or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › seems global warming has stubbed its toe
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

seems global warming has stubbed its toe

post #1 of 121
Thread Starter 
Scientists bailing on global warming like rats leaving a sinking ship.
post #2 of 121

Inhofe?

Thankfully, this douche nozzle will forever maintain his minority position in the U.S. Senate.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #3 of 121
Hey! SDW2001, is that you?

Come on back, we miss you, we have a thread right here just for you.
post #4 of 121
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Hey! SDW2001, is that you?

Come on back, we miss you, we have a thread right here just for you.

No comment about the content about the article?

Here's one of the best quotes
“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”
post #5 of 121
Mythbusters: Combating Climate Change is an Economy Killer

Quote:
Combating climate change is a pro-growth, pro-economic recovery policy according to a survey of decision makers conducted by GlobeScan and released at the UN Conference of Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change conference in Poznan, Poland.

Three-quarters of the 1,000 experts from 115 countries agreed that “equitable economic growth and development and significant progress in combating climate change can be achieved at the same time," according to the survey, which was conducted over a one month period in cooperation with the International Union for Conservation of Nature, the International Development Research Center, Local Governments for Sustainability, the United Nations Environment Program and the World Bank, among others. Only 11% disagreed.

Anybody who would comment would be franksargent, who's more informed than I am. I'll just sit back and submit cool shit...
post #6 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic View Post

No comment about the content about the article?

Here's one of the best quotes
“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

A political blog of Inhofe's?

A political blog of Inhofe's?

A political blog of Inhofe's?

A political blog of Inhofe's?

Inhofe's environmental record

Quote:
Inhofe, former chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, is a strong critic of the scientific consensus that climate change is occurring as a result of human activities.
.
.
.
As of 2006, the League of Conservation Voters has given Inhofe the lowest possible score on environmental issues.[26]

Quote:
Full Report Set To Be Released in the Next 24 Hours – Stay Tuned…

This has become the SOP for the AGW contrarians, pre-release your PR before the actual reportage such that you gin up the AGW contrarian blogs ahead of time.

Hey, I saw Gore with Obama yesterday. Why wasn't Inhofe there?

I Rest My Effin' Case – Stay Tuned…
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #7 of 121
I seem to recall that the list of skeptics that's being touted has been noted to include quite a few people who were horrified to learn that they had been thrown in with such company.

Apparently, all you have to do to make that "growing list of international scientists that are defying the global warming myth" is question any part of any particular methodology, no matter how trivial and no matter how vehemently you might otherwise agree with the general conclusions of climate change researchers.

Of course, peddling misleading bullshit as if it were a brave stance against group think is pretty much standard operating procedure for "conservatism", and I'm assuming they'll continue to lie about pretty much everything of import.

That should be a fun hobby for the resentful right, figuring out who the conspirators are that are keeping people from embracing their fucking lies.
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 #8 of 121
The article stated:
UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims.

I didn't see any argument that said global warming didn't exist - ONLY 'man-made' warming didn't exist.

Can someone tell me where to find info on non-man-made global warming?
ADS
Reply
ADS
Reply
post #9 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic View Post

No comment about the content about the article?

Here's one of the best quotes
Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly.As a scientist I remain skeptical. - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.

The context of that quotation is even better:

Quote:
What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on incomplete information. In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable. But as a scientist I remain skeptical.

In other words, even though I'm not certain about any of this, we should do the Gore thing because the climate models might be right.
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 #10 of 121
Thread Starter 
Here's some interesting reading. Link to a sceptical scientist He doesnt think "man made" climate change is correct AND he has models showing other causes.
post #11 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic View Post

Here's some interesting reading. Link to a skeptical scientist He doesn't think "man made" climate change is correct AND he has models showing other causes.

Quote:
He is also a supporter of intelligent design[1] and is skeptical of the scientific consensus that human activity is primarily responsible for global warming.

ID?

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

So we have a total of 42 scientists that are at odds with the scientific consensus.

Quote:
National and international science academies and professional societies have assessed the current scientific opinion on climate change, in particular recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the IPCC position that "An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."[1]

This article documents scientific opinion as given by synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. It does not document the views of individual scientists, individual universities or laboratories, nor self-selected lists of individuals such as petitions.

Scientific opinion on climate change

Quote:
Joint science academies' statement 2008

In preparation for the 34th G8 summit, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a declaration reiterating the position of the 2005 joint science academies statement, and reaffirming that climate change is happening and that anthropogenic warming is influencing many physical and biological systems. Among other actions, the declaration urges all nations to (t)ake appropriate economic and policy measures to accelerate transition to a low carbon society and to encourage and effect changes in individual and national behaviour.[10]

The thirteen signatories were the national science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Joint science academies statement 2007

In preparation for the 2007 G8 summit, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a declaration referencing the position of the 2005 joint science academies' statement, and acknowledging the confirmation of their previous conclusion by recent research. Following the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, the declaration states:

It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform the environmental conditions on Earth unless counter-measures are taken.

The thirteen signatories were the national science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Joint science academies statement 2005

In 2005 the national science academies of the G8 nations, plus Brazil, China and India, three of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world, signed a statement on the global response to climate change. The statement stresses that the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action[11], and explicitly endorsed the IPCC consensus. The eleven signatories were the science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Joint science academies statement 2001

In 2001, following the publication of the IPCC Third Assessment Report, sixteen national science academies issued a joint statement explicitly acknowledging the IPCC position as representing the scientific consensus on climate change science. The sixteen science academies that issued the statement were those of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.[12]
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #12 of 121
Obama Selects Steven Chu as Energy Secretary, CNN Reports

Quote:
By Chris Dolmetsch

Dec. 10 (Bloomberg) -- Steven Chu, who runs the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory at the University of California, has been chosen by President-elect Barack Obama as energy secretary, CNN reported, citing three unidentified people.

Chu shared the 1997 Nobel Prize in physics for developing ways to “cool and trap atoms” with lasers, according to the laboratory’s Web site.

Obama hires a scientist for the Energy Secretary. Awesome.

Of course the Freepers are freaking...

Quote:
Great, another over-educated psychopath.

Here's a good one:

Quote:
I’m sorry, but I don’t trust a chinese guy with our nuclear secrets. We learned this the hard way during the clinton admin...



It would be nice to see a scientist going to work in this department. Maybe he can make sure the administration (and the public) actually get to read the actual, unedited science that shows up on his desk... and actually use it.
post #13 of 121
Thread Starter 
franksargent thinks that more than 650 = 42. Nice math skills...
post #14 of 121
I just spent half the morning reading this. (warning: PDF!). Perhaps the skeptics haven't looked at the evidence presented here....

And a very brief piece on the 'human-input-factor-in-climate-change' skeptics.

And yes, I do realize that this comes from a government(s) sponsored institution, but at least there is good chance of real science here (ie objective, unbiased and relatively agenda-free) since no specific individuals or organizations can be singled out and blamed (or have criminal charges lobbed at them) for this issue, ie climate change.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #15 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic View Post

franksargent thinks that more than 650 = 42. Nice math skills...

No 42 is probably what is left after he has dismissed all the rest due to their "intents" rather than their actual views or data.

Look who he works for...

Look who he doesn't work for...

He's white....

HATE,HATE,HATE....

He has some view I disagree with that totally invalidates his science that is not related to that view....

and finally...

HATE,HATE,HATE.....

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #16 of 121
I haven't got time to look at the context of the other quotes, but the one moe cherry-picked is certainly problematic, as I pointed out.
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 #17 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

No 42 is probably what is left after he has dismissed all the rest due to their "intents" rather than their actual views or data.

Look who he works for...

Look who he doesn't work for...

He's white....

HATE,HATE,HATE....

He has some view I disagree with that totally invalidates his science that is not related to that view....

and finally...

HATE,HATE,HATE.....

The problem with totalizing, reactive philosophies is that they oblige you to shove everything into the same sack, the vehemence of said shoving being inversely proportional to the fortunes of ones ideology. Not infrequently, that's going to result in some shoving that comes off sort of crazy.

More particularly, the idea that every "liberal" idea is invariably defended by attacking white men and throwing about various expressions of hatred is silly, as a cursory examination of the defense of liberal positions would immediately make evidence, were one less inclined to devote oneself to sack stuffing while muttering "Who's a hater now? Who's a hater now?"

Even more particularly, the idea that noticing who is being funded by the oil industry, when talking about climate science, is somehow of a piece with reflexively distrusting "white men" or represents some species of "hatred" is sufficiently ludicrous to properly be regarded as trolling.
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 #18 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic View Post

franksargent thinks that more than 650 = 42. Nice math skills...

[LEFT]franksargent provided an actual link to an actual list to actual scientists.[/LEFT]

Where's your list?
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #19 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

No 42 is probably what is left after he has dismissed all the rest due to their "intents" rather than their actual views or data.

Look who he works for...

Look who he doesn't work for...

He's white....

HATE,HATE,HATE....

He has some view I disagree with that totally invalidates his science that is not related to that view....

and finally...

HATE,HATE,HATE.....

... to this irrational, illogical, and unreasonable post.

BOOM!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #20 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

The problem with totalizing, reactive philosophies is that they oblige you to shove everything into the same sack, the vehemence of said shoving being inversely proportional to the fortunes of ones ideology. Not infrequently, that's going to result in some shoving that comes off sort of crazy.

More particularly, the idea that every "liberal" idea is invariably defended by attacking white men and throwing about various expressions of hatred is silly, as a cursory examination of the defense of liberal positions would immediately make evidence, were one less inclined to devote oneself to sack stuffing while muttering "Who's a hater now? Who's a hater now?"

Even more particularly, the idea that noticing who is being funded by the oil industry, when talking about climate science, is somehow of a piece with reflexively distrusting "white men" or represents some species of "hatred" is sufficiently ludicrous to properly be regarded as trolling.

I totally had fun with that post-modern essay generator as well. Put some smilies next time so people don't think you are serious when quoting from it though.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #21 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

[LEFT]franksargent provided an actual link to an actual list to actual scientists.[/LEFT]

Where's your list?

Actual being code for "scientists with whom I agree."

Fake being code for "scientist with whom I do not agree because they are paid for by evil oil companies, or some company I think is a front for an oil company, or some company that even if it isn't a front and I can't find the link because nobody who is a scientist would come to that conclusion unless they were paid for it by an oil company"

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #22 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Actual being code for "scientists with whom I agree."

Fake being code for "scientist with whom I do not agree because they are paid for by evil oil companies, or some company I think is a front for an oil company, or some company that even if it isn't a front and I can't find the link because nobody who is a scientist would come to that conclusion unless they were paid for it by an oil company"

... to the above gibberish.

BOOM!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #23 of 121
And this why nothing ever gets fucking done in this country.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #24 of 121

Hahahaha! I tracked down another one of the quotes. Here's what Inhoffe includes:

Quote:
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

Note that typo "in the history."

Here's the problem:

The first part of that "quote" is actually the title of a chapter in a book that was described in a blog post, so it's not really a quote and there is no context for it. The bits after the "ellipsis"? IT'S ACTUALLY A QUOTE FROM AN EMERITUS PHYSICS PROFESSOR IN ALASKA that has been misattributed to Kiminori Itoh.

Here's the source they got it from--complete with the fucking typo intact.

That quote, in other words, is at best misleading and confusing and at worst a fabrication.

Take a look at the quotes here. If you have a little time, here's a fun game: try to find the origin of those quotes. Try to find out what got cut out.
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 #25 of 121
Oh lord.

This one

Quote:
“I have yet to see credible proof of carbon dioxide driving climate change, yet alone man-made CO2 driving it. The atmospheric hot-spot is missing and the ice core data refute this. When will we collectively awake from this deceptive delusion?” - Dr. G LeBlanc Smith, a retired Principal Research Scientist with Australia’s CSIRO.

Is a comment on a fucking blog post.
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 #26 of 121
Come now Middy. All of this insistence on "sourcing" and "peer review" and "not making stuff up" is clearly just code for "scientists I disagree with."
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 #27 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Come now Middy. All of this insistence on "sourcing" and "peer review" and "not making stuff up" is clearly just code for "scientists I disagree with."

I know, I know. It just drives me nuts to see people say "oooh!! oooh!! there's hardly consensus!" and then cobble together a bunch of bullshit "quotes" from blog posts and chapter titles and shit taken out of context. I'm all for a healthy discussion of the problems with climate models. I'm all for a healthy discussion of the problems with how we measure global temperature. Climate change skeptics deliver papers. They publish stuff. Why the fuck don't they use THAT?

I mean, good lord, this shit is just plain juvenile. I mean, it's embarrassing for this to be on the web site of the US senate.
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 #28 of 121
It's also interesting to note that people listed as "IPPCC climate scientists" or "expert reviewers" are often just people who requested a draft copy of the report, which is apparently all it takes.

So that, for instance, we are to assume that "UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh" is breaking ranks with his fellows, when in fact he is simply chemist who requested a draft of the report.

Then, the entire wingnutosphere can forever more cite the "UN IPCC Scientist" who surely must know what's what, being at the center of the action, and all.

We go through this stuff every time climate change comes up. Press releases and blogs are cited, press releases and blogs are shown to be riddled with errors or just made up shit.

Like Midwinter says, if there is a case to be made, why is all the sophistry necessary?

Anyone? Why are they cobbling together quotes from disparate sources, misrepresenting the people's credentials, misrepresenting people's actual positions?

Why?
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 #29 of 121
Well, obviously, it's because mainstream science won't let the dissenters play in their reindeer games!
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 #30 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Well, obviously, it's because mainstream science won't let the dissenters play in their reindeer games!

Damn mainstream science and its "reproducible results" and "methodology"!

Isn't it obvious what's happening? So called "mainstream science" is clearly the creature of the international hippy conspiracy, which wants to see us all living in yurts.

If you've ever know any mainstream scientists, you know they tend to hate modern civilization and long to see it dismantled.
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 #31 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

I know, I know. It just drives me nuts to see people say "oooh!! oooh!! there's hardly consensus!" and then cobble together a bunch of bullshit "quotes" from blog posts and chapter titles and shit taken out of context. I'm all for a healthy discussion of the problems with climate models. I'm all for a healthy discussion of the problems with how we measure global temperature. Climate change skeptics deliver papers. They publish stuff. Why the fuck don't they use THAT?

I mean, good lord, this shit is just plain juvenile. I mean, it's embarrassing for this to be on the web site of the US senate.

You can now go to the Inhofe article linked above, it's really an updated list from 2007 of 400 "scientists" it's 241 pages long overall, the 2008 section has 70 pages, while the reprinted 2007 section has 171 pages, and looks like what a Rush Limbaugh radio transcript would look like.

Now if we expect the total number of scientists worldwide to be in the low millions, then 650 contrarian scientists don't amount to a hill of beans, either figuratively or literally speaking.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #32 of 121
I was thinking that, earlier. I mean, 650 scientists isn't really that many. If it were 650 climatologists, that'd be one thing. But if it's some weird accumulation of scientists from a wide range of fields, that doesn't really mean anything. Hell, I'll bet I could round up 40 or 50 scientists without trying too hard.
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 #33 of 121
Findings from today's NOAA briefing:

Quote:
_Six of the 10 warmest summers in the continental United States since 1951 occurred between 1997 and 2006.
_The largest yearly average regional temperature increases have occurred over Northern and Western North America, with up to 3.6 degrees warming in 56 years over Alaska, the Yukon Territories, Alberta, and Saskatchewan.
_No significant yearly average temperature changes have occurred in the Southern United States and Eastern Canada.
_More than half of the warming averaged over all of North America is probably the result of human activity.
_Regional temperature trends are likely to have been influenced by regional variations in sea surface temperature.
_There has not been a significant trend, either up or down, in North American precipitation since 1951, although there have been substantial changes from year to year and even decade to decade.
_It is unlikely that a fundamental change has occurred in either how often or where severe droughts have occurred over the continental United States during the past half-century.
_However, overall drought impacts over North America have become more severe in recent decades.
_It is likely that warming resulting from human activity has increased drought impacts over North America in recent decades through increased water stresses associated with warming land surface temperatures.

Debunk that! and *this*
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #34 of 121
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

[LEFT]franksargent provided an actual link to an actual list to actual scientists.[/LEFT]

Where's your list?

Here's the Senate report. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...y.SenateReport
post #35 of 121
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #36 of 121
post #37 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic View Post

Here's the Senate report. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...y.SenateReport

Wrong link buster. That's the 2007 Annual Inhofe Hates Gore's Guts Report.

The 2008 Annual Inhofe Hates Gore's Guts Report is posted at your original link.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #38 of 121
I would still like to see someone here address this point.
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 #39 of 121
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

It's also interesting to note that people listed as "IPPCC climate scientists" or "expert reviewers" are often just people who requested a draft copy of the report, which is apparently all it takes.

So that, for instance, we are to assume that "UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh" is breaking ranks with his fellows, when in fact he is simply chemist who requested a draft of the report.

Then, the entire wingnutosphere can forever more cite the "UN IPCC Scientist" who surely must know what's what, being at the center of the action, and all.

We go through this stuff every time climate change comes up. Press releases and blogs are cited, press releases and blogs are shown to be riddled with errors or just made up shit.

Like Midwinter says, if there is a case to be made, why is all the sophistry necessary?

Anyone? Why are they cobbling together quotes from disparate sources, misrepresenting the people's credentials, misrepresenting people's actual positions?

Why?

The IPPC set up the rules. Are you saying the review process is flawed? If so, does not that invalidate their report?
post #40 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic View Post

The IPPC set up the rules. Are you saying the review process is flawed? If so, does not that invalidate their report?

What the hell are you talking about? Adda's point is that anyone can request a draft of the report and submit feedback and then the nutjobs call them "IPPC scientists" because they read a draft and spouted something, regardless of what role they played in the thing.
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
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › seems global warming has stubbed its toe