the ozone layer (that HAS been proven to be a completely normal cycle over long periods of time) that they do NOT get funded by YOUR money and MINE!

I put my faith in one greater... the Master of The Universe, and he has promised that there will always be a time of planting and a time of harvest, that the setting of the sun and the moon is in HIS control... Look at man's science how it has changed in just a few short decades. Look back at science books just 75 or so years ago... they read like comic books! modern day scientists have just discovered this past century or so about ocean currents, the need for sterile instruments and quarters in medicine, and these are just a couple of examples. The BIBLE speaks of the currents in the ocean more than 2,500 years ago in the old testament. It speaks of sterilization of bandages, and other things in medicine about the same time period. Science a couple hundred or so years back speaks of the sun revolving around our planet Earth... which was FLAT... The BIBLE in the earliest books speak of the earth as a sphere suspended in the heavens...

Anyway... I think you get the point...
just my 2 cents worth...
stanton, ke4pkb

W4DFW

05-30-2008, 04:01 AM

The point is, the petition is a joke, anyone can qualify, fill it out, and send it in, there is absolutely nothing to guarantee that the person signing it has any understanding of the science behing global climate research or has even read or understood a single piece of literature regarding the subject.

<grabbing another Cheeto>

Uhm, that didn't stop Gore, now did it?? That part about "understanding of the science . . ."

'ya know??

NL7W

05-30-2008, 07:53 AM

<grabbing another Cheeto>

Uhm, that didn't stop Gore, now did it?? That part about "understanding of the science . . ."

'ya know??

He DID invent the Internet, right? :eek:

KB5FVS

05-30-2008, 08:14 AM

m0els

05-30-2008, 08:28 AM

n2ize

05-30-2008, 08:48 AM

It appears that many of these scientists et al who harp n about global warming are the very one's who receive government subsidies and they would not dare go against the flow. Global warming aka climate change IS NOT caused by co2 emissions, but by changes in that big ball of fire 90 millions miles away.

Climate change has always taken plac as long as this earth was around and it will continue to do so long after w are all gone as well, if that be the case.

The Global warming religion which has sprouted wings is simply another government intervention in the affairs of mankind and the new world order march against society.

Many cientists have called for a human population cull down and if one had to look more closely at the new world order agenda, then it would be clearly seen.

Also, its another tax burden on us underlings while, the new world order rakes in the trillions. Its not about bush or blair or brown, but its about the people who walk in th shadows pulling the strings. The people who have no names and who really control the world affairs.

Yep that oddball group of environmentalists who want to wreck the economy throiugh global warming. I wonder iwwhere they get their unlimited money from to perpetrate this huge hoax which has involved corrupting ther majority of the worlds most reputable scientists who has staked their reputations and their very livlihoods to perpetrate this religion-myth. Perhaops the money comes directly from the Illuminati...yes, the same Illuminati who operates black helicopters. It couldn't be coming from the oil companies who love us all and have gone out on a limb to give us the trutth about climate change.

It's all a conspiracy I tell you.

n2ize

05-30-2008, 08:53 AM

Aerocol Crimes 1st Edition (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2815320198655156407)

The video is about what some call "chemtrails" and how they are different from the standard 'contrails'.

I'm posting it because since the time that chemtrails have first started to appear, I have heard figures from the govt. (I think) that say the sky has darkened 20% as a result of it. It's even said in textbooks that your kids may see in school for science that "it's good for you because it's a suncreen for the earth". ROFLMAO. And I'm kind of wondering if the 'powers that be' are going to pop up one of these days and claim that due to this darkening of the sky by 20%, they have caused this cooling of the earth for the past ten years and saved us all from certain death due to 'climate change'.

I thought Clifford E Carnicom and the chemtrails propaganda was debunked a decade ago. Guess not. In case you haven't heard they are water vapour. Yes, plain ol' water vapor, much like that which condenses frfom your breath on a cold day. Depending on atmospheric conditions, i.e. humidity, temperature, etc. contrails (vapour trails) behave differently. Sometimes they persist for very long time periods, sometimes they dissipate rapidly.I have been seeing the so called "abnormal chemtrails" all my life. It is just water vapour. Not some strange chemical being sprayed on the unsuspecting public or any other such bulderdash.

n2ize

05-30-2008, 09:33 AM

k4uug

05-30-2008, 12:07 PM

WELL SAID STAN ! :cool:

The SAME Scientists that are predicting ON MODELS in a lab that we are going to burn... said this in 1974!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1663607/posts

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/19/nasa-scientists-predicted-new-ice-age-1971

These are only 2 of MANY major magazines and scientists that were all convinced that there was a coming ice age in 50 years or so...

These are pretty much the same identical scientists and magazines that now are saying we are going to burn...

I remember the TV and all the talking heads on TV were absolutely convinced of this 34 years ago! Do you who put your faith in the scientists not recognize the fact that this is a huge money-making machine at work! If you do not have killer asteroids, holes in the ozone layer (that HAS been proven to be a completely normal cycle over long periods of time) that they do NOT get funded by YOUR money and MINE!

I put my faith in one greater... the Master of The Universe, and he has promised that there will always be a time of planting and a time of harvest, that the setting of the sun and the moon is in HIS control... Look at man's science how it has changed in just a few short decades. Look back at science books just 75 or so years ago... they read like comic books! modern day scientists have just discovered this past century or so about ocean currents, the need for sterile instruments and quarters in medicine, and these are just a couple of examples. The BIBLE speaks of the currents in the ocean more than 2,500 years ago in the old testament. It speaks of sterilization of bandages, and other things in medicine about the same time period. Science a couple hundred or so years back speaks of the sun revolving around our planet Earth... which was FLAT... The BIBLE in the earliest books speak of the earth as a sphere suspended in the heavens...

Anyway... I think you get the point...
just my 2 cents worth...
stanton, ke4pkb

K3XR

05-30-2008, 12:46 PM

Where's the nuke power??

http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=ZGI0MDdiZDQ3MGI1ZGYzNWZkZTcwZWM5YzI2MWI5N2U=

W4HAY

05-30-2008, 03:28 PM

I'm not a global warming believer. I'm not a global warming denier. I'm a global warming agnostic who believes instinctively that it can't be very good to pump lots of CO2 into the atmosphere, but is equally convinced that those who presume to know exactly where that leads are talking through their hats.

*****
"The largest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity," warns Czech President Vaclav Klaus, "is no longer socialism. It is, instead, the ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous ideology of environmentalism."

If you doubt the arrogance, you haven't seen that Newsweek cover story that declared the global warming debate over.

*****
For a century, an ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous knowledge class — social planners, scientists, intellectuals, experts and their left-wing political allies — arrogated to themselves the right to rule either in the name of the oppressed working class (communism) or, in its more benign form, by virtue of their superior expertise in achieving the highest social progress by means of state planning (socialism).

Two decades ago, however, socialism and communism died rudely, then were buried forever by the empirical demonstration of the superiority of market capitalism everywhere from Thatcher's England to Deng's China, where just the partial abolition of socialism lifted more people out of poverty more rapidly than ever in human history.

Just as the ash heap of history beckoned, the intellectual left was handed the ultimate salvation: environmentalism...

Climate Debate Rejects Science For Ideology
(http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=296947976276971)

n2ize

05-30-2008, 07:01 PM

Climate Debate Rejects Science For Ideology
(http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=296947976276971)

I'm not a global warming believer. I'm not a global warming denier. I'm a global warming agnostic who believes instinctively that it can't be very good to pump lots of CO2 into the atmosphere, but is equally convinced that those who presume to know exactly where that leads are talking through their hats.
No scientist claims to know exactly why the climate is warming. Nor does any single piece of data act as "proof" of why the climate is warming. Rather a large aggregate of data collected and analyzed indicates an important man made component at hand. In essence science says there is a rather extreme high probability that man made CO2 lies at the heart of recent changes.

"The largest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity," warns Czech President Vaclav Klaus, "is no longer socialism. It is, instead, the ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous ideology of environmentalism."

If you doubt the arrogance, you haven't seen that Newsweek cover story that declared the global warming debate over.
It is "over" in a relative sense. Of course researchers will continue to search for further answers. But until present day climate theory is falsified the debate at to whether or not man made pollution is a factor has been pretty much taken a nap.

For a century, an ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous knowledge class — social planners, scientists, intellectuals, experts and their left-wing political allies — arrogated to themselves the right to rule either in the name of the oppressed working class (communism) or, in its more benign form, by virtue of their superior expertise in achieving the highest social progress by means of state planning (socialism).
And he fails to mention that many intellectuals have also argued against communism as a formal system of government. And even among those who did espouse virtues of socialism and communism they were not necessarily advocating it in the manner it was adopted in the Soviet Union or China. As far as socialism it was widely adopted, both here in the USA and throughout the world and it still goes strong. Many, and in particular, Americas middle class has greatly benefited from it.

Two decades ago, however, socialism and communism died rudely, then were buried forever by the empirical demonstration of the superiority of market capitalism everywhere from Thatcher's England to Deng's China, where just the partial abolition of socialism lifted more people out of poverty more rapidly than ever in human history.
Actually both thrive throughout the world. Cuba is still a communist nation. Countries like Venezuela have swung more and more close and deeper into socialism.

Just as the ash heap of history beckoned, the intellectual left was handed the ultimate salvation: environmentalism... Which we have also benefited from. Cleaner air, cleaner water and a better future for generations to come. When the environment dies we die, plain and simple. Protecting our environment from our own destructive hand should be a first priority, unless we are suicidal.

KB5FVS

05-30-2008, 08:21 PM

I thought Clifford E Carnicom and the chemtrails propaganda was debunked a decade ago. Guess not. In case you haven't heard they are water vapour. Yes, plain ol' water vapor, much like that which condenses frfom your breath on a cold day. Depending on atmospheric conditions, i.e. humidity, temperature, etc. contrails (vapour trails) behave differently. Sometimes they persist for very long time periods, sometimes they dissipate rapidly.I have been seeing the so called "abnormal chemtrails" all my life. It is just water vapour. Not some strange chemical being sprayed on the unsuspecting public or any other such bulderdash.

it's kind of hard to debunk the govt's own information about it, so don't try to build a strawman and then knock him down- we are talking about the govts info, not an individual. So don't I hope that's not what you are trying.

And though I am not a meteorologist nor have any degree in weather... the last twenty years was spent in the military, with most of the locations I was stationed at being airports where the military shared the runways. I had enoough occasions to be looking up at the sky and see the difference. The same difference you'll see after you do enough looking around at chemtrails and contrails where alot of the research has already been done for you with comparisons.

I think if you'll research far enough, you'll find that now there are additives being added to jet fuel, there doesn't always have to be anything specifically sprayed... if it comes out of the exhaust of the aircraft.

I know you believe what you are saying- but I just think you haven't looked far enough.

Go to youtube and search on chemtrails and you'll find a few instances of where different news stations had some of the stuff that fell from the sky analyzed and I think some of it has even come back with barium salts and other nasty stuff in it. Lots of stuff that's bad for humans.

Heck, you could save yourself alot of researching that's already been done for you. Instead of paying attention as alot of folks
do to the 'claims' that someone has been debunked, therefore you should not listen to and examine for yourself and use your
critical thinking skills- ignore the so called debunkers and look at the evidence for yourself. Much of what you dismiss without even looking at because someone else claims to have 'debunked' it... you'll find that they were simply taking bits and pieces
out of context and then make jokes and try to discredit the messenger, and therefore the vast majority of the public doesn't
look beyond that to find out that the info really wasn't debunked- but instead they just are so conditioned to go on someone else's claim of debunking that they just follow the other sheep off in another direction without checking out the details for themselves instead of listening the the folks who built and tore down the strawman.

And besides me even trying to get you to do more research- it's in the textbooks, which kind of makes the fact that you think chemtrails have been debunked- kind of a moot point- they have been admitted. You can rest assured if they are just talking
about the possibility of doing it here in the textbook, that they wouldn't be talking about it if they didn't already have plans to do it- and have actually been doing it, since 1999 I think it is.

http://www.willthomas.net/chemtrails/Articles/Chemtrails_In_US_Schools.htm

http://www.willthomas.net/images/Centerpoint_Science1.jpg

A is for Apple.

B is for Boy.

C is for Chemtrails.

At least this is what one American father found while paging through his child's science book. SmT was astonished to find seventh graders being taught about chemtrails. And geoengineeering their home planet.

Anyone with question about the "spray programs" he now says, "should perhaps just ask their kids."

The chemtrails section is found in the Centre Point Learning Science I Essential Interactions science book. Under "Solutions for Global Warming", section 5.19 features a photo of a big multi-engine jet sporting a familiar orange/red paint scheme.

The caption reads: "Figure 1- Jet engines running on richer fuel would add particles to the atmosphere to create a sunscreen".

The logo on the plane says: "Particle Air".

"I kid you not," SmT insists. "Why did I spend all of that time doing research when I could have just asked my kids?"

Helping habituate children to a life under lethal sunshine and "protective" spray planes, this trippy textbook urges young readers to "Use Sun Block". But its authors are referring to a sunscreen spread across the sky.

"Could we deliberately add particles to the atmosphere?" asks the text, before helpfully suggesting that "Burning coal adds soot to the air."

You might be old enough to recoil at such a notion. But in a country where down is up and wrong is right, your kids could be learning that what used to be bad and a bummer is a now good thing!

RUNNING ON EMPTY
"Be real interesting to see the politics of the folks putting this out." SmT suggests.

In the current White House, those politics are as "crude" as invading oil-rich Iraq over a bogus nuclear threat - while permitting Pakistan to export atom bomb materials to terrorist organizations in return for the chance at an election-boosting capture of Osama bin Laden by US forces in the Hindu Kush later this month. [New Yorker Mar1/04]

Why shouldn't the same petrol politics produce textbooks for children inheriting a nightmare? Led by a piggish petroleum president, with most major nations cutting back, US oil consumption is rising as steeply as supplies of cheap crude are collapsing.

The coal connection is this: In order to briefly "stretch the glide" of the fast-looming end of cheap oil that will utterly transform life as we know it, America's unelected oil president recently revoked pollution regulations on more than 2,000 of the nation's biggest polluting coal-fired power plants.

Ironically, this move - like so many others made by an oil-addled White House - will only hasten an Earthwreck as shattering to all onboard as a lurching square-rigger striking a rocky reef. Except our spaceship is surrounded by the cold, irradiated vacuum of deep space.

It turns out that a single 150-megawatt coal-burning power plant produces more emissions than 300,000 cars. Termed an "Extreme Human health Hazard" by the EPA, microscopic coal particles also rot lungs, stop hearts, kill lakes, choke cities - and stunt the lives of school kids with deadly sulphuric acid rain. [AP Aug27/03; LA Times Aug28/03]

Airborne soot also blocks sunlight, lowering greenhouse temperatures. Volcanic eruptions like Krakatoa and Pinatubo - and globe-circling soot from 1,000 burning oil wells during Desert Storm - belched enough sulphur into the stratosphere to cause a plunge in world temperatures, temporarily slowing global warming.

World scientists looking at deliberately putting megatons more sulphur into a closed, recirculating atmosphere already smoggy enough to depresses orbiting astronauts, decided that a sulphur sunscreen is not a swift idea.

But not this Jr. High science text. "Creating either kind of sunscreen would be cheap," it tells young readers. As if "cheap" is the only consideration.

Even this claim is bogus. SmT says he looked, but the section on the downstream costs associated with the health and environmental effects of massive coal pollution - or the 10 million tons of a chemical sunscreen suggested by the late Edward Teller - "seemed to have been left out."

Ditto "the cost to the solar industry". Or cumulative impacts on kids, critters and plants on which our future depends.

DIMMING PROSPECTS
Sunlight is already on the way out. Repeatedly expressing shock at how quickly our space colony's life-support systems are failing, scientists are finding levels of solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface decreasing by almost 3% a decade.

"Global Dimming" is too small to detect with the eye. "But it has implications for everything from climate change to solar power and even the future sustainability of plant photosynthesis," reports the Guardian.

All those jet-propelled vacations and car trips to the corner store add up. Since 1960, 10% less sunlight has reached Earth's inhabitants. Levels of solar radiation reaching parts of the former coal-belching Soviet Union are down almost 20%.

In any greenhouse, the rule of a green thumb is that every 1% decrease in solar radiation results in a 1% drop in plant productivity.

"It's actually quite a big deal,” says Graham Farquhar, a climate scientist at the Australian National University in Canberra. But get this: Farquhar doesn't think that identified pollutants, "by themselves would be able to produce this amount of global dimming." [Guardian Dec18/03]

The baffled Aussie should check out the role of contrails in turning off sunlight. Since the Jet Age took off in the 1960s, normal condensation trails from five million jet flights every year have been found to block 10% of sunlight across Europe and the USA. Over heavily trafficked Atlantic and American air-routes, artificial cloud cover caused by jet engine pollutants has increased 20%. [Chemtrails Confirmed '04]

Chemtrails are another major sunblock. Measurements taken with a calibrated photometer by Clifford Carnicom in Santa Fe show a rapid reduction in sunlight - from a value of 97% on a “clear day” to around 80% during the early stages of heavy chemtrailing. Using a simple UV radiation meter, this reporter has confirmed similar drops in sunlight beneath artificial "chemcasts" on Canada's west coast.

WHAT JANE AND DICK DIDN'T LEARN IN SCHOOL TODAY
In a country whose self-appointed regime routinely censors scientific studies, at least some 7th grade science are more focused on indoctrinating kids with risky techno "quick-fixes" than conscious conservation and common sense.

Forget science. SmT gazed in disbelief at another schoolbook picture showing a helicopter seeding the ocean with iron particles. These desperate "IronX" experiments did indeed trigger plankton "blooms" that, in turn, transferred tons of atmospheric C02 underwater as those carbon-inhaling critters eventually died and sank to the seafloor.

But – oops! – his kid's science book fails to mention that the resulting ocean blooms also sucked all available oxygen from the seawater, suffocating all marine life in massive, spreading "dead zones". [Chemtrails Confirmed '04]

Where are the picture, SmT wonders, "of people planting trees, or turning down thermostats, or bicycling, or any of the other ways not to add to the problem?"

Though his family gave up the idea of home schooling, he says, "it's perhaps time to reconsider."

Perhaps it's also time to reconsider state-sponsored brainwashing. And other escalating consequences of our carbon addiction, as well.

Spend some time if you have it and research things about passive and non passive aerosol spraying experiments done by universities (which would be of course govt funded)... it's been done over the whole state of Oklahoma and I believe there were many deaths from it. I 'think' that it had to do with a virus that can affect pregnant ladies and cause spontaneous abortions... but I am not sure if that was the specific one done over Oklahoma.

Look up Project Cloverleaf.

Also, here's a link to start reading. But, there is literally tons of info out there. If you just start searching you can't
miss it. You'll be tripping over it. http://www.greatdreams.com/chems.htm

When you start putting nano particles of things like glass beads, barium or who knows what else into the air and spraying
it over a population without their consent, what would you call that? I don't know, but I believe I've read in PDD 51 (presidential directive) that the president has given himself the power to do this...who knows what's in the portion that he will not allow even the highest security clearance people in Congress to see. We do know that it has to do with the President giving control of the continuity of government over to the U.N. as opposed to the way most folks have traditionally been taught that it should work.

But, that's getting a little off the topic of global warming.

Now, if you have noticed, much of the time the govt will tell you they are going to start doing something AFTER they have already started doing it. Case in point- all of the communications in the U.S. or a significant portion of them going thru the special room at AT&T in um, was it California? Then, the bill that Bush wanted Congress to pass and he said he wouldn't go on vacation but would stay behind because he would veto it if it didn't include the provisions to RETROACTIVELY shield all the Telecoms from prosecution that might arise? Am I remembering that correctly?

James

N4VGB

05-30-2008, 11:02 PM

Personally I like the "doughnuts on a rope" contrails left by the new pulse jet technology. They're cute! :)

n2ize

05-30-2008, 11:04 PM

it's kind of hard to debunk the govt's own information about it, so don't try to build a strawman and then knock him down- we are talking about the govts info, not an individual. So don't I hope that's not what you are trying.

And though I am not a meteorologist nor have any degree in weather... the last twenty years was spent in the military, with most of the locations I was stationed at being airports where the military shared the runways. I had enoough occasions to be looking up at the sky and see the difference. The same difference you'll see after you do enough looking around at chemtrails and contrails where alot of the research has already been done for you with comparisons.

I have looked at the so called "research" and the comparisons between "normal contrails" and the ominous "chemtrails" and I have concluded that the "chemtrails" are nothing more than normal contrails. The same exact contrails that I have been seeing since I was a little kid growing up near Idlewild and Laguardia airports.

The reality is that depending on atmospheric conditions contails may do one of two things. They may dissapear rather quickly or they may hang around for a while, sometimes a long while and sometimes a very very long while. Rgey are water vapor... most commonly in the form of suspended ice crystals.

Think about why a contrail might persist for long periods of time. Perhaps it's for the same reasons that clouds form and persist for long periods of time. When the air at a given temperature is saturated it tiny particles of ice will remain suspended.

Look at the sky on any day when cirrus clouds are present and persistant.. More than likely if you see a plane leaving a contrail at the same altitude it will be a persistyant contrail that will remain long after the plane has vanished.

If the government were initiating a secret spy program to drug the American people with strange chemicals from the sky or to stop global warming or what ever other insidious plot the chemtrails conspirists assume it is all about , it would be a lot easier and cheaper and far less conspicuous to do it in ways other than sending up thousands upon thousands of planes in broad daylight to spray chemicals on an unsuspecting population from 30,000 feet up in the air.

No, I don't believe the government is honest, and no I don;t trust everything the government does. But the chemtrails conspiracy, sorry, I am not buying it. It's nothing but a load of bulderdash as far as I am concerned. The manner in which the so called chemtrails behave can be easilly explained by normal science.

Oh, and don;t say I didn;t give the chemtrails phenomenon a chance. I read Carnicom's writing in depth and I gave it and the evidence careful consideration and I concluded that chemtrails are nothing more than normal contrails. I have nothing against Carnicom or those who agree with him. As far as I am concerned they are dead wrong.

Math lesson for today

chemtrails = "normal contrails"

class dismissed.

KC9IUX

05-31-2008, 02:41 AM

IZE, were you a 60's-70's Hippie?

n2ize

05-31-2008, 03:46 AM

IZE, were you a 60's-70's Hippie?

I don't know... :D:D Actually yes, to a degree I guess you could say so. I did identify with that genre in and around the years you mention, and well beyond...

KC9IUX

05-31-2008, 04:08 AM

I only asked because the Hippies I have known were very suspisous of the status quo, in this instance, the so called "consensus".

n2ize

05-31-2008, 07:03 AM

I only asked because the Hippies I have known were very suspisous of the status quo, in this instance, the so called "consensus".

I guess you could say I'm suspicious of the status quo... but that stems more from a sense of individualism. If the crowd is walking off a cliff I am not going to follow them. If the crowd I'm with starts looking up at the sky and calling on the mother ship to beam them aboard rest assured, I'm gonna be walking away fromn that crowd as fast as I can get.

In the case of concensus it depends on what the consensus is about.

In the case of scientific concensus over climate change I agree with the concensus. From the reading I have done and from my investigation of the science done I feel it is pretty sound science and I place good faith in that science.

In the case of "chemtrails" I disagree. First there is no concensus, there is very little, if any, science involved, just speculation and conspiracy theory. Every claim that I have heard of with regards to the chemtrails can be explained via normal contrails and some relatively basic science.

wa6ccw

06-03-2008, 03:08 AM

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IMAGES/cartoons/toon060308.gif

W8NSI

06-03-2008, 08:48 PM

I am waiting for the "climate change" supporters to start claiming that carbon dioxide is the cause for the earth quakes and volcano eruptions too. Hmmm gotta toss in the sun spots and other things. Hey the sun warms the earth, not the other way around! Plus we are in the beginning stages of a global cool down cycle dontcha know!

:rolleyes: Time to pass legislation outlawing increases in solar temperature. :rolleyes:

:rolleyes: Watch for them to pass tax increases every time the sun has a solar flare! :rolleyes:

We are in an "El Nino" year too!

Global warming, more accurately Climate Change, does not just mean it gets hotter, it means more extreme weather overall, or more variable weather.

Hotter summer, harsher winters, stronger storms.

Cooler here, warmer there (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier)

What is it and what are the affects (http://www.globalissues.org/EnvIssues/GlobalWarming/Intro.asp)

N5NPO

06-03-2008, 08:52 PM

n2ize

06-03-2008, 09:21 PM

I was watching a program on the History Channel or one of it's relatives this past weekend...
They were talking about the RECORD HEAT during one of the fierce battles of the Revoloutionary war against England. This was the battle of which Molley Pitcher was brought to fame.
HUH?!?!? Record heat in New England in the late 1700's???? How can this be??? SUV's on the battle field....
They also spoke of record cold and snowfall amounts in New Jersey in the late 1700's...
What gives?
Man made climate change?
I think not.

Weather
[1913 Webster]
1. The state of the air or atmosphere with respect to heat or
cold, wetness or dryness, calm or storm, clearness or
cloudiness, or any other meteorological phenomena;
meteorological condition of the atmosphere; as, warm
weather; cold weather; wet weather; dry weather, etc.
[1913 Webster]

climate
n 1: the weather in some location averaged over some long period
of time; "the dank climate of southern Wales"; "plants
from a cold clime travel best in winter" [syn: {clime}]

Comprende ? It's not that hard if you try.

KB5FVS

06-06-2008, 08:09 AM

Speaking of Consensus'

http://www.petitionproject.org/

K3XR

06-06-2008, 11:45 AM

45 trillion for a hoax??

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080606/ap_on_bi_ge/japan_iea_climate_change&printer=1;_ylt=Ak5eauaOglmgKFpu5Yf57B5v24cA

N4VGB

06-06-2008, 06:32 PM

45 trillion for a hoax??

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080606/ap_on_bi_ge/japan_iea_climate_change&printer=1;_ylt=Ak5eauaOglmgKFpu5Yf57B5v24cA

I'm sure the world will only need about $40 trillion to come from the U.S., the rest of the world will cover the tip!!! :D:D:D

W5JO

06-06-2008, 11:40 PM

I'm sure the world will only need about $40 trillion to come from the U.S., the rest of the world will cover the tip!!! :D:D:D

IZE can put up the money for the tip, it is right down his alley with a consensus of the rest of us.

KB5FVS

06-07-2008, 07:34 AM

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/29/carbon_rationing_no/

Are you ready for WW2-style energy rationing?

By Andrew Orlowski (andrew.orlowski@theregister.co.uk)
Published Thursday 29th May 2008 10:02 GMT

Analysis Environment Minister Hilary Benn again rebuffed calls this week for WW2-style energy rationing to return to the UK. He was responding to a Select Committee report urging ministers to issue 45 million Britons with an energy trading "credit card" - a mammoth techno-bureaucratic exercise costing several billions of pounds a year to operate.

What's interesting is how the normal parliamentary business was turned upside down.

Usually, it's ministers who propose batty and unworkable legislation, and fail to cost it, while select committees are supposed to scrutinize the proposals: picking apart the logic and bogus cost estimates. But in this case the select committee in question - the "Environmental Audit Committee" - is positively evangelical about a return to rationing. Perhaps not surprisingly, ministers are wary of committing electoral suicide, or at least, not in quite such an obvious fashion.

Benn said his department DEFRA had made its own enquiry, which unlike the watchdog's investigation, included costs. A rationing scheme would cost between £700m and £2bn to set up, he said, and between £1bn and £2bn a year to operate he said.

"In essence it is ahead of its time," the minister said Tuesday. "The cost of implementing it would be quite high and there are a lot of practical problems to be overcome." Front bench Tories are equally wary.

So what are the MPs proposing?

The ration, or "personal carbon allowance" or PCA, is a measure of an individual's energy usage, either at home or traveling. Such usage is capped, and "further emissions rights will simply not be available," the Committee says. You may choose between a holiday, and turning on the heating. Points win prizes, however, and frugal individuals would be rewarded financially from the creation of an internal market.

"We could not find or imagine analogues in other fields of human activity for individual carbon trading beyond rationing during and after World War 2," the authors of the DEFRA-commissioned report "A Rough Guide to Individual Carbon Trading" wrote in 2006.

The Committee, chaired by Tim Yeo MP, lauds the potential for "engagement", which will "increase awareness" of energy consumption - what the Tyndall Centre calls "carbon consciousness" - which in turn would "spearhead behavioural change". According to the MPs, "awareness is crucial if behaviours are to change."

The committee called for "a shift in the debate away from ever-deeper and more detailed consideration of how personal carbon trading could operate towards the more decisive questions of how it could be made publicly and politically acceptable."

In other words, the MPs want to end the debate about whether or not it's a desirable option, and start marketing it as the only option.

(That's what you pay your taxes for, folks).

Ominously, the Committee declares that "further work on the operational details of schemes adds little value to the main debate", and that is future depends on persuading us of the necessity. So, translated: the scheme may be unworkable, but if it's "marketable", then it should go ahead anyway.

This will undoubtedly quicken the pulse of IT vendors, who see the mother-of-all IT contracts in the proposal. Rationing will make ID Cards look like a closed beta test.

The problems begin to stack up, however.

Firstly, there's double counting. The EU's ETS scheme aspires to do same thing. It already covers half of the UK's fossil fuel energy consumption, and domestic electricity use and aviation will soon be added to ETS.

Which means UK citizens will be paying for their energy using three currencies - a "real" one (sterling) and two "virtual" ones, one operated by the EU (ETS), the other by the state (PCA). It's a bureaucrat's paradise - but this doesn't dampen the Committee's enthusiasm. The more schemes, the merrier - lest anyone be left in the dark, unlit by the bright light of "awareness". As the committee puts it, -

"The fact that there would be double counting in some parts of the carbon chain is not in dispute". However: "Double counting would not reduce the effectiveness of personal carbon trading or detract from the other advantages of the whole concept."

Rationing, it seems, is invincible.

Secondly, and this is ducked completely, a market requires willing buyers and sellers. But if further emission rights are not available, as the rationers insist, then the market only has sellers. So, who's the buyer? Will the state step in and reward eco-virtue? If so, it can do so much more cheaply by issuing rebates rather than it can by creating a spurious market, with the billions of pounds of administrative expenses that go with maintaining the fiction.

Then there's public transport. Should individuals be penalized for long commutes, when the energy emissions are not significant (and the bus or train would run anyway)? Perhaps, the MPs say, but their focus is on marketing rather than justifying the proposal.

"It is important that the public are not faced with a mixed signal," they say.

"Although the surrender of allowances for public transport would be minimal in comparison to the purchase of road fuels, a public transport system that was entirely exempt from personal carbon allowances would provide a far clearer incentive for individuals to leave their cars at home."

And most importantly, the rationing evangelists admit, is that the public doesn't want it.

The past few weeks have seen a deep backlash against "green" taxes, with this week's fuel protest the most visible manifestation.

"A period of significant recession would dampen enthusiasm for most environmental measures, and that personal carbon trading would not be exempt from this trend," they concede.

However prettily the MPs would like to dress up rationing, it's fundamentally a form of social coercion designed to make people less comfortable than they were before. Wartime rationing needs a war-sized scare, and with the climate stubbornly refusing to conform to the computer models (which predict catastrophe) that looks like an impossible prospect. ®

n2ize

06-07-2008, 08:08 AM

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/29/carbon_rationing_no/

Actually the computer models have been quite accurate. Carbon credits are bogus. It's merely a politicians way of making himself look like he's doing something when he's doing nothing at all.

N1LAF

06-07-2008, 12:03 PM

Actually the computer models have been quite accurate. Carbon credits are bogus. It's merely a politicians way of making himself look like he's doing something when he's doing nothing at all.

Soooo.... What does the computer models say the next hurricane will form, to the nearest day, please...

Also, when should we start seeing sunspots again?

N1LAF

06-07-2008, 12:06 PM

Not true at all. Many magazines in the 1970's did not predict a coming ice age. Only a few did. And true scientific journals even said less about it. There was no scientific concensus regarding global cooling either.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

There had to be a significant number who do to make it to the newspapers

N1LAF

06-07-2008, 12:07 PM

College degrees mean nothing, Al Gore failed at attaining all three of the degrees he attempted to achieve. :eek:

College does mean something, what one does with what they learned in college is another story

NL7W

06-07-2008, 12:10 PM

Soooo.... What does the computer models say the next hurricane will form, to the nearest day, please...

Also, when should we start seeing sunspots again?

Heck, I want to know when the next record high temperature day will be for Anchorage.

Could I at least have that? :cool:

n2ize

06-07-2008, 02:13 PM

Soooo.... What does the computer models say the next hurricane will form, to the nearest day, please...

I don't know because we're talking about two different things. Predicting weather versus predicting climate change. Neither is nessesarilly easy to predict however weather is far more spontaneous thus harder to predict than climate which is averaged over long time periods.

n2ize

06-07-2008, 02:18 PM

There had to be a significant number who do to make it to the newspapers

Not a very significant number. And nowhere near the numbers researching global warming today. Most of global cooling's exposure came via a Time magazine article and a National Geographic special.

N5NPO

06-07-2008, 04:04 PM

Not a very significant number. And nowhere near the numbers researching global warming today. Most of global cooling's exposure came via a Time magazine article and a National Geographic special.

How many were predicting Global Warming when Time and NG were talking about Global Cooling?

n2ize

06-07-2008, 04:59 PM

How many were predicting Global Warming when Time and NG were talking about Global Cooling?

About 219.

N5NPO

06-07-2008, 08:53 PM

About 219.

Do tell... Where was that (global warming) covered? Why did Time and NG cover the wrong naysayers? Roll of the dice?

W5JO

06-07-2008, 11:52 PM

Not a very significant number. And nowhere near the numbers researching global warming today. Most of global cooling's exposure came via a Time magazine article and a National Geographic special.

Do you forget the network coverage, or were you too yourng to turn on the TV by yourself?

N5NPO

06-07-2008, 11:56 PM

Do you forget the network coverage, or were you too yourng to turn on the TV by yourself?

I remember the news people who are always nice and accurate talking about the new coming ice age, back in the winter of 1975/1976 as best I can recall. I belive I was in the 4th grade back then. Wow.. Boston's "More Than A Feeling" was a popular song on the radio back then along with Wild Cherry's "Play That Funky Music"...
Memories...

W5JO

06-08-2008, 12:42 AM

I belive I was in the 4th grade back then. Wow.. Boston's "More Than A Feeling" was a popular song on the radio back then along with Wild Cherry's "Play That Funky Music"...
Memories...

If you like that kind of music, look up Ivory Joe Hunter and a few of his friends.

N5NPO

06-08-2008, 02:55 AM

If you like that kind of music, look up Ivory Joe Hunter and a few of his friends.

Not exactly, I just kind of associate music with memories and things that were happening in my life at that time.
I still like Boston (the band, the town is a bit of a different story), but Wild Cherry was not really my bag. They were just popular back during the "Coming of The New Ice Age" scare at that time.

K3XR

06-09-2008, 12:48 PM

This will warm your heart......

http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/congress_fiddled_with_warming.html

K3XR

06-10-2008, 12:11 AM

Go ahead DEMS, make my day, ruin the economy....

http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB121296591703855687.html

KB5FVS

06-10-2008, 03:45 AM

Paul Joseph Watson On The Origins Of Global Warming
Paul Joseph Watson joins Alex to Jones to discuss the origins of global warming, current propaganda about reducing carbon emissions to zero, and how the elite and the Club of Rome (http://www.clubofrome.org/) decided to manufacture and exploit climate change fearmongering as far back as 1991.

http://www.mediafire.com/?zspyaz19dfx Starts about ten minutes in. Total length of mp3 is just over 50min.

n2ize

06-10-2008, 03:58 AM

Same ol' same old... Zzzzzzzzz

w2amr

06-10-2008, 08:47 AM

http://media3.dropshots.com/photos/88780/20080609/b_151440.jpg

W5JO

06-10-2008, 01:53 PM

http://media3.dropshots.com/photos/88780/20080609/b_151440.jpg

I see in your country all the books are either coloring books or cartoons.

n2ize

06-10-2008, 02:33 PM

http://media3.dropshots.com/photos/88780/20080609/b_151440.jpg

The only problem is the other five had the redeeming quality of being quite funny and talented comedians. Unfortunately Linko didn't quite make the grade. :(:(

n2ize

06-10-2008, 02:34 PM

I see in your country all the books are either coloring books or cartoons.

Problem is that he lives in the same country that you do. It's called the USA. So you just chopped on the intelligence of the USA.

w2amr

06-10-2008, 04:20 PM

The only problem is the other five had the redeeming quality of being quite funny and talented comedians. Unfortunately Linko didn't quite make the grade. :(:(
I don't agree, I think he's a hoot :D

K3XR

06-11-2008, 02:24 AM

Yes, indeed, "the new communism.....

http://www.aim.org/aim-report/print/the-new-communism/

W4HAY

06-11-2008, 12:43 PM

Polar Bears! (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/strips/mallard/2000/MFT20080607.jpg)

K3XR

06-20-2008, 01:42 PM

Media Malpractice.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.aspx?GUID=E00C79B6-D74D-4A40-BE49-7BAC69E7F972

W4HAY

07-02-2008, 02:23 PM

Last week marked the 20th anniversary of the mass hysteria phenomenon known as global warming. Much of the science has since been discredited. Now it's time for political scientists, theologians and psychiatrists to weigh in...

...NASA now begrudgingly confirms that the hottest year on record in the continental 48 was not 1998, as previously believed, but 1934, and that six of the 10 hottest years since 1880 antedate 1954...

...If even slight global cooling remains evidence of global warming, what isn't evidence of global warming? What we have here is a nonfalsifiable hypothesis, logically indistinguishable from claims for the existence of God. This doesn't mean God doesn't exist, or that global warming isn't happening. It does mean it isn't science...

...In "The Varieties of Religious Experience," William James distinguishes between healthy, life-affirming religion and the monastically inclined, "morbid-minded" religion of the sick-souled. Global warming is sick-souled religion.

Global Warming as Mass Neurosis (http://online.wsj.com/article/global_view.html)

W4HAY

07-02-2008, 02:33 PM

In the late 19th century, William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer developed what would come to be known as yellow journalism. By disregarding what had been standard journalistic methods, particularly in regards to the verifying of sources, these two publishers were able both to push their country toward war with Spain and dramatically increase the circulation of their respective newspapers...

...Scientists, like journalists, are called upon to plumb the depths of the unknown and to fairly and objectively report their findings to their own professional community as well as the general public...

...Nevertheless, over the past several decades an increasing number of scientists have shed the restraints imposed by the scientific method and begun to proclaim the truth of man-made global warming...

...Just as it is far easier to publish stories without verifying the sources; so is it much more convenient to practice yellow science than the real thing. It takes far more courage, perseverance, and perspiration to develop formulas, make predictions, and risk being proved wrong than to look at historical data and muse about observed similarities. Yellow scientists have fled the risks of science that Albert Einstein described when he said, "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right, a single experiment can prove me wrong."..

...The long-term results of yellow journalism have probably been more devastating than the war it started. Journalists have lost the respectability of their profession, and the public has lost real journalism. We are in very real danger, as scientists and as a nation, of losing the respectability of a professional community that has done so much to make this country great in the past hundred years. If yellow science overcomes real science it will not only be on account of the greed, ambition, and cowardice of our scientists but also the sloth and cowardice of a public that is unwilling to stand up and demand professionalism. This is why, as the editors of the New York Press said in 1897, I "called them yellow because they are yellow."

Yellow Science (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121433436381900681.html?mod=opinion_journal_fede ration)

K7VV

07-02-2008, 10:06 PM

Knew I'd seen that somewhere before.......
Drove past the place a couple of years ago.
Locked up at that time.
No classrooms,
No student body,
Six faculty, of which two are listed as dead and two are the founders kids.
Not accredited as a school/college/university, and certainly not an Oregon University system member!
In short,
a fraud from top to bottom.

Bet they support ID too!

de K7VV,
Salem, Oregon

n4bfd

07-03-2008, 04:05 PM

Global Warming has us burning up here in NC this week...

http://www.wcnc.com/news/local/stories/wcnc-070208-krg-lowtemp.16b5d9d2.html

KV1M

07-03-2008, 04:10 PM

Yellow Science (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121433436381900681.html?mod=opinion_journal_fede ration)

Righto, serious journalism from Murdochs latest toy.
And an article claiming to debunk GW from a mechanical engineer no less.
Really? A mechanical engineer? Weren't any climatologists available? :rolleyes:

n2ize

07-03-2008, 04:56 PM

Yellow Science (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121433436381900681.html?mod=opinion_journal_fede ration)

evertheless, over the past several decades an increasing number of scientists have shed the restraints imposed by the scientific method and begun to proclaim the truth of man-made global warming. This is a hypothesis that remains untested, makes no predictions that can be tested in the near future, and cannot offer a numerical explanation for the limited evidence to which it clings. No equations have been shown to explain the relationship between fossil-fuel emission and global temperature. The only predictions that have been made are apocalyptic, so the hypothesis has to be accepted before it can be tested

Clearly written by a person who is not only unaware of climate research but clearly has absolutely no conceptualization about how science is done.

KI6DCB

07-03-2008, 05:07 PM

W4DFW

07-03-2008, 05:21 PM

Clearly written by a person who is not only unaware of climate research but clearly has absolutely no conceptualization about how science is done.

Have you ever stopped to consider just HOW MUCH your attitude is exactly like a Fundamentalist Christian, who is so sure of himself he ignores his hand in front of his face?

"Global Warming" has taken on the mantra of a religion amongst it's supporters who now have forgone logic, reason and sanity in their attempt to "convert" the non-believers.

It is becoming quite amusing!

KV1M

07-03-2008, 05:45 PM

I like the classic politician's answer exhibited in KU0DM's post, which is number two in this string, to wit:

"Global warming...does not...mean it gets hotter..."

I will confess to leaving out a few words in order to add clarity, but I made no changes which affect the meaning of the statement.

Politics is a funny business -- "That depends on what 'is' is..."

I like the classic denier response exhibited in your post.

Global warming does not mean it "gets hotter" as stated. It means there is a 2-6 degree Celsius increase in the global MEAN temperature. This causes varied and unpredictable climactic changes outside the normal variances.
You know, like heat waves and no rain in Virginia, overly large hurricanes in the gulf and lower than normal temperatures along with higher than average snow falls in the northern latitudes or as last year unseasonably cold weather with snow and ice in the US south.
Unpredictable and varied UNUSUAL weather, not "Dude, it was supposed to get hot here all the time".

I understand this is a dificult concept, but here in England even 1st form students are able to articulate it and explain what it means.

KV1M

07-03-2008, 05:46 PM

Have you ever stopped to consider just HOW MUCH your attitude is exactly like a Fundamentalist Christian, who is so sure of himself he ignores his hand in front of his face?

"Global Warming" has taken on the mantra of a religion amongst it's supporters who now have forgone logic, reason and sanity in their attempt to "convert" the non-believers.

It is becoming quite amusing!

And the senile speak...

n2ize

07-03-2008, 07:24 PM

Have you ever stopped to consider just HOW MUCH your attitude is exactly like a Fundamentalist Christian, who is so sure of himself he ignores his hand in front of his face?

You are a doctor right ? If someone wrote an article saying something that was patently false about medicine I think, as a professional, you'd be sure of yourself when you argue the person does not know what he is talking about.

Well, I am a professional too. I work in academic research, and I collaborate with scientists on a regular basis.. When someone makes a patently absurd claim about how science is done then I am going to say, with confidence, that they don't know what they are talking about. It has nothing to do with religion. It has everything to do with knowledge and many years of experience. Much the same as when you fall back on your professional experience as a doctor.

In this case I quoted a paragraph that clearly indicates the writer has a complete lack of understanding of the subject of climate research and science in general. I say that with confidence.

.

n2ize

07-03-2008, 07:32 PM

N9XR

07-03-2008, 08:00 PM

Actually by leaving out a few words you dramatically changed the meaning of his implication.

Sorry John. Simple minds have no avenue to take into complex thought. People like him get all of their climate change information from people like Al Gore and have no clue as to how to read dissertations of real scientists or understand how to read real data. So they make up for their shortcomings by showing their ignorance here and claiming stupidity by refusing to understand the science being discussed.

They are manipulated by Gore who really believes that using more power is the right thing to do. He is smart enough to use reverse psychology on them and make it successful. There is no way he would make any money at all like he is now without them playing into his hands and getting his friends making laws to help him get the right laws passed for alternative fuels.

These are not the droids you are looking for.

W4HAY