Global warming crowd takes a break

[DirkFTW]

[mcsluggo]

btw, I live in that one bright orange little spot... but this summer seemed fairly mild to me.

[FINtastic]

I don't believe I've worn a jacket more than once in the last seven or so months. It's so great, I don't know what these global warming people are complaining about. I'm not going to like it when the cold weather finally does roll in. I must say that I am a little surprised to see so many days ending up in the 70s and high 60s at this time of year.

[92bDad]

Global warming has turned into such a joke.

I got married November 17th 1990 and the ceremony was held outdoors by the Lake Ray Hubbard in Rowlett...temp that day was in the 80's. 18 years later, I haven't seen much change in the weather...other than ups/downs cycles of climate...but for the most part it's been steady.

About the only bad change is the extra 70 pounds of fat that I've added on over the years...I guess I'll have plenty of time to lose weight when I'm dead :-)

[dude1394]

This is rich...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m.../16/do1610.xml
So these are the guys we are supposed to believe and spend trillions of dollars in scare tactic ransom.

So one of the

A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore's chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.

This was startling. Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China's official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its "worst snowstorm ever". In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.
advertisement

So what explained the anomaly? GISS's computerised temperature maps seemed to show readings across a large part of Russia had been up to 10 degrees higher than normal. But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.

The error was so glaring that when it was reported on the two blogs - run by the US meteorologist Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre, the Canadian computer analyst who won fame for his expert debunking of the notorious "hockey stick" graph - GISS began hastily revising its figures. This only made the confusion worse because, to compensate for the lowered temperatures in Russia, GISS claimed to have discovered a new "hotspot" in the Arctic - in a month when satellite images were showing Arctic sea-ice recovering so fast from its summer melt that three weeks ago it was 30 per cent more extensive than at the same time last year.

A GISS spokesman lamely explained that the reason for the error in the Russian figures was that they were obtained from another body, and that GISS did not have resources to exercise proper quality control over the data it was supplied with. This is an astonishing admission: the figures published by Dr Hansen's institute are not only one of the four data sets that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) relies on to promote its case for global warming, but they are the most widely quoted, since they consistently show higher temperatures than the others.

[DirkFTW]

"In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis."
--Al Gore

[purplefrog]

Maybe we should all read this book:

http://us.macmillan.com/BookCustomPa...type=1#excerpt

[dude1394]

I don't know...I got friedman's mojo hanging.

I think I'll be quite satisfied with wiping al queda off the face of the earth. That's the mojo I'm interested in.

[purplefrog]

I heard Friedman give a talk last week about his new book and he made some interesting points regarding the "green revolution". His bottom line is that like it or not the world is going to move towards an economy built around environmentally friendly practices. He believes America has an opportunity to be the leader in the new economy and we need to take the bull by the horns and lead rather than sit on the sidelines and watch. He was upbeat and opportunistic rather than histrionic and alarmist (like someone else we know).

[dude1394]

If we can make money at it fine, if not, not interested.

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by dude1394

If we can make money at it fine, if not, not interested.

Link

The fear is that implementing policy based on global warming fears may further negatively impact the economy.

Climate change skeptics on Capitol Hill are quietly watching a growing accumulation of global cooling science and other findings that could signal that the science behind global warming may still be too shaky to warrant cap-and-trade legislation.
...
Armed with statistics from the Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climate Data Center, D’Aleo reported in the 2009 Old Farmer’s Almanac that the U.S. annual mean temperature has fluctuated for decades and has only risen 0.21 degrees since 1930 — which he says is caused by fluctuating solar activity levels and ocean temperatures, not carbon emissions.

Data from the same source shows that during five of the past seven decades, including this one, average U.S. temperatures have gone down. And the almanac predicted that the next year will see a period of cooling.
...
More than 31,000 scientists across the world have signed the Global Warming Petition Project, a declaration started by a group of American scientists that states man’s impact on climate change can’t be reasonably proven.
...
Republicans aren’t the only ones who are wary of hastily passing a greenhouse gas bill. Ten Democrats wrote to Senate leaders earlier this year, citing economic concerns as a key reason why they didn’t vote for the Senate’s cap-and-trade bill.

And despite Democrats’ pickups in the Senate this fall, several of the new Democrats are from conservative, energy-producing states and may not be supportive, either.

But congressional aides say it could be a long wait before lawmakers are comfortable pushing science that contradicts the global warming theory. And until the lobby gains traction, skeptics plan to continue pushing their ideas by arguing for protection of the economy, where they hope to meet middle ground with global warming supporters.

“Never underestimate the ability of Congress to offer nonsolutions to problems that do not exist,” said Marc Morano, communications director for the Republicans on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. “We could spend weeks arguing the mounting scientific evidence refuting man-made warming fears,” he added, “but it’s the economic arguments that have the most immediate impact.”

At the Cato Institute, senior fellow Patrick Michaels, a contributing author of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said most of Washington is already too deeply entrenched in the global warming mantra to turn back.

“You can’t expect the scientific community to now come to Washington and say this isn’t a problem. Once the apocalypse begins to deliver research dollars, you don’t want to reverse it,” said Michaels. “Washington works by lurching from crisis to crisis.”

Despite the growing science, the world’s leading crusader on climate change, Al Gore, is unconcerned.

“Climate deniers fall into the same camp as people who still don’t believe we landed on the moon,” said the former vice president’s spokeswoman, Kalee Kreider. “We don’t think this should distract us from the reality.”

[dude1394]

If anyone thinks coal is going anywhere but UP they are in a sever state of delusion. The numbers are staggering and pretty much insurmountable unless a very large scale nuclear plan in implemented. I'm doubtful even at that because of the abundance and the regulations nuclear would required.

Energy Tribune, 2 December 2008
http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=1039

By Robert Bryce

Last year, during an interview with Vaclav Smil, I asked the distinguished professor of geography at the University of Manitoba why there was such a paucity of informed discussion about energy issues. He replied "There has never been such a depth of scientific illiteracy and basic innumeracy as we see today."

That line comes to mind amid the continuing calls for phasing out coal in the U.S. In July, Al Gore, the former vice president and recent winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, declared that the U.S. should "commit to producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon-free sources within 10 years." In November, in an op-ed in the New York Times, Gore insisted that the U.S. must replace "dangerous and expensive carbon-based fuels with 21st-century technologies that use fuel that is free forever: the sun, the wind and the natural heat of the earth."

Gore's calls have been seconded by groups like the Sierra Club and Greenpeace as well as by the International Energy Agency. On November 25, the I.E.A.'s executive director, Nobuo Tanaka, said that "Preventing irreversible damage to the global climate ultimately requires a major decarbonisation of world energy sources."

While Tanaka, Gore, and others may agree on the need to phase out coal, the world is heading the other direction. On November 12, the I.E.A. released its World Energy Outlook, and the second page of the agency's briefing slides show that coal is gaining - not losing - market share.

Between 2000 and 2007, global coal use increased by 4.8 percent. That's three times the growth rate seen in oil consumption (which grew by 1.6 percent) and nearly twice the rate in natural gas use (which climbed by 2.6 percent.) Further, the I.E.A. expects that through 2030, about 60 percent of incremental energy demand in non-O.E.C.D. countries will be met with coal. (In the O.E.C.D., coal will likely provide less than 10 percent of incremental new demand over that same time period.)

None of this is to argue that coal is good or bad. Rather, it is to provide a bit of numeracy. If the U.S. and the rest of the world really want to replace coal with some other form of energy, then it is essential to understand the size of the challenge.

Let's look at the U.S., second only to China in terms of total coal consumption. In 2007, the U.S. used about 1.1 billion tons of coal.

That's the energy equivalent of about 4.2 billion barrels of oil per year or about 11.5 million barrels of oil per day. Here's the key comparison: America's daily coal ration contains more energy than Saudi Arabia's daily oil production.

Indeed, the scale of U.S. coal consumption boggles the mind. In 2007, the amount of energy America used in the form of coal exceeded the total energy consumption - from all sources, coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear - of all of the countries of Central and South America combined.

Just as important as the scale of America's coal consumption is this fact: U.S. coal use has increased faster in recent decades than has oil or natural gas consumption. Between 1973 and 2007, U.S. coal consumption jumped by 75.5 percent. During that same time period, U.S. oil consumption increased by 15.2 percent and natural gas consumption increased by just 5 percent.

Here's another comparison: On a daily basis, global coal consumption is equivalent to about 63.8 million barrels of oil. Thus, replacing the world's coal habit with something else will require finding an energy source (or sources) that can supplant the equivalent of six new Saudi Arabias.
Or consider China. On an average day, its coal use provides the energy equivalent of 26.3 million barrels of oil, or about two and a half Saudi Arabias.

By any measure, those are daunting numbers. U.S. and global policymakers may not like coal, but given the enormous scale of the coal business, it's obvious that the U.S. and the rest of the world will be relying on the black fuel for many years to come.

Robert Bryce's latest book is Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of "Energy Independence."

Copyright 2008, ET

[92bDad]

Imagine if you took all the time, energy, resources and any other thing spent on Global Warming...canceled all efforts regarding global warming and redistributed these efforts to other meaningful campaigns?

I can think of two...AIDS in Africa, Hunger in Africa. Imagine if Global Warming resources where all focused on these two issues, that impact the world, but have a huge % centralized in Africa.

How much could this world change if we were successful and made a positive impact in Africa?

I even think that you could see Silk and I working side by side to improve conditions in Africa...now that is peace we can believe in.

Take the next 20 years to improve Africa, then let's revisit this Global Warming thing...if it still is an issue, then we should have genuine proof over this 20 year period...if not, then se stay focused on more urgent matters that are time specific to now.

[dude1394]

Well dubya pretty much spent as much dollars on aids in africa that I can ever see spending (48billion it appears). But I'm not sure silk would give him credit.

Global warming is another nail in the coffin of trust in scientists I'm thinking...which is going to be very tough to overcome. Stem cells seems to be another one where they are letting their politics over-ride what works.

[mcsluggo]

Y'know dude, I get a VERY different take-away from that last statement than I think you intended, but still very illustrative.

In the right in this country it is becoming increasingly acceptable and expected to view scietntific discussions that disagree with their viewpoints as some sort of "scientist conspiracy" against their viewpoints. This is suicide for the GOP. Period. not to mention lunacy. The scientific method is a slow moving process... but frankly it is an AWESOMELY successful and powerful doctrine, and one of Western though's crowning achievemnts. It gets to the correct answer by bouncing down paths until they are demonstrated to be incorrect. That is the way it works. It sometimes takes awhile, but it works DAMN WELL... and FAR BETTER than any other process ever tried. The right CLAIMS that the process has been politicizied... but actually ACTIVELY ACTS to explicitly politicize the process. It is crazy, and that fact more than any other will drive away middle of the road Americans, by thinking the right is too loony.

[mcsluggo]

in the RECENT past, if you asked average joe blow which end of the spectrum (left or right) was more loony and out of tune, I think the vast majority would've said the left... citing some nut-job animal worshiping commie bastage tendency or another. Well... the right has manged to squander this and throw it away with both hands, and proudly claim the "loony mantle". Congratulations

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

In the right in this country it is becoming increasingly acceptable and expected to view scietntific discussions that disagree with their viewpoints as some sort of "scientist conspiracy" against their viewpoints. This is suicide for the GOP. Period. not to mention lunacy. The scientific method is a slow moving process... but frankly it is an AWESOMELY successful and powerful doctrine, and one of Western though's crowning achievemnts. It gets to the correct answer by bouncing down paths until they are demonstrated to be incorrect. That is the way it works. It sometimes takes awhile, but it works DAMN WELL... and FAR BETTER than any other process ever tried. The right CLAIMS that the process has been politicizied... but actually ACTIVELY ACTS to explicitly politicize the process. It is crazy, and that fact more than any other will drive away middle of the road Americans, by thinking the right is too loony.

I've been mulling this over for a few days, and then I ran across this article....

...well....

...long story short....

I think the loony right is right. Really, upon further reflection it's kind of absurd to think that science is not "politicized". Can you really imagine that "politics" a few hundred years ago didn't favor the scientist who thought the sun revolved around the earth? Would you like now to propose a prolonged scientific inquiry into whether blacks, as a race, are intellectually inferior to asians by virtue of genetics? How do you imagine such a proposal would be received in the scientific community? How about scientific examination of whether the old Jimmy the Greek theory about why black atheletes in the US are superior? Would you imagine that anyone studying such a question could do so in a political vacuum, without fear of recrimination?

I don't think so. Science is very much affected by social mores, and this influence influences results. Scientists are first and foremost human, and while the scientific process is indeed dandy, that isn't to say that science isn't susceptible to politicization. Recall that when the president of harvard or whereever said that the reason there are more males in science and engineering was because men are more likely to be uber-smart than women, the response from the scientific community was not to make a calm and reasoned inquiry into the validity of his (Larry Summers) comments, but instead to have him burnt at the stake for a committing a political thought crime.

So....The scientific process will indeed show the global warming phenomena to be a mirage (if that is objectivly true), but this will happen inspite of the scientific conspiracy to irritate rightwingers, not because there is no conspiracy in the first place.

....ok....maybe not so much a "conspiracy", but instead let's call it cultural conditioning and submission to peer pressure.

[dude1394]

You, me and whole lotta folks brotha'..

http://www.kurzweilai.net/news/frame...tml?id%3D10044

I'm a sceptic now, says ex-NASA climate boss

The Register, Jan. 28, 2009

Dr John Theon, the retired scientist formerly in charge of key NASA climate programs who supervised James Hansen -- the activist-scientist who helped give the manmade global warming hypothesis centre prominent media attention -- has come out as a skeptic about man-made global warming.

"My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit," he said. "Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it.

"They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy."

[wmbwinn]

Is this a run on sentence???

I warn this honorable House that any proposal to inflict billions of dollars of new taxation on all citizens by charging selectively-disfavored industries for arbitrarily-rationed permits to emit a harmless and beneficial trace gas that is necessary to all life on Earth and has little effect on its surface temperature will fall cruelly and disproportionately upon the poor, will threaten their very lives, will gravely diminish the liberty that is the glory of your great nation, will render difficult if not unlawful the pursuit of happiness, will raise little net revenue if the poor are adequately compensated by subsidy, will damagingly distort the labor market by widening and deepening the unemployment trap that already gives millions of your most helpless citizens a better income on welfare than in work, will imprison the poorest earners in a perpetual poverty trap by inflicting upon them a crippling marginal taxation and benefit-withdrawal rate that powerfully deters them from increasing their earnings,

will be complex, extravagant, and costly, will savagely compound the adverse effects of recession, of excessive public and private indebtedness, of fiscal incontinence, and of monetary laxity on industries and employment, will create soi-disant “green” jobs by the thousand while destroying real jobs by the million, will establish an unstable and artificial derivatives market in hot air that will enrich a handful of portly middle-men while impoverishing the people, will automatically and ineluctably defeat its own objective by so depressing economic activity that the “market” price of carbon dioxide will tend rapidly to fall as close to zero as it has done in both of Europe’s attempts at a cap-and-trade scheme, will directly encourage fraud by incentivizing not only both parties to every transaction but also the regulatory authorities recklessly to overstate the magnitude of that transaction, will set your enterprises at a profound competitive disadvantage against nations that steer wisely clear of purposeless restrictions on or taxation of the very air we breathe out, will accelerate the transfer of wealth from your citizens’ pockets to other nations’ governments by way of boondoggles such as the UN’s “Clean Development Mechanism”, and will appreciably increase global carbon-dioxide emissions by transferring US jobs and manufactures to less efficient nations whose emissions per unit of production are many times greater than your own, and by increasing poverty and consequently birth-rates and consequently carbon-dioxide emissions worldwide, thereby exerting at prodigious and tragic cost a double influence on the global climate that will be precisely the opposite of that which was, however piously, intended.”

-Nick Loris

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/23/...g-legislation/

[Flacolaco]

will render difficult if not unlawful the pursuit of happiness

I had 3 seizures before I managed to make it this far, but this little bit was especially perplexing.

[92bDad]

My cab driver yesterday was some "Global Warming Pawn"

He believes its coming, that its mans fault and as a result the Wine industry in France will collapse within 70 years...because he saw it on some media dramatization.

I kept my mouth shut and didn't debate him in the cab...he's driving, he's in control...I tried my best to divert the conversation to some non-emotional topic.

He blames all people...he brought up France and America as equally bringing down the world, the current economic crisis...but that America was so high on incomes that the fall in America is greater...

I was reminded why I talk politics on a board like this and do my best to keep it out of everyday conversations.

These left wing nuts would be rather amusing if they weren't so sad.

Needless to say, I was thankful that he got me and my family to the airport safely...even if it was a bit chilly outside :-)

[alexamenos]

Global warming -- somebody put all of the thermometers next to the stove.

Anthony Watts, author of the weblog Watts Up With That, has completed an outstanding, clearly written report that documents a major problem with the use of the United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN)to assess multi-decadal surface temperature trends. The report is

Watts, A. 2009: Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable? 28 pages, March 2009 The Heartland Institute.

The Executive Summary reads

“Global warming is one of the most serious issues of our times. Some experts claim the rise in temperature during the past century was “unprecedented” and proof that immediate action to reduce human greenhouse gas emissions must begin. Other experts say the warming was very modest and the case for action has yet to be made.

The reliability of data used to document temperature trends is of great importance in this debate. We can’t know for sure if global warming is a problem if we can’t trust the data.

The official record of temperatures in the continental United States comes from a network of 1,221 climate-monitoring stations overseen by the National Weather Service, a department of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Until now, no one had ever conducted a comprehensive review of the quality of the measurement environment of those stations.

During the past few years I recruited a team of more than 650 volunteers to visually inspect and photographically document more than 860 of these temperature stations. We were shocked by what we found.

We found stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering-hot rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat. We found 68 stations located at wastewater treatment plants, where the process of waste digestion causes temperatures to be higher than in surrounding areas.

In fact, we found that 89 percent of the stations – nearly 9 of every 10 – fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating/reflecting heat source.

In other words, 9 of every 10 stations are likely reporting higher or rising temperatures because they are badly sited.

It gets worse. We observed that changes in the technology of temperature stations over time also has caused them to report a false warming trend. We found major gaps in the data record that were filled in with data from nearby sites, a practice that propagates and compounds errors. We found that adjustments to the data by both NOAA and another government agency, NASA, cause recent temperatures to look even higher.

The conclusion is inescapable: The U.S. temperature record is unreliable.

The errors in the record exceed by a wide margin the purported rise in temperature of 0.7º C (about 1.2º F) during the twentieth century. Consequently, this record should not be cited as evidence of any trend in temperature that may have occurred across the U.S. during the past century. Since the U.S. record is thought to be “the best in the world,” it follows that the global database is likely similarly compromised and unreliable.

This report presents actual photos of more than 100 temperature stations in the U.S., many of them demonstrating vividly the siting issues we found to be rampant in the network. Photographs of all 865 stations that have been surveyed so far can be found at www.surfacestations.org, where station photos can be browsed by state or searched for by name.”

[u2sarajevo]

Hey... thanks for that information... could you provide a link? Or was this found somewhere on the surfacestation.org site?

[alexamenos]

linked above

[92bDad]

The Truth shall set you free

[Mavdog]

are you serious? do you actually believe that the ushcn is the only group monitoing the earth's temperature?

the answer is no. there are many other countries who measure, and the usa even uses space based satellite data to validate the numbers.

there is no debate that the average temperature is rising. absolutely none. it is a fact.

[alexamenos]

it feels to me like it's been getting cooler lately.

[alexamenos]

Anybody following the hacking of emails and stuff from the Climate Research Unit? Pretty funny stuff:

The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

The Scientific Method, according to the CRU:

1. Form hypothesis
2. Make predictions based upon hypothesis
3. Perform experiments to test hypothesis by comparing observable data to predictions
4. Blame the data and the experiment when it does not confirm to the theory

It's interesting to me how much of these guys (aka "scientists") spend not discussing whether rising levels of CO2 are causing increasing temperatures, but whether temperatures have increased in any real anomolous manner.

Anyhoo....politics trumps science....it always has and it always shall.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

Anybody following the hacking of emails and stuff from the Climate Research Unit? Pretty funny stuff:



The Scientific Method, according to the CRU:

1. Form hypothesis
2. Make predictions based upon hypothesis
3. Perform experiments to test hypothesis by comparing observable data to predictions
4. Blame the data and the experiment when it does not confirm to the theory

It's interesting to me how much of these guys (aka "scientists") spend not discussing whether rising levels of CO2 are causing increasing temperatures, but whether temperatures have increased in any real anomolous manner.

Anyhoo....politics trumps science....it always has and it always shall.

I've been following it, and it is really quite entertaining, revealing, and alarming all at the same time.

[dude1394]

I've been following it. But I have a policy of not trying to convince people that something may be wrong with their religion so I haven't said much.

But it certainly isn't unexpected, scientists have crapped all over themselves the last 10 years or so.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

Anyhoo....politics trumps science....it always has and it always shall.

Originally Posted by dude1394

I've been following it. But I have a policy of not trying to convince people that something may be wrong with their religion so I haven't said much.

Science most definitely is a religion -- not "true" science (indisputable facts), but "consensus" science (theory, beliefs; a.k.a. 95% of all "science") -- this is what always happens when Church & State cross paths...

Lord Kelvin (or Al Gore) is to science as Constantine (or GW Bush) is to Christianity - politicians love to bend philosophies and beliefs to their own will because it makes people easier to control when they think you believe the same thing they do (oldest trick in the book!)


Personally, I'm glad those hackers exposed this high-cost global warming scam - now we can spend our tax dollars on more important things like eradicating all those dark-skinned people on the other side of the planet that stand between us and their (our) oil!

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

Anybody following the hacking of emails and stuff from the Climate Research Unit?

just an edit for generalization:

0a. Find an area of life ready for political control
1. Form hypothesis
1a. figure out how to make political headway (and money (hopefully!!)) with hypothesis
2. Make predictions based upon hypothesis
3. Perform experiments to confirm hypothesis by selecting observable data to illustrate predictions
4. Blame the data and the experiment when it does not confirm to the theory
4a. ignore or ridicule anyone who does not agree

[alexamenos]

As nice as it would be to focus all of our attention on killing dark skinned people for oil, I don't think the AGW (anthropomorphic global warming) gang is going away any time soon.

There are both a political agenda and a scientific (sorta) movement. The scientific movement can be dead and buried for a long time before the political agenda will cease to use the ostensible science for its own end.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

As nice as it would be to focus all of our attention on killing dark skinned people for oil, I don't think the AGW (anthropomorphic global warming) gang is going away any time soon.

There are both a political agenda and a scientific (sorta) movement. The scientific movement can be dead and buried for a long time before the political agenda will cease to use the ostensible science for its own end.

global warming + global economic crisis = good excuse for global government


(gotta love living in a world of manufactured needs!)

[92bDad]

It's all about corrupt power hungry addicts...

of course on the flip side, we have those who whine or make fun of, with no effective thought or solutions to reflect genuine positive change on society.

It seems as if each side is feeding each other into an implosion from within...where's Mad Max when you need him?

[12 Tone Melodies]

George Carlin On Global Warming
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOOc5yiIWkg

[dude1394]

Who could have predicted this?

Obama administration climate czar Carol Browner on Wednesday rejected claims that e-mails stolen from a British university show that climate scientists trumped up global-warming numbers, saying she considers the science settled.
"I'm sticking with the 2,500 scientists. These people have been studying this issue for a very long time and agree this problem is real," said Ms. Browner, whom President Obama has tapped as his chief of policy on global warming.

[dude1394]

And I just thought they were naive. Turns out the whole damn thing is much more criminal in nature. Whoever leaked those emails has done the world a great favor. Wish we could do the same thing for that health bill monstrosity.

Oopsie daisie...

Scientists at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.
The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Whoever leaked those emails has done the world a great favor. [/INDENT]

I wonder whether there were any personal emails, or jokes, or spam included in the hacked emails?

If not.....this thing looks less like a an outside hacking and more like an inside whistle blowing. Catch my drift?

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

I wonder whether there were any personal emails, or jokes, or spam included in the hacked emails?

If not.....this thing looks less like a an outside hacking and more like an inside whistle blowing. Catch my drift?

Yup...I believe you are correctamundo there.