17,200 scientists say no to man made global warming

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

To help out readers, here's the source info at the bottom of the article that was accidentally omitted:

CONTACT: Grace Terzian of Hudson Institute

You can find out more about this conservative think tank here:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Hudson_Institute

Here is my source: http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm

As you can see, you are wrong about any omission at the bottom of the article.

Oh yeah. That sourcewatch is an objective, unbiased source.

From wikipedia:

Quote

"Source Watch is a project of the Center of Media & Democracy, a left-wing organization that devotes a lot of time to attacking the public relations profession in general and conservative writers in particular."[2]

The website ActivistCash.com, operated by industry lobby group the Center for Consumer Freedom, describes the Center for Media & Democracy, the organisation behind SourceWatch, as "a counterculture public relations effort disguised as an independent media organization... it is essentially a two-person operation" run by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber.[3] ActivistCash adds "If someone in a shirt and tie dares make a profit (especially if food or chemicals are involved), Rampton and Stauber are bound to have a problem with it."

[Remster 30]

Quote

From wikipedia:

So _now_ Wiki is a good source?

Remster

[billvon 3,006]

>So _now_ Wiki is a good source?

Well, duh - it agreed with the poster's point. Currently, Drudge, Hudson Institute and Wikipedia - good source. SourceWatch - bad source. These will probably reverse in the next few days as people post other things from Wikipedia.

[quade 4]

Quote

Well hells bells, if Waxman said it it must be carved in stone

Just to make it clear, Waxman isn't asking about the causes of global warming or even really taking a position on the subject.

They're investigating whether or not the Bush Administration has been altering reports about climate change and that the Administration is not co-operating in that investigation.

He's investigating the abuse of power in altering and suppressing science, which, by a large number of accounts HAS been done.

Which is perhaps why so many people still believe it isn't happening. They've been lied to by the government.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Amazon 7]

Quote

They've been lied to by the government.

OMG say it aint so..... the "government" has been run by the party of MORALITY for 6 years... and..... hmm more lies than the immoral democrats from 93 to Jan 2001

[billvon 3,006]

>Which is perhaps why so many people still believe it isn't happening.
>They've been lied to by the government.

Fortunately that's been changing. Not only are people starting to read the non-governmental sources, they are starting to actually see the changes in their environment. It's hard to claim something doesn't exist when it's causing your house to sink into the once-frozen tundra.

Of course, rather than discouraging the anti-science crowd, they're just redefining their position. But given how much attention this subject is finally getting, I have high hopes that they will be preaching to a more-informed populace that isn't as easily fooled.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

You left off the source, no doubt through a simple oversight. Remember, facts are important and should be checked before drawing conclusions. To help out readers, here's the source info at the bottom of the article that was accidentally omitted:...

I enjoyed reading this paragraph more than anything else on dropzone in a month.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[speedy 0]

I have left out the source for the attached graph. Obviously if everyone knew where I got it from it would be incorrect.
However, if I let people believe it came from their good source, they might believe it to be correct.

Make up yours minds people, is the graph correct or a lie?

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Well hells bells, if Waxman said it it must be carved in stone

Just to make it clear, Waxman isn't asking about the causes of global warming or even really taking a position on the subject.

They're investigating whether or not the Bush Administration has been altering reports about climate change and that the Administration is not co-operating in that investigation.

He's investigating the abuse of power in altering and suppressing science, which, by a large number of accounts HAS been done.

Which is perhaps why so many people still believe it isn't happening. They've been lied to by the government.

Thanks but I realized that.

I think this is more about not toeint the line to the rabid climate change alarmists. You agree or we will come after you. I am not saying this tactic is owned by one party or the other.

I listened to a reasercher from Utah yesterday. He stated there is not one scientic experiment that supports man made global warming claims. He was listing of evidence that directly show the warming trends following sun activity.

This "warming cycle" began in the 1940's acording to him and listed the data supporting that claim. He explained that the melting ice is also part of the natural cycle.

He has letters of threats from those on the alarmists side trying to shut him up as well.

Then, when he sited the first artice that put forth the theory and said which group it came from? Well that was the final clicher for me.

Do you know the first "large"organization to put forth this theroy?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Do you know the first "large"organization to put forth this theroy?

Tell us!

PLEASE!!!!

[Red_Skydiver 0]

Quote

Quote

The fact they are a "scientist" doesn't mean they know anything about climatology. I know a heck of a lot of scientists (used to work in a university) and they are all highly specialised. My wife is a biochemist but knows F. all about climatology but she could vote on this right...? And you still believe what they say even though it's not their specialised field?

That also applies to the scientists who claim that "global warming" is caused by anthropogenic CO2 generation. I'd bet your wife has a very strong opinion about the issue, even without knowing "F. all about climatology."

I agree. Most people have a view on the subject one way or another without being a specialist in the field. But can you get away with quoting scientists views if it's outside their specialism and use it to back your argument?

[Red_Skydiver 0]

Quote

I have left out the source for the attached graph. Obviously if everyone knew where I got it from it would be incorrect.
However, if I let people believe it came from their good source, they might believe it to be correct.

Make up yours minds people, is the graph correct or a lie?

Yeah it's a true representation on the face of it but the scale used is not helpful in interpreting the graph shown. The pre-industrial levels of CO2 were 280ppmv and in 1990 they were 353ppmv (Source: NASA). Your graph does seem to show this but it seems to have been plotted in such a way that could mislead (whether intentional or not). The temperature has increased in this time also but the increase looks pretty small when plotted on a graph also which could also be misleading. The fact is the graph does show an increase in temperature and CO2. Changing the scale used could make it look more dramatic.... or at least be more informative.

[speedy 0]

Quote

Changing the scale used could make it look more dramatic.... or at least be more informative.

Your are right, so here's a one with a different scale. Same data, but it appears that CO2 is rising faster than temparture.

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[Red_Skydiver 0]

Quote

Quote

Changing the scale used could make it look more dramatic.... or at least be more informative.

Your are right, so here's a one with a different scale. Same data, but it appears that CO2 is rising faster than temparture.

Nice graph

I think it's important to point out that climate change would happen with or without us pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. However with CO2 being a greenhouse gas it will exasperate the situation. Something that should be considered is the possible delayed effect of CO2 increases on temperature rises.

Edited to add: It's important to remember that CO2 isn't the only variable affecting temperature or infact climate change in general. (also important to emember climate change involves more than just temperature changes).

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

However with CO2 being a greenhouse gas it will exasperate the situation.

I'm exasperated already!

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[chrismgtis 0]

Quote

Climate change and Human Impact on the envirionment are two separate issues.

Thie climate is constantly changing, and has done so for 1000,000's of years.

we are fucking the place over in in a matter of hundreds of years!

make a forcast calculater on those stats!

Climate forcasting with a model using data that is 1000s of years old is a bunch of bullshit period, no matter how you look at it.

Rodriguez Brother #1614, Muff Brother #4033
Jumped: Twin Otter, Cessna 182, CASA, Helicopter, Caravan

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Climate change and Human Impact on the envirionment are two separate issues.

Thie climate is constantly changing, and has done so for 1000,000's of years.

we are fucking the place over in in a matter of hundreds of years!

make a forcast calculater on those stats!

Climate forcasting with a model using data that is 1000s of years old is a bunch of bullshit period, no matter how you look at it.

Yeah, all those dumb scientists at the Intergovernmental Conference, what do they know? Why don't YOU tell them how to do it?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[speedy 0]

Quote

Yeah, all those dumb scientists at the Intergovernmental Conference, what do they know?

They are not dumb! With all those fat grants available for making the models predict the right results it doesn't matter what data they put in.

Henk Tennekes does not seem to think such models are anywhere close to predicting the climate.

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Yeah, all those dumb scientists at the Intergovernmental Conference, what do they know?

They are not dumb! With all those fat grants available for making the models predict the right results it doesn't matter what data they put in.

Henk Tennekes does not seem to think such models are anywhere close to predicting the climate.

I keep hearing about these fat grants, but who's putting up the money? Why would NOAA scientists care anyway, they're on the government payroll?

Joe Sixpack pays no attention to what Henk Tennekes thinks.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[bazelos 0]

Quote

During the past 2 years, more than 17,100 basic and applied American scientists

So it's the American scientists v the world's scientists? Since the US is responcible for 25% of the world's greenhouse gases, surely that oppinion is rather biased?

He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man.

[billvon 3,006]

>but who's putting up the money?

The Vast Liberal Conspiracy. They're also the ones lying about atmospheric CO2, and they're using giant hair dryers to melt the glaciers - so they can bitch about energy AND global warming. Didn't you read Crichton's book?

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

>but who's putting up the money?

The Vast Liberal Conspiracy. They're also the ones lying about atmospheric CO2, and they're using giant hair dryers to melt the glaciers - so they can bitch about energy AND global warming. Didn't you read Crichton's book?

I did read Crichton's book, and I'm still wondering how triggering a Tsunami was supposed to change anyone's views about global warming, and I sure want one of those lightning machines.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,006]

>I'm still wondering how triggering a Tsunami was supposed to change anyone's views about global warming . . .

It proves that all the liberals who believe in the religion of global warming want to kill all the real, hardworking people of the US.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

>I'm still wondering how triggering a Tsunami was supposed to change anyone's views about global warming . . .

It proves that all the liberals who believe in the religion of global warming want to kill all the real, hardworking people of the US.

I just read his latest book, "Next". The liberals in that are all trying to hybridize humans with chimps or parrots while the conservatives are stealing organs from both the living and the dead.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.