or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Global warming becomes even harder to deny...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Global warming becomes even harder to deny... - Page 4

post #121 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
Max go back and read some of the info on this. From what I'm reading here it sounds like you know very little.

WHAT, NOW I'M REPSONSIBLE FOR YOUR READING? I've read the hand twisting 'peer reviewed' articles, nothing but speculation about the unknown. Little more than fear mongering with "what ifs"; well "what if" an astroid hits earth, "what if" we have another Krakatoa, "what if" UFO's are true, "what if" there is warming, "what if" its bad...etc. Such chicken little piffel.

Warming is just as likely to be a good thing - the Medival Warming Period brought increased food production, expanded settlement to Greenland and Iceland, created a great climate for Europe. Hell, it would even lower Winter energy needs...who can say?

Before trillons are spent, the previous probabilities need resolved.
Quote:
Ps. Who are these " grifters "? What proof do you have that they are " grifters "? They certainly have the credentials to add credence to their claims and integrity.

Grifters? Frauds? Mountebanks? I mean Mann and his hockey team that did a con job in his first "hockey stick" study and created a cottage industry of hucksters and flim-flamers in pursuit of government grants. Toss in Jones, Espir, Briffa. How do I know? Cause I spent the last couple of weeks reading their statements and noting their activities - the NAS tried to whitewash it, but none to successfully.
post #122 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
Only is the minds of non-scientist wingnuts and a few hired industry lackeys is the evidence "dubious". There might be some details to quibble over, and like all responsible scientists the scientist predicting global warming talk in terms of probabilites and margins of error -- but study after study keeps showing the same basic general conclusions, all pointing in the direction of pending disaster of one degree or another, and all show that it's most probably due to human effects on the environment.

Horse poo. Even if the science was untainted by unsupported claims in peer reviewed papers, the jump from "there is warming" to "pending disaster" is a disingeniious leap - a carney trick used by Gore in his recent "Triumph of the Green Will" propoganda piece.

Scientists have margins of error in climate warming model, they have NO idea of its likely impact on human well being. Sure, they say the ocean will rise 1.5 feet (OH HORRORS), and that it might be 3.6 degree C warmer but it's cost/benefit is unknown. And given the science being saturated with fakery, it may not happen and may not be unprecedented.
post #123 of 278
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by MaxParrish
Such chicken little piffel.

Because Real Men speak with utter certaintly, none of these sissy errors bars or wussy confidence intervals, no, if these so-called scientists really knew what they were talking about, and not just swindling us for more research grants, they'd speak boldy and confidently and proclaim the TRVTH, in simple, absolute Yes and 100% terms we can all understand!
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #124 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by MaxParrish
WHAT, NOW I'M REPSONSIBLE FOR YOUR READING? I've read the hand twisting 'peer reviewed' articles, nothing but speculation about the unknown. Little more than fear mongering with "what ifs"; well "what if" an astroid hits earth, "what if" we have another Krakatoa, "what if" UFO's are true, "what if" there is warming, "what if" its bad...etc. Such chicken little piffel.

Complete gibberish. You're simply pretending that all things that cannot be predicted with 100% certainty are equally unlikely. Thus, saying that cigarettes cause cancer is of a piece with speculating that power lines do as well, and both theories must be dismissed out of hand.

Quote:
Warming is just as likely to be a good thing - the Medival Warming Period brought increased food production, expanded settlement to Greenland and Iceland, created a great climate for Europe. Hell, it would even lower Winter energy needs...who can say?

"Just as likely"? "Who can say"? You haven't been reading the literature at all, have you?

Quote:
Before trillons are spent, the previous probabilities need resolved.

Right out of the industry backed disinformation campaign, which it sounds like is your primary source (as disseminated through various right wing blogs, editorials, think tanks, foundation and articles). Unless science can do what it cannot-- nail down the future with 100% certainty-- we are restrained from action until "more research is done", i.e., forever.

Quote:
Grifters? Frauds? Mountebanks? I mean Mann and his hockey team that did a con job in his first "hockey stick" study and created a cottage industry of hucksters and flim-flamers in pursuit of government grants. Toss in Jones, Espir, Briffa.

This is such a grotesquely wrong-headed gloss on the state of the science and the "controversy" surrounding Mann et al's research it scarcely deserves response, but suffice to say that despite the vigorous promotion of McIntyre's attacks by such respected scientific entities as the Wall Street Journal and various far right congressional experts (leading to seemingly endless editorials about the "broken consensus" on global warming, all relying on the same few bits of information), Mann's interpolation of the data is born out by dozens of independent researchers.

This kind of seizing on irrelevant squabbling as evidence that the whole edifice of scientific research is some kind of con game backed up by heavy handed censorship is very typical of the right's new game plan for attacking the science they find unpalatable, as is the predictable canard that such research is simply an unseemly scramble for funding.

The trick is to make sure every shred of "controversy" is endlessly promulgated, tossed back and forth between interlocking systems of disemination, until it seems like you never see "climate change" without "controversial" attached. The shear volume of repetition makes up for the paucity of actual legitimate criique. It's a familiar model from the evolution "debate".

Eventually, I suppose, they'll conceive everybody that science is merely a partisan trick designed to make regular people feel stupid, and we can be done with all that tiresome "progress" in so called "disciplines" such as medicine, cosmology and physics.

Quote:
How do I know? Cause I spent the last couple of weeks reading their statements and noting their activities - the NAS tried to whitewash it, but none to successfully.

What, they're having a contest for "most pompous internet martinet know-nothing"? You very clearly have spent time pouring over the usual right wing distortions, which are certainly plentiful.

You can rattle on all you want with your content free dismissal of these dreadful frauds, but it doesn't change the fact that there is remarkable consensus, within the climatology community, that human driven climate change is real. The dissent of a few, no matter how broadly trumpeted by economically interested parties (and how is it that research scientists are never to be trusted because they'll say anything to get a grant but we can accept the machinations of an ExxonMobile at face value?) does not lay to ruin the consensus of the many, nor does it make of the many any species of charlatan.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #125 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
Because Real Men speak with utter certaintly, none of these sissy errors bars or wussy confidence intervals, no, if these so-called scientists really knew what they were talking about, and not just swindling us for more research grants, they'd speak boldy and confidently and proclaim the TRVTH, in simple, absolute Yes and 100% terms we can all understand!

No, honest men of science represent research fairly, produce the data and calculations used to reach their conclusions, explain their methdology, and permit the replication of their work for testing.

You probably don't know (as many outside of climate science do not) that the climate scientists give (at best) partial disclosure (and sometimes none). It is a highly secretative "science"; (E.G. Jones to someone asking to replicate his model: "Why should I give you my data so that you can criticize my researh".)

The paleo climatologist researchers (perhaps 9 of them in total) are running a huge con-game wherein they "co-author" each others work and spin their untested models.
post #126 of 278
Holy shit! I need to get in on this pointy-headed academic con-game where I only have to give "partial disclosure" and where big piles of us get around in a circle jerk to promote one another's work!

Oh, wait. I am. But the humanities must be waaaaaaay harder-assed about all of this than the sciences. Whodathunkit!?

Damn, I wish my discipline was so unabashedly undisciplined as the sciences! To think I've spent all this time submitting abstracts to conferences, anxiously awaiting to hear back whether I've been accepted to stand before a room full of my peers and advance my arguments and then be subjected to questions from them afterwards (and subsequent email and hallway conversations)! I'm glad my reputation isn't on the line every time I do this! And to think that for all this time I've been conducting research and then spending months writing it up and then submitting it anonymously to journals which then send it to anonymous readers who, without discussing it with one another, vote about whether I should be accepted for publication, told to revise and resubmit, or rejected outright. And that takes months!

Damn! I need to get into the sciences! Apparently, all I need to do is scrawl something in crayon about global warming = true and Bush = bad and I've got TENURE!

CLIMATOLOGY PROGRAM, HERE I COME!!!
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #127 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by MaxParrish
[B]No, honest men of science represent research fairly, produce the data and calculations used to reach their conclusions, explain their methdology, and permit the replication of their work for testing.

Guess it might be nice to start getting some sourcing on these crimes. Clearly it's a huge scandal, the scientific community must be outraged by the transparent abuse of every standard of methodology. Unless......they're all in on it! Shit, there are no honest men of science. What a scam!

Quote:
You probably don't know (as many outside of climate science do not) that the climate scientists give (at best) partial disclosure (and sometimes none). It is a highly secretative "science"; (E.G. Jones to someone asking to replicate his model: "Why should I give you my data so that you can criticize my researh".)

Yes, those of us "outside" climate science are at a distinct disadvantage debating a man with access to the internet, nevertheless the idea that climate scientists are a cabal of secretive schemers is simply laughable. Again, perhaps you have some sourcing so we can judge for ourselves the gravity of the conspiracy?

Quote:
The paleo climatologist researchers (perhaps 9 of them in total) are running a huge con-game wherein they "co-author" each others work and spin their untested models.

And they're managed to do this under the noses of the entire rest of the climate research community (numbering in the dozens!), which is incapable of untangling the nest of lies, closely guarded voodoo, and methodological slight of hand that characterizes the very core of this so called "research". Damn you, mind control climate cabal!

Edit-- hey, there goes Midwinter again, preempting my line of thought!
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #128 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
Complete gibberish. You're simply pretending that all things that cannot be predicted with 100% certainty are equally unlikely. Thus, saying that cigarettes cause cancer is of a piece with speculating that power lines do as well, and both theories must be dismissed out of hand.

Using hyped and sensationalized fear (aka Gore's movie) is not gibberish, its just fear mongering based on speculation and over-active imagination. His overlaying of invasive species, picts of ebola viruses, 20ft water levels, etc. is pure nonsense. While I consider the IPCC statements to be political, even by their "consensus" standards Gore is way out on the looney limb.
Quote:
You haven't been reading the literature at all, have you?

As I said, I have. But if you have peer-reviewed literature that says it is likey we will have a major disaster and unlikey to see benefits with global warming, why don't you reference it? Till, then, its just an empty assertion.
Quote:
Right out of the industry backed disinformation campaign, which it sounds like is your primary source (as disseminated through various right wing blogs, editorials, think tanks, foundation and articles).

Really, and here I thought I was original. So, I gather you don't think it important to answer these questions before major and costly efforts are made to "prevent" a problem that may not be a problem, or may not be preventable, or may not be worth preventing. Ya, that really makes a lot of sense...

Quote:
Unless science can do what it cannot-- nail down the future with 100% certainty-- we are restrained from action until "more research is done", i.e., forever.

How about 80% certainty, quite different from we know little SO LETS ACT NOW!
Quote:
This is such a grotesquely wrong-headed gloss on the state of the science and the "controversy" surrounding Mann's research it scarcely deserves response, but suffice to say ...Mann's interpolation of the data is born out by dozens of independent researchers.

This kind of seizing on irrelevant squabbling as evidence that the whole edifice of scientific research is some kind of con game backed up by heavy handed censorship is very typical of the right's new game plan...predictable canard that such research is simply an unseemly scramble for funding...

Mann's "interpolation" is a modern Piltdown hoax, defended not in its substance (methods, calculations, or data) but in "his conclusion" (the blade of global warming). One could (but not without embarrasment) defend Piltdown as having errored in approach, not being cross-validated, hiding results, and refusing to release data "but the apelike features of early man is borne out in dozens of other studies - his conclusions were correct".

Fortunitly, science had (then) enough integrity to re-examine it and, finding it a hoax, not let Darwinism become a political mantra that buried objective truth.

BTW it is mainly "borne out" - not by independent studies but by Mann himself (he was co-author in three others) and his associates. Moreover, they used the same flawed data, and/or methods as he did. Moreover, the most independent (Moberg) rightly shows most of history as far more accurate; yes, there was a MWP and a LIA.

Quote:
Eventually, I suppose, they'll conceive everybody that science is merely a partisan trick designed to make regular people feel stupid, and we can be done with all that tiresome "progress" in so called "disciplines" such as medicine, cosmology and physics.

If, like those sciences, climate researchers provided all data, methods, calculations, and source/script code for review (hopefully prior to publication) then it would be far more trustworthy. As it is, its a cult of researchers who use the Bush approach "Trust me, I know what I'm doing".

Ironic.

Quote:
What, they're having a contest for "most pompous internet martinet know-nothing"? You very clearly have spent time pouring over the usual right wing distortions, a model familiar from the "debate" on evolution.

No, I've spent a lot of time reading papers. Among the know nothings are von Storch, Zoritch, Burger, Chubash, and others...quite aside from McIntyre and McKitrich.
Quote:
You can rattle on all you want with your content free dismissal of these dreadful frauds, but it doesn't change the fact that there is remarkable consensus, within the climatology community, that human driven climate change is real.

So orthodoxy becomes a defense - so this is what science is about? We appeal to "the remarkable consensus" when probably less than 20 people in the world have actually teamed up to build these models and understand them? This consensus is not based on a wide knowledge and application of climate models in the field (as it is with evolution), rather its an esoteric 'science of models' by the few.
Quote:
The dissent of a few, no matter how broadly trumpeted by economically interested parties (and how is it that research scientists are never to be trusted because they'll say anything to get a grant but we can accept the machinations of an ExxonMobile at face value?)

Is it not the Greens (e.g. Al Gore) that impugn the motives of scientists who do not agree? Did he not make the point that when one's paycheck is dependent on producing certain results, that these people can't be trusted? Climate science has been very well funded since the global warming hysteria started, and UCAR's couple of hundred million dollar budget comes from the government. Anyone who threatens these funds (like M&M) get savaged.
Quote:
... does not lay to ruin the consensus of the many, nor does it make of the many any species of charlatan.

No what makes them charlatan's is their practice of partial or no disclosure.
post #129 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by MaxParrish
it's best we wait and see.



Thanks for a good laugh.

Doctor to patient: "Well, it looks 99% certain you have several tumors spread around your body, and over the past few weeks, metastasizing sure has happened a lot. Given the remaining 1%, however, it's best we wait and see."
post #130 of 278
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by MaxParrish
The paleo climatologist researchers (perhaps 9 of them in total) are running a huge con-game wherein they "co-author" each others work and spin their untested models.

Oh, I get it! "Untested models"... hmmm, where have I heard that one before? Sort of like the only way you can "prove" evolution is to build your own planet and let things run for a few billion years and see how things turn out. Until then, it's just wild ass guessing.

How come those damn lazy charlatan scientists haven't built a climate-testing planet yet, and really "proved" something!



Well, of course, that test planet wouldn't be our real planet, and applying results from that to the real planet would just be guessing...
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #131 of 278
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by MaxParrish
No what makes them charlatan's is their practice of partial or no disclosure.

I thought we were talking about climate scientists, not the Bush administration.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #132 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by MaxParrish
Horse poo. Even if the science was untainted by unsupported claims in peer reviewed papers, the jump from "there is warming" to "pending disaster" is a disingeniious leap - a carney trick used by Gore in his recent "Triumph of the Green Will" propoganda piece.

Scientists have margins of error in climate warming model, they have NO idea of its likely impact on human well being. Sure, they say the ocean will rise 1.5 feet (OH HORRORS), and that it might be 3.6 degree C warmer but it's cost/benefit is unknown. And given the science being saturated with fakery, it may not happen and may not be unprecedented.


Easy for you to say.

Why should we believe you over them?

It really always comes down to this doesn't it? When someone makes wild statments in the face of what experts say you have to call into question the source.

Let's see your credentials.


Ps. Piltdown is a bad one to use. Not only have we studied global warming longer than the piltdown hoax (I just watched a special on PBS about piltdown ) we have tons more data supporting the theory.



" even by their "consensus" standards Gore is way out on the looney limb. "


EEEEEEEEE! Wrong : http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science....ap/index.html


But we'll send you on your way with a home version of " Let's pull the wool over their eye's with rhetorical nonsense ".
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #133 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Holy shit! I need to get in on this pointy-headed academic con-game where I only have to give "partial disclosure" and where big piles of us get around in a circle jerk to promote one another's work!

Oh, wait. I am. But the humanities must be waaaaaaay harder-assed about all of this than the sciences. Whodathunkit!?

Damn, I wish my discipline was so unabashedly undisciplined as the sciences! To think I've spent all this time submitting abstracts to conferences...And to think that for all this time I've been conducting research and then spending months writing it up and then submitting it anonymously to journals which then send it to anonymous readers who, without discussing it with one another, vote about whether ...Damn! I need to get into the sciences! Apparently, all I need to do is scrawl something in crayon about global warming = true and Bush = bad and I've got TENURE!

CLIMATOLOGY PROGRAM, HERE I COME!!!

Well, no time like the present. Now if you can get Al to make a powerpoint presentation showing the dire consequences of a sudden rise in the lack of appreciation for post-modernist perspectives or the crisis in American literature (toss in some slides on angst ridden modern man) you might not need to attend climate school.

Your kidden you guys submit articles for anonymous review (if so, a good idea that ought to be extended to climate studies). Of course, reviewers don't get to vote in Climate science. The editor or fellows running the conference make that choice.
post #134 of 278
Have I mentioned that the negative effect that millions of melted-icecap refugees will have on the economy is far greater than that of some alternative energy research?
post #135 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
Easy for you to say.

Why should we believe you over them?

It really always comes down to this doesn't it? When someone makes wild statments in the face of what experts say you have to call into question the source.

You ought to believe is that paleo-climate "science" ignores the methodological rules of science, because it is true. We may be taught that science builds paradigms that are tested by replication, but the truth of it is that it does not have the standards required to do so.

Until M&M (2003) questioned the 2001 IPCC 'consensus' over Mann's never replicated studies of 98/99 it was not appreciated by dispassionate observers that such scientists intentional obstruct testing - and peer journals are only willing to apply marginal preesure to authors to produce data/methods/code. Reviewers, for example, are not permitted to ask for data or detail prior to publication.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=559

Von Storch, a global warming supporter is quoted and linked to in the above commentary. Unlike the hockey crowd he is pressuring the discipline to change its attitudes towards those who would question results...till then, its merely claims without proof.
Quote:
Ps. Piltdown is a bad one to use. Not only have we studied global warming longer than the piltdown hoax (I just watched a special on PBS about piltdown ) we have tons more data supporting the theory.

Yes we do have much more proof, which is just my point. There is no doubt about human evolution, but for an evolutionist to justify Piltdown based on "his conclusions being basically supported by others" is farcical - Piltdown must stand or fall on its own.

So must Mann and his other studies. And if there is not full disclosure, then no testing can occur. Therefore, without such disclosure, I consider the field a quasi science of problematical accuracy and little honesty - and unproven claims.
Quote:
" even by their "consensus" standards Gore is way out on the looney limb. "
EEEEEEEEE! Wrong : http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science....ap/index.html

Perhaps you should note the story behind the headlines, its just a crude hack job and possible parody. The reporter calls a 100 scientists, only a handful saw the film. Obviously critics did not bother to see it so they could not comment, but among those who did see (the faithful) they gave predictable kudos.

I've seen better manipulated Soviet Pravda work, which is why I thought this stupid story was a put-on, but I'm told it was serious (hard to believe).
post #136 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by MaxParrish
You ought to believe is that paleo-climate "science" ignores the methodological rules of science, because it is true. We may be taught that science builds paradigms that are tested by replication, but the truth of it is that it does not have the standards required to do so.

Until M&M (2003) questioned the 2001 IPCC 'consensus' over Mann's never replicated studies of 98/99 it was not appreciated by dispassionate observers that such scientists intentional obstruct testing - and peer journals are only willing to apply marginal preesure to authors to produce data/methods/code. Reviewers, for example, are not permitted to ask for data or detail prior to publication.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=559

Von Storch, a global warming supporter is quoted and linked to in the above commentary. Unlike the hockey crowd he is pressuring the discipline to change its attitudes towards those who would question results...till then, its merely claims without proof.
Yes we do have much more proof, which is just my point. There is no doubt about human evolution, but for an evolutionist to justify Piltdown based on "his conclusions being basically supported by others" is farcical - Piltdown must stand or fall on its own.

So must Mann and his other studies. And if there is not full disclosure, then no testing can occur. Therefore, without such disclosure, I consider the field a quasi science of problematical accuracy and little honesty - and unproven claims.

Perhaps you should note the story behind the headlines, its just a crude hack job and possible parody. The reporter calls a 100 scientists, only a handful saw the film. Obviously critics did not bother to see it so they could not comment, but among those who did see (the faithful) they gave predictable kudos.

I've seen better manipulated Soviet Pravda work, which is why I thought this stupid story was a put-on, but I'm told it was serious (hard to believe).



Well once again you've postured a lot without any kind of proof of validity.

Who the hell is climateaudit.org. ???????

There's no " about " on the website with real credentials. It's just someone's blog.

Credentials or real proof of validity please.


You know I have a friend that sounds like you. He believes a lot of things that are off the beaten track. He speaks with great authority about his pet peeves and quotes what people have said. He sounds really informed.

However when you check into his sources you find all of his knowlege comes from places like climateaudit.org. No proof of who they are ( and if you dig deep enough to find out......) or how they can make these claims other than it's just an opinion.


From the article :
-----------------------------------------------------------

Excellent," said William Schlesinger, dean of the Nicholas School of Environment and Earth Sciences at Duke University. "He got all the important material and got it right."

Robert Corell, chairman of the worldwide Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group of scientists, read the book and saw Gore give the slideshow presentation that is woven throughout the documentary.

"I sat there and I'm amazed at how thorough and accurate," Corell said. "After the presentation I said, 'Al, I'm absolutely blown away. There's a lot of details you could get wrong.' ... I could find no error."

-----------------------------------------------------------

You'll notice in the article it says who they are. They have real credentials and obviously the knowlege to make these statements.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #137 of 278
Interesting site. They don't say much about who they are and how they are qualified, but I found this in their FAQ:

Quote:
For McKitrick, undertaking the project has required considerable time away from his own economics research. For McIntyre, undertaking this project has required an unpaid leave of absence from his career in mineral exploration financing, at the cost of over a years foregone earnings so far.

Obviously a couple of guys with the academic qualifications to question the findings of climatologists.... NOT!

But I guess that such an observation is nothing more than an ad-hom attack, right?
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #138 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by Placebo
Have I mentioned that the negative effect that millions of melted-icecap refugees will have on the economy is far greater than that of some alternative energy research?

There won't be millions of ice cap refugees - where do you get this stuff?

Besides, I'm looking forward to the return of a boreal forest to the South Pole - great real estate buying opportunties - BUY NOW...CHEAP.

Seriously, the warming hysteria is absurd. In the last century we had a 1/2 ft to 1 ft raise in sea level without anyone even noticing. Sure, climate may change - especially in Northern latitudes where most of the warming will occur. Canada, Northern Europe, Siberia, Alaska will all have better weather - what's wrong with that?

And there will be more precepitation - and if like the warming of the early holocene (4000BC - 8000BC) you will see a green Sahara with lakes and grasslands.

Change is never comfortable, but it can be a good thing.
post #139 of 278
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by MaxParrish
You ought to believe is that paleo-climate "science" ignores the methodological rules of science, because it is true. We may be taught that science builds paradigms that are tested by replication, but the truth of it is that it does not have the standards required to do so.

My God, these loony so-called scientists base a lot of their ideas on wild, unproven premises like that the world is billions of years old, instead of the just a few thousand years as the Bible tells us. Climate data from 100,000 years ago!? These guys are too stupid to know the Earth hadn't even been created 100,000 years ago. Rubbish!
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #140 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
Well once again you've postured a lot without any kind of proof of validity.

Who the hell is climateaudit.org. ???????

There's no " about " on the website with real credentials. It's just someone's blog.

Credentials or real proof of validity please.

You know I have a friend that sounds like you. He believes a lot of things that are off the beaten track. He speaks with great authority about his pet peeves and quotes what people have said. He sounds really informed.

However when you check into his sources you find all of his knowlege comes from places like climateaudit.org. No proof of who they are ( and if you dig deep enough to find out......) or how they can make these claims other than it's just an opinion.

Climate Audit is the blog of model researcher Steve McIntyre, who with economtrician Ross McKitrish started the controversy over the "Hockey stick" climate reconstrution. In 2003 they published a peer-reviewed paper exposing serious problems with Mann's study (Gore's hockey stick of historic temperatures), then got into a long fight with Mann over his errors, lack of cross validation statistics, etc. Mann was forced by Nature to publish material corrections to his study (but he refused to release source code or explain his claims), M&M pubished another study critiquing Mann, Mann replied, etc. Eventually the whole thing ended up before the Barton committee and the NAS was asked to investigate and resolve many issues - including the one of data sharing and replication.

Mann and his supporters started Real Climate (before Climate Audit) hoping to smear M&M in the public arena and defend his work. The rhetoric itself is instructive...

Among the links that inform:

Presentation to NAS
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/NAS.M&M.pdf (esp p25, Appendix B)

Good Intro to the Debate
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/res...ockeystick.pdf

Commentary on Science Process
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=66#more-66

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=350#more-350

Von Storch (well reputed researcher) Presentation to NAS, note comments on attitudes:

http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/vo...302/index.html


Climate Audit is not your partisan screed - it is tempered commentary from a published critic of flawed studies - His background being geological statistical modeling...
post #141 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by MaxParrish
There won't be millions of ice cap refugees - where do you get this stuff?

Besides, I'm looking forward to the return of a boreal forest to the South Pole - great real estate buying opportunties - BUY NOW...CHEAP.

Seriously, the warming hysteria is absurd. In the last century we had a 1/2 ft to 1 ft raise in sea level without anyone even noticing. Sure, climate may change - especially in Northern latitudes where most of the warming will occur. Canada, Northern Europe, Siberia, Alaska will all have better weather - what's wrong with that?

And there will be more precepitation - and if like the warming of the early holocene (4000BC - 8000BC) you will see a green Sahara with lakes and grasslands.

Change is never comfortable, but it can be a good thing.


Max, Max, Max!

Have you seen maps of the way the world looked during say the Cretaceous? When there's very little ice cap the coastlines flood. If that were to happen today most major coastline citys would be gone. Many would be displaced with no where to go. It will be too warm. Also you look at this as a gradual process. Now here's where we are unsure. Depending on how global warming affects the climate it could go the other way and trigger and ice age.

Please don't even try to attempt to tell me this can't happen they've happened many times in the earth's history and some thing set them off. Volvanic activity spewing greenhouse gases into the atomsphere blotting out the sunlight to a point where too much of it is reflected. Temps drop. Plants die and so does a huge percentage of animal life including most of us.

Also the way our world is set up now economically, food growing, and habitable wise this would mean a huge disaster for humans. Lot's of victims in the process.

It doesn't a rocket scientist to figure this out.


Besides I think formerlurker has already answered the validity question.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #142 of 278
[QUOTE]Originally posted by jimmac
Well once again you've postured a lot without any kind of proof of validity.

Who the hell is climateaudit.org. ???????

There's no " about " on the website with real credentials. It's just someone's blog.

Credentials or real proof of validity please.


You know I have a friend that sounds like you. He believes a lot of things that are off the beaten track. He speaks with great authority about his pet peeves and quotes what people have said. He sounds really informed.

However when you check into his sources you find all of his knowlege comes from places like climateaudit.org. No proof of who they are ( and if you dig deep enough to find out......) or how they can make these claims other than it's just an opinion.


Quote:
From the article :
-----------------------------------------------------------
...
Robert Corell, chairman of the worldwide Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group of scientists, read the book and saw Gore give the slideshow presentation that is woven throughout the documentary.

"I sat there and I'm amazed at how thorough and accurate," Corell said. "After the presentation I said, 'Al, I'm abs`olutely blown away. There's a lot of details you could get wrong.' ... I could find no error."

-----------------------------------------------------------

You'll notice in the article it says who they are. They have real credentials and obviously the knowlege to make these statements.

I certainly noted the AP article quotes Robert Correll, the chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group, who seems to have "a personal relationship with Gore, having viewed the film at a private screening at the invitation of the former Vice President."

In addition, Corrells reported links "by the left-leaning Packard Foundation, were not disclosed by AP". See http://www.junkscience.com/feb06.htm

Somehow the AP reporter missed the following alternative views from the other side:

Professor Bob Carter, of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia, on Gores film:

"Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

"The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science." Bob Carter as quoted in the Canadian Free Press, June 12, 2006

Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT:

A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse. (Lindzen in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal)

Gores film also cites a review of scientific literature by the journal Science which claimed 100% consensus on global warming, but Lindzen pointed out the study was flat out incorrect.

Roy Spencer, principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville, wrote an open letter to Gore criticizing his presentation of climate science in the film:

Temperature measurements in the arctic suggest that it was just as warm there in the 1930's...before most greenhouse gas emissions. Don't you ever wonder whether sea ice concentrations back then were low, too?- Roy Spencer in a May 25, 2006 column.

Former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball reacted to Gores claim:

"The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology, Tim Ball according to the Canadian Free Press.

So it depends on who you survey...
post #143 of 278
Well. That's four. I guess there's not really consensus!
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #144 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by MaxParrish
I certainly noted the AP article quotes Robert Correll, the chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group, who seems to have "a personal relationship with Gore, having viewed the film at a private screening at the invitation of the former Vice President."

In addition, Corrells reported links "by the left-leaning Packard Foundation, were not disclosed by AP". See http://www.junkscience.com/feb06.htm

Somehow the AP reporter missed the following alternative views from the other side:

Professor Bob Carter, of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia, on Gores film:

"Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

"The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science." Bob Carter as quoted in the Canadian Free Press, June 12, 2006

Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT:

A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse. (Lindzen in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal)

Gores film also cites a review of scientific literature by the journal Science which claimed 100% consensus on global warming, but Lindzen pointed out the study was flat out incorrect.

Roy Spencer, principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville, wrote an open letter to Gore criticizing his presentation of climate science in the film:

Temperature measurements in the arctic suggest that it was just as warm there in the 1930's...before most greenhouse gas emissions. Don't you ever wonder whether sea ice concentrations back then were low, too?- Roy Spencer in a May 25, 2006 column.

Former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball reacted to Gores claim:

"The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology, Tim Ball according to the Canadian Free Press.

So it depends on who you survey...


And when you check out who runs the website you quoted......

" Steven J. Milloy is: the publisher of JunkScience.com and CSRwatch.com; an investment adviser to the Free Enterprise Action Fund; and a columnist for FoxNews.com. "


Uh yeah.

That's the problem with alternative news. It reads like it's from an alternative universe where the things that you depend on to make an informed conclusion are missing.

Look I'm sure there are people who take an opposing view. There always are. But they're in the extreme minority here Max.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #145 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
Max, Max, Max!

Have you seen maps of the way the world looked during say the Cretaceous? When there's very little ice cap the coastlines flood. If that were to happen today most major coastline citys would be gone. Many would be displaced with no where to go. It will be too warm. Also you look at this as a gradual process. Now here's where we are unsure. Depending on how global warming affects the climate it could go the other way and trigger and ice age.

Please don't even try to attempt to tell me this can't happen they've happened many times in the earth's history and some thing set them off. Volvanic activity spewing greenhouse gases into the atomsphere blotting out the sunlight to a point where too much of it is reflected. Temps drop. Plants die and so does a huge percentage of animal life including most of us.

Jimbo, I must tell you this won't happen - even if your volcanos get really active. While I've not heard of any sane 'expert' claim that we are on the way to Cretaceous flooding (and certainly not due to global warming) one must note that during this period of Earth history sea levels were 200 meters higher than today. If the poles melted today, according to an article in USA Today, we'd have a 65 meter rise - tops! (reminds me of George Scott's reassurance in Dr. Strangelove that pre-emptive strike would only kill 20,000,000 Americans tops!).

Of course, in the next 100 years we may have a rise of 20 inchs...pretty tame stuff. No, we won't get boreal forests but its a nice thought.

Now your worried about an Ice Age ...bitch bitch bitch, nothing makes you guys happy.

Quote:
Besides I think formerlurker has already answered the validity question. [/B]

You mean that these fellows are not from the climate science scam gang? And yes, he is correct, there exposure to climate science is not relevant; their abiity to teach the CS yahoos some applied statistics is.
post #146 of 278
How about we hope that global warming doesn't happen, but pretend that it is the case? THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO DETRIMENT IN DOING SO, AND IS THE SAFEST WAY OF APPROACHING THE PROBLEM.
post #147 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by MaxParrish
Jimbo, I must tell you this won't happen - even if your volcanos get really active. While I've not heard of any sane 'expert' claim that we are on the way to Cretaceous flooding (and certainly not due to global warming) one must note that during this period of Earth history sea levels were 200 meters higher than today. If the poles melted today, according to an article in USA Today, we'd have a 65 meter rise - tops! (reminds me of George Scott's reassurance in Dr. Strangelove that pre-emptive strike would only kill 20,000,000 Americans tops!).

Of course, in the next 100 years we may have a rise of 20 inchs...pretty tame stuff. No, we won't get boreal forests but its a nice thought.

Now your worried about an Ice Age ...bitch bitch bitch, nothing makes you guys happy.


Maxo,

Most scientists think volcanos are one of the things that triggered ice ages in the past. Something did. That's not theory. Now we can do it on our own.

What you don't care about the people who would die in the process ( just as long as you're comfortable in your easychair )? That sounds just my friend with looneytoon, conspiracy rags he reads.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #148 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by Placebo
How about we hope that global warming doesn't happen, but pretend that it is the case? THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO DETRIMENT IN DOING SO, AND IS THE SAFEST WAY OF APPROACHING THE PROBLEM.

Because to do so would be wasteful, and to be wasteful means you hate business, and to hate business means you hate capitalism, and to hate capitalism means you hate America, and to hate America means you hate the baby Jesus, and to hate the baby Jesus means you hate America, and to hate America means you hate capitalism, and to hate capitalism means you hate business.

Jeez. It's so simple.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #149 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Because to do so would be wasteful, and to be wasteful means you hate business, and to hate business means you hate capitalism, and to hate capitalism means you hate America, and to hate America means you hate the baby Jesus, and to hate the baby Jesus means you hate America, and to hate America means you hate capitalism, and to hate capitalism means you hate business.

Jeez. It's so simple.

Ya gotta love that baby Jesus! I wonder what he'd have to say about global warming?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #150 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
And when you check out who runs the website you quoted......

" Steven J. Milloy is: the publisher of JunkScience.com and CSRwatch.com; an investment adviser to the Free Enterprise Action Fund; and a columnist for FoxNews.com. "

Uh yeah.

That's the problem with alternative news. It reads like it's from an alternative universe where the things that you depend on to make an informed conclusion are missing.

Look I'm sure there are people who take an opposing view. There always are. But they're in the extreme minority here Max.


You stated:

"You'll notice in the article it says who they are. They have real credentials and obviously the knowlege to make these statements."

So? You'll notice in my post it points out a quoted buddy of Gore, and I point out those that disagree with the movie. Note they also have real credentials and obviously the knowlege to make these statements.

Whatever one's opinion on gloval warming, the AP article, like Mann's study, is a scam. Like him, they sample only the opinions of those who have seen the movie to arrive at a 100% consensus, ignoring that most of those called never bothered to see it. As a proof, it fails, as an objective sampling it fails, as propoganda its rather crude.
post #151 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
Ya gotta love that baby Jesus! I wonder what he'd have to say about global warming?

As somebody has previously stated, Jesus is making his second coming soon, and God wants to warm the damned planet up first so he doesn't freeze his balls off in that sparse clothing of his.
post #152 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by MaxParrish
You stated:

"You'll notice in the article it says who they are. They have real credentials and obviously the knowlege to make these statements."

I reply:

You'll notice in my post it says who one Gore buddy is, and say who others are that disagree. Note they also have real credentials and obviously the knowlege to make these statements.

The AP article, like Mann's study, is a scam. Like him, they sample only the opinions of those who have seen the movie to arrive at a 100% consensus, ignoring that most of those called never bothered to see it. As a proof, it fails, as an objective sampling it fails, as propoganda its rather crude.


I'd say the stuff you have presented is rather crude. Ok you've got a very small nuber of real scientists and some guys with academic credentials in other fields. All from a website run by a guy ( who's not in the field ) who works for a news oganization who has a very strong rightwing bias. I've got to tell you I'd feel better about your source if they were endorsed by even Foxnews itself.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #153 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by Placebo
As somebody has previously stated, Jesus is making his second coming soon, and God wants to warm the damned planet up first so he doesn't freeze his balls off in that sparse clothing of his.


Damn! I almost choked on my coffee with that one!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #154 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
Maxo,

Most scientists think volcanos are one of the things that triggered ice ages in the past. Something did. That's not theory. Now we can do it on our own.

What you don't care about the people who would die in the process ( just as long as you're comfortable in your easychair )? That sounds just my friend with looneytoon, conspiracy rags he reads.

You make quite a few claims on your own (in the midst of demanding cites/links for my statements). If you think the NAS and ICPP are wrong about a mere 20 inch rise in sea level, and ascribe to the chicken little paradigm (and to question it is "looneytoon"? - please) then give a link or cite or two.

I've given plenty of background and cites, time to produce some back up for your Piltdown man...
post #155 of 278
What exactly has Gore to gain here?
Cleaner air? Wow that would be terrible.
Less energy consumption? Ouch how would I survive with lower bills??
Cleaner water? Oh my goodness that would anger god himself!!
Better gas mileage? That is pure terrorism.

The man had more votes that Bush. I don't think he needs popularity.
post #156 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
I'd say the stuff you have presented is rather crude. Ok you've got a very small nuber of real scientists and some guys with academic credentials in other fields. All from a website run by a guy ( who's not in the field ) who works for a news oganization who has a very strong rightwing bias. I've got to tell you I'd feel better about your source if they were endorsed by even Foxnews itself.

Nonsense. While you may not care to read junkscience.com, its quite irrelvant to the statements of these scientists...not unless your claiming the website lied.

And if that is your retreat, then look them up in Wikipedia. Ball, Lindzen, Spenser, etc. are all critics of Global Warming hysterics.

You should also note (in my prior links) that "the couple of guys" were invited to make a Presentation to the NAS panel, are peer reviewed in Nature and GSL, and whose methodilogical criticisms were accepted as valid by the panel.

That two fellows outside of a cloistered 'science' had to point out egregiious mathematical and statistical flaws says more about climate science than it does them - but then again, it was a non-geologist that first proposed Continental Drift and he was ridiculed by their orthodoxy.
post #157 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by jamac
What exactly has Gore to gain here?
Cleaner air? Wow that would be terrible.
Less energy consumption? Ouch how would I survive with lower bills??
Cleaner water? Oh my goodness that would anger god himself!!
Better gas mileage? That is pure terrorism.

The man had more votes that Bush. I don't think he needs popularity.

Apparently you believe that if a man has no material gain in his advocay, he is morally pure. The motivations of those who build, or farm, or transform nature are obvious: material security, monetary gain, producing wealth.

Politicians and Intellectuals primary desire is not in creating wealth. They strive for power and respect from their fellow men. Like preachers they are moralists - being listened to, being respected, being leaders, being honored, being RIGHT feeds a bottemless pit of need. Their edifice of self-respect is in manipulating men, not things.

Gore has nothing material to gain: his family already made money off of Tobacco and Occidental Petroleum (nothing to lose here) - and his recent new wealth is from Google (a virtual and environmentally free product).

No Gore needs to lead a cause, a cause that expunges his guilt (as he confessed) over Tobacco, etc. He needs to be "a good man" who is believed. He needs to show others (where his money is not affected) their sins. His gain is simple: the satisfaction of being right on policy, and respected by his peers.

He can't afford to be wrong, he's an idealogue.

And what's the harm? How about the cost to peoples well-being? The cost of taking money from paychecks, savings, and investment for their children for a global warming that is not a threat?

Burning money, to save a few MPG, to lower CO2 (which is not dirty), costs money...money is the productivity of men who may want to spend it on something else. Gore does not see that, because he has no problem in enslaving men to his cause - to steal their labor for his "ethics".
post #158 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by MaxParrish
You make quite a few claims on your own (in the midst of demanding cites/links for my statements). If you think the NAS and ICPP are wrong about a mere 20 inch rise in sea level, and ascribe to the chicken little paradigm (and to question it is "looneytoon"? - please) then give a link or cite or two.

I've given plenty of background and cites, time to produce some back up for your Piltdown man...


http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...ming_evidence/

http://www.ucsusa.org/

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...NGE1BECPI1.DTL

http://www4.nationalacademies.org/on...sf/web/climate

http://egov.oregon.gov/ENERGY/GBLWRM...al_Intro.shtml

http://washingtontimes.com/national/...5517-5464r.htm


And of course :

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science...ref=sitesearch


It just doesn't go away because Bush says so.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #159 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucker
Thanks for a good laugh.
Doctor to patient: "Well, it looks 99% certain you have several tumors spread around your body, and over the past few weeks, metastasizing sure has happened a lot. Given the remaining 1%, however, it's best we wait and see."

Yeah, no kidding. Max is the very angry version of NaplesX.
post #160 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by MaxParrish
Nonsense. While you may not care to read junkscience.com, its quite irrelvant to the statements of these scientists...not unless your claiming the website lied.

And if that is your retreat, then look them up in Wikipedia. Ball, Lindzen, Spenser, etc. are all critics of Global Warming hysterics.

You should also note (in my prior links) that "the couple of guys" were invited to make a Presentation to the NAS panel, are peer reviewed in Nature and GSL, and whose methodilogical criticisms were accepted as valid by the panel.

That two fellows outside of a cloistered 'science' had to point out egregiious mathematical and statistical flaws says more about climate science than it does them - but then again, it was a non-geologist that first proposed Continental Drift and he was ridiculed by their orthodoxy.

Well that's just not the case here. In cases like this throughout history the ridiculed have been the liberal outsider being critisized by the conservative establishment ( like the church ). Here you have the opposite. The conservatives are questioning the liberal " new idea " viewpoint.

You'll notice in my site links you'll only find sites from well known and recognized organizations.

Not " Junk ".

You know this is all about the conservative viewpoint and it's willingness to stick it's head in the sand for profit today don't worry about tomorrow.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Global warming becomes even harder to deny...