Besides, let's not let actual scientific fact stand in the way of true emotion.... That would hurt algore's feelins'...
You got any? Scientific facts and or feelings...
Do you read my posts??
Yeah, do you read mine? What's the difference except what each of us beleive? I never mentioned Al Gore BTW.
Why is what I post not considered facts by you? They are facts, but you just don't like them, so like the rest of the left you simply dimish the persons making the posts, and ignore the facts...pitiful...
they aren't fact because you are not in his political viewpoint. plain and simple. it's funny how hippies want us to think for ourselves and be responsible but when we find out the hippies are being irresponsible and lying for money and contributions, we are still wrong for condemming them in their pursuit of money mongering by using lies.
So now I am a Hippie? Too funny. You don't even know me! What about not attacing people instead of idea's or beliefs? Or does that only apply if someone disagrees with you?
do you remember when the ELF (Environmental Liberation Front) lit all those Hummer H2's on fire in SoCal to try and make a point about pollution. Did you know that 100 H2's don't pollute the air 1/10th as much as the fire from the burning plastic and rubber from those cars being set ablaze in the interest of "Awareness for a better environment"
There are idiots EVERYWHERE so what? How much damage was done by the Exxon Valdez?
Laker, you stir the pot but you don't want the answers. Typical hippy bullshlt
Again with the name calling. You're funny. My opinions are bullshit and conspiracies. Your's are facts, !!!
What I say here is opinion. What I post from other sources are others opinions. When you post something it is the SAME THING. It is YOUR opinion, nothing more.
Hippie, LMFAO, too funny.
What, you can't wear your hat with pride. You sure seem to want to, until the shlt rolls your way then it's abandon ship. Fu(k that. Now if you want to talk about the Exxon Valdez, let's do that. Since my ex employer was Exxon CEO Lee Raymond's head of security and was the Chief of Police for the City of Valdez when the accident happened, I know a little about that scenario. First of all, the big bad evil oil company didn't wreck the ship, the drunken captain did. Second, Exxon Mobil designed an oil eating enzyme that consumes oil. They designed it to help clean the Valdez spill. That enzyme is used world over to help clean up spills, not only for it's effectiveness but also because mass quantities of dish soap has an adverse effect on the wildlife, much like the oil does. I guess big bad oil companies aren't allowed to help the environment in removing pollutants. Don't worry though, you're right, you always will be, as long as you don't have to actually think about other possibilities.
Take a Valium man. You sound so hostile.
You are obviously an expert in this and all matters. So in order not to feel like i pushed you to a heart attack, over your "Facts" i'll go out and burn a tire in your honor tonight OK? Try some breathing exercises or something man. LOL.
you burn a tire, i'll hug an oil soaked baby seal and we'll agree to disagree.
I get pretty hostile over things that I feel people haven't looked at both sides of the issue. I grew up in a town that was economically destroyed because of the "Northwest Spotted Owl" even though there is no such creature, it's just the spotted owl. The liar for hire "scientists" caused an entire industry to go belly up. an industry that was responsibly managed was destroyed over one groups greed for keeping trees from being cut. i watched an entire town lose jobs which lead to higher divorce rates, higher substance abuse rates, and ultimately killed a once wonderful town. all because of trees. what's funny is they plant 4 trees for every 1 they cut down.
so anyway, enough ranting, you can see why I take it personally. whatever though, i'm off to find a baby seal to hug.
"Bob Unruh of WorldNetDaily reported that 31,000 U.S. scientists - 9,000 with doctorate degrees in atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and other specialties - have signed a petition rejecting global warming."
Eh...I'm aware of that survey. Unfortunately, its credibility is diminished by the number of those that have signed the survey, but have no real bearing to make a judgment on climate change. C'mon... 31,000 scientists, but only 9,000 of them actually have applicable knowledge? I'm not saying I disagree with their findings, because I don't - I just wish they had gone for quality over quantity, instead of the reverse as they did.
Hays; you make a good point that maybe it should have just been the 9,000 climatologists that signed the petition. That said regardless of the total number of scientists, the qualified one's are claiming that no evidence exists, and "global warming" and man induced climate change are false. That's the key, trained experts are saying the data is wrong. To me that's all that matters; not the politics, not the environmental issues, but rather the actual data that is being tossed around as evidence that it is occuring and humans are to blame is the biggest thing that is being left out of all debate around this topic. On the macro level not on this forums level; I believe we have debated all the angles on this issue.
It has been noted from history that if you tell a lie often enough some will begin to believe it. My comment on calling the Bible fiction, OK, but consider this. If YOU are wrong, you are in big trouble with powers you don't understand, if I'M wrong, I lived my life to a higher standard and no harm or foul was done to anyone. I am retiring from this discussion now for good.
the point of this all being theory was a very valid point, lest we forget that 600 years ago, the general concensus was that our planet was flat and not round. we can all see how that turned out. i am not motivated by fear, from either side of the fence. I'm like Public Enemy, Don't believe the hype!
heh. Actually, the Earth has been known to be round for far far longer than that. Several thousand years. The common belief that the Christian Church taught that the earth was flat is not true at all, and you can research that by searching for the Flat Earth theory. Interesting stuff.
the point of this all being theory was a very valid point, lest we forget that 600 years ago, the general concensus was that our planet was flat and not round. we can all see how that turned out. i am not motivated by fear, from either side of the fence. I'm like Public Enemy, Don't believe the hype!
heh. Actually, the Earth has been known to be round for far far longer than that. Several thousand years. The common belief that the Christian Church taught that the earth was flat is not true at all, and you can research that by searching for the Flat Earth theory. Interesting stuff.
the point of this all being theory was a very valid point, lest we forget that 600 years ago, the general concensus was that our planet was flat and not round. we can all see how that turned out. i am not motivated by fear, from either side of the fence. I'm like Public Enemy, Don't believe the hype!
heh. Actually, the Earth has been known to be round for far far longer than that. Several thousand years. The common belief that the Christian Church taught that the earth was flat is not true at all, and you can research that by searching for the Flat Earth theory. Interesting stuff.
Now wait a minute....The EARTH is ROUND???
YUP !! And the ice isn't melting... it's just falling off the edges
this is more popular than i thought... well nature is bigger than all of us and our devices combined... so if its gonna warm its gonna warm.... climate shifts are pretty natural.. happen all the time
this is more popular than i thought... well nature is bigger than all of us and our devices combined... so if its gonna warm its gonna warm.... climate shifts are pretty natural.. happen all the time
Throughout geological history, the Earth has warmed and cooled on it's own. Now we arrive, and after just a few thousand years think we're causing what's been going on for millions of years before us? The utter arrogance of the left.
this is more popular than i thought... well nature is bigger than all of us and our devices combined... so if its gonna warm its gonna warm.... climate shifts are pretty natural.. happen all the time
Throughout geological history, the Earth has warmed and cooled on it's own. Now we arrive, and after just a few thousand years think we're causing what's been going on for millions of years before us? The utter arrogance of the left.
I don't think it is just arrogance. I think most of them know it is a scam. Just think of all the control they can have over you and your money by pushing their "Global Warming" agenda. Funny how even our in house liberals are all of the sudden calling it "Climate Change" too since they have all been caught in lies and snow in Florida. A liberal can't admit when they are wrong and will go to the grave defended their lies. Dr. Michael Savage said it right, "Liberalism is a mental disorder". They changed the name of it but not their agenda. I remember growing up in the 80's and back then it was an ice age we were headed for.
Yes, Yes...Libs cant admit when they are wrong. Luckily Bush and Cheney have admitted Iraq was a disaster and wrong from the get go----oh, wait a minute. Right wing scare and terror tactics mixed with the fear and lies of religion are where the mental disorder is.....just waiting for the DSM-V to come out to make it official.
You guys are still trying to do this debate? Reminds me of that episode of the Simpson's when Lisa puts electricity to a cupcake and bart keeps trying to eat it after being shocked. I'm wondering when people who think that dumping millions of tones of co2 and other pollutants in the atmosphere don't affect anything will wake up. I really don't see why there is any fight. Wouldn't it be better if the world wasn't dependant of any one type of fuel? Is it really healthy to breath burning oil? These things just sound silly to me. Take the climate change out of it, I much rather burn say water to get power or drive a car. And it wouldn't cause much if any pollution.
You guys are still trying to do this debate? Reminds me of that episode of the Simpson's when Lisa puts electricity to a cupcake and bart keeps trying to eat it after being shocked. I'm wondering when people who think that dumping millions of tones of co2 and other pollutants in the atmosphere don't affect anything will wake up. I really don't see why there is any fight. Wouldn't it be better if the world wasn't dependant of any one type of fuel? Is it really healthy to breath burning oil? These things just sound silly to me. Take the climate change out of it, I much rather burn say water to get power or drive a car. And it wouldn't cause much if any pollution.
The word of the day is "condescending." Seriously? Because we don't believe in a theory that you feel is right, we are the idiots shocking ourselves on your hypathetical cupcake? I agree there needs to be less polution, and recycling is a great thing that I do regularly, but I don't believe CO2 or any other gasses we emit are causing the climate to change. The climate has been changing since this little rock we all inhabit was created and it will continue to change long after we are shaken off of it. As I've said many many many times, the planet has only been warming since the peak of the last Ice Age.
You mean the biggest loser fat@sses arent actually running those miles??!?!?!?!? (BTW, I cant help but wait for one of them to have a massive heart attack on camera)
Here is that article, for those who would rather not cut and paste the link:
Call it the mystery of the missing thermometers.
Two months after “climategate” cast doubt on some of the science behind global warming, new questions are being raised about the reliability of a key temperature database, used by the United Nations and climate change scientists as proof of recent planetary warming.
Two American researchers allege that U.S. government scientists have skewed global temperature trends by ignoring readings from thousands of local weather stations around the world, particularly those in colder altitudes and more northerly latitudes, such as Canada.
In the 1970s, nearly 600 Canadian weather stations fed surface temperature readings into a global database assembled by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Today, NOAA only collects data from 35 stations across Canada.
Worse, only one station -- at Eureka on Ellesmere Island -- is now used by NOAA as a temperature gauge for all Canadian territory above the Arctic Circle.
The Canadian government, meanwhile, operates 1,400 surface weather stations across the country, and more than 100 above the Arctic Circle, according to Environment Canada.
Yet as American researchers Joseph D’Aleo, a meteorologist, and E. Michael Smith, a computer programmer, point out in a study published on the website of the Science and Public Policy Institute, NOAA uses “just one thermometer [for measuring] everything north of latitude 65 degrees.”
Both the authors, and the institute, are well-known in climate-change circles for their skepticism about the threat of global warming.
Mr. D’Aleo and Mr. Smith say NOAA and another U.S. agency, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) have not only reduced the total number of Canadian weather stations in the database, but have “cherry picked” the ones that remain by choosing sites in relatively warmer places, including more southerly locations, or sites closer to airports, cities or the sea -- which has a warming effect on winter weather.
Over the past two decades, they say, “the percentage of [Canadian] stations in the lower elevations tripled and those at higher elevations, above 300 feet, were reduced in half.”
Using the agency’s own figures, Smith shows that in 1991, almost a quarter of NOAA’s Canadian temperature data came from stations in the high Arctic. The same region contributes only 3% of the Canadian data today.
Mr. D’Aleo and Mr. Smith say NOAA and GISS also ignore data from numerous weather stations in other parts of the world, including Russia, the U.S. and China.
They say NOAA collects no temperature data at all from Bolivia -- a high-altitude, landlocked country -- but instead “interpolates” or assigns temperature values for that country based on data from “nearby” temperature stations located at lower elevations in Peru, or in the Amazon basin.
The result, they say, is a warmer-than-truthful global temperature record.
“NOAA . . . systematically eliminated 75% of the world’s stations with a clear bias towards removing higher latitude, high altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler,” the authors say. “The thermometers in a sense, marched towards the tropics, the sea, and to airport tarmacs.”
The NOAA database forms the basis of the influential climate modelling work, and the dire, periodic warnings on climate change, issued by James Hanson, the director of the GISS in New York.
Neither agency responded to a request for comment Wednesday from Canwest News Service. However Hanson did issue a public statement on the matter earlier this week.
“NASA has not been involved in any manipulation of climate data used in the annual GISS global temperature analysis,” he said. “The agency is confident of the quality of this data and stands by previous scientifically-based conclusions regarding global temperatures.”
In addition to the allegations against NOAA and GISS, climate scientists are also dealing with the embarrassment this week of the false glacier-melt warning contained in the 2007 report of the UN Panel on Climate Change. That report said Himalayan glaciers are likely to disappear within three decades if current rates of melting continue.
This week, however, the panel admitted there is no scientific evidence to support such a claim.
The revelations come only two months after the “climategate” scandal, in which the leak or theft of thousands of e-mails -- private discussions between scientists in the U.S. and Britain -- showed that a group of influential climatologists tried for years to manipulate global warming data, rig the scientific peer-review process and keep their methods secret from other, contrary-minded researchers.
thanks for the article cabi. there is no empirical proof of climate change, and there is scandal surrounding these climatic changes. this, coupled with the green's agenda and wealthy pockets, makes me think more than ever that it is a hoax. it's just as bad as going to war for oil, if that's why people believe that we are there. do i believe in pollution, yes, I have flown into LAX before and been thru the haze. do I believe that we are all going to die of a massive sunburn while drowning in overflowing seas of melted polar ice caps, not so much
Almost as funny (and as irrelevant at this point) as "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction", or the even better classic "Well, let's see. There's ? of course in the great history of America there have been rulings that there's never going to be absolute consensus by every American, and there are those issues, again, like Roe v. Wade, where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So, you know, going through the history of America, there would be others " All 3 of which, do nothing to address the topic at hand...just make funnies.
Almost as funny (and as irrelevant at this point) as "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction", or the even better classic "Well, let's see. There's ? of course in the great history of America there have been rulings that there's never going to be absolute consensus by every American, and there are those issues, again, like Roe v. Wade, where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So, you know, going through the history of America, there would be others " All 3 of which, do nothing to address the topic at hand...just make funnies.
Comments
You are obviously an expert in this and all matters. So in order not to feel like i pushed you to a heart attack, over your "Facts" i'll go out and burn a tire in your honor tonight OK? Try some breathing exercises or something man. LOL.
I get pretty hostile over things that I feel people haven't looked at both sides of the issue. I grew up in a town that was economically destroyed because of the "Northwest Spotted Owl" even though there is no such creature, it's just the spotted owl. The liar for hire "scientists" caused an entire industry to go belly up. an industry that was responsibly managed was destroyed over one groups greed for keeping trees from being cut. i watched an entire town lose jobs which lead to higher divorce rates, higher substance abuse rates, and ultimately killed a once wonderful town. all because of trees. what's funny is they plant 4 trees for every 1 they cut down.
so anyway, enough ranting, you can see why I take it personally. whatever though, i'm off to find a baby seal to hug.
YUP !! And the ice isn't melting... it's just falling off the edges
Call it the mystery of the missing thermometers.
Two months after “climategate” cast doubt on some of the science behind global warming, new questions are being raised about the reliability of a key temperature database, used by the United Nations and climate change scientists as proof of recent planetary warming.
Two American researchers allege that U.S. government scientists have skewed global temperature trends by ignoring readings from thousands of local weather stations around the world, particularly those in colder altitudes and more northerly latitudes, such as Canada.
In the 1970s, nearly 600 Canadian weather stations fed surface temperature readings into a global database assembled by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Today, NOAA only collects data from 35 stations across Canada.
Worse, only one station -- at Eureka on Ellesmere Island -- is now used by NOAA as a temperature gauge for all Canadian territory above the Arctic Circle.
The Canadian government, meanwhile, operates 1,400 surface weather stations across the country, and more than 100 above the Arctic Circle, according to Environment Canada.
Yet as American researchers Joseph D’Aleo, a meteorologist, and E. Michael Smith, a computer programmer, point out in a study published on the website of the Science and Public Policy Institute, NOAA uses “just one thermometer [for measuring] everything north of latitude 65 degrees.”
Both the authors, and the institute, are well-known in climate-change circles for their skepticism about the threat of global warming.
Mr. D’Aleo and Mr. Smith say NOAA and another U.S. agency, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) have not only reduced the total number of Canadian weather stations in the database, but have “cherry picked” the ones that remain by choosing sites in relatively warmer places, including more southerly locations, or sites closer to airports, cities or the sea -- which has a warming effect on winter weather.
Over the past two decades, they say, “the percentage of [Canadian] stations in the lower elevations tripled and those at higher elevations, above 300 feet, were reduced in half.”
Using the agency’s own figures, Smith shows that in 1991, almost a quarter of NOAA’s Canadian temperature data came from stations in the high Arctic. The same region contributes only 3% of the Canadian data today.
Mr. D’Aleo and Mr. Smith say NOAA and GISS also ignore data from numerous weather stations in other parts of the world, including Russia, the U.S. and China.
They say NOAA collects no temperature data at all from Bolivia -- a high-altitude, landlocked country -- but instead “interpolates” or assigns temperature values for that country based on data from “nearby” temperature stations located at lower elevations in Peru, or in the Amazon basin.
The result, they say, is a warmer-than-truthful global temperature record.
“NOAA . . . systematically eliminated 75% of the world’s stations with a clear bias towards removing higher latitude, high altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler,” the authors say. “The thermometers in a sense, marched towards the tropics, the sea, and to airport tarmacs.”
The NOAA database forms the basis of the influential climate modelling work, and the dire, periodic warnings on climate change, issued by James Hanson, the director of the GISS in New York.
Neither agency responded to a request for comment Wednesday from Canwest News Service. However Hanson did issue a public statement on the matter earlier this week.
“NASA has not been involved in any manipulation of climate data used in the annual GISS global temperature analysis,” he said. “The agency is confident of the quality of this data and stands by previous scientifically-based conclusions regarding global temperatures.”
In addition to the allegations against NOAA and GISS, climate scientists are also dealing with the embarrassment this week of the false glacier-melt warning contained in the 2007 report of the UN Panel on Climate Change. That report said Himalayan glaciers are likely to disappear within three decades if current rates of melting continue.
This week, however, the panel admitted there is no scientific evidence to support such a claim.
The revelations come only two months after the “climategate” scandal, in which the leak or theft of thousands of e-mails -- private discussions between scientists in the U.S. and Britain -- showed that a group of influential climatologists tried for years to manipulate global warming data, rig the scientific peer-review process and keep their methods secret from other, contrary-minded researchers.
"On my scale of worry, Global Warming is right up there with unicorn stampedes and flying butt-monkey attacks."
I am sorry but whatever your thoughts are on this subject that is just hilarious.