Page 8 of 306 FirstFirst ... 4567891011121858108 ... LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 4577
  1. #106
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    24,235

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchcedar View Post
    Warning, warning!!! The cold is coming!!! Earth to begin cooling in twelve years!!!

    Scientists obviously paid for by some major neocon corporation have determined that the sun has some kinda "cycle" and its gonna cool down in a dozen years... I swear, these bastages just don't understand the need for shared wealth.
    Yup... nothing like using gwobel werming hysteria to force socialism on those who do not want it.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  2. #107
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    24,235

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    Imagine that... using gwobel werming hysteria to make $$$... carbon credits anyone? As I've said all along.. gwobel werming is bigger business than the oil companies they MMGW pundits slander daily......



    'Scepticism' over climate claims

    The public believes the effects of global warming on the climate are not as bad as politicians and scientists claim, a poll has suggested.

    The Ipsos Mori poll of 2,032 adults - interviewed between 14 and 20 June - found 56% believed scientists were still questioning climate change.

    There was a feeling the problem was exaggerated to make money, it found.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  3. #108
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    8,132

    lol, to those who think the world is flat

    Arnold's words when asked about the debate regarding global warming:

    "Well I think that there's still a lot of people that still think that the world is flat," Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger R-Calif. told The Early Show co-anchor Harry Smith. "But the bottom line is that we know thousands and thousands of scientists have come out and said that this is real. We've created this mess and now we have to change. If we act quickly to really stop the global warming — and that's what we want to do, we want to jump into action. Whenever you see a problem, don't think and debate forever. Let the debates come, but at a certain point you have to act and that's what California did."


    http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/...ap3913996.html

    Schwarzenegger: GOP Can Lead on Climate
    By BRENDAN FARRINGTON 07.13.07, 9:25 PM ET

    MIAMI - Charges that protecting the environment hurts the economy are "bogus," and climate change shouldn't be a political issue, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Friday.
    Speaking at a summit organized by Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, Schwarzenegger said that environmental issues are a cause Republicans can embrace.
    "There is no Democratic planet Earth. There is no Republican planet Earth. There's just a planet Earth and we all have a responsibility to take care of it," Schwarzenegger told the crowd of 600.
    Crist called the two-day summit to look at the effects of climate change and what can be done to reduce greenhouse gases. He ended the summit by signing orders that will require state agencies to conserve energy and power companies to use more renewable energy.
    During his speech, Schwarzenegger acknowledged the perception that Republicans haven't been as strong on environmental issues.
    "For me to be in the middle of all this is really wild, because three-and-a-half years ago when I ran for governor, I had environmental protesters following me around saying 'He's a Republican! Please stop! Don't vote for him! He's going to destroy the environment!" Schwarzenegger said.
    But now, California leading efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, which are blamed for causing the earth's temperatures to rise. He noted the state's use of solar energy and hydrogen fuel and its push for more stringent emissions standards for vehicles.
    "We have proven that Republicans can, in fact protect the environment," he said.
    Crist ordered the state to adopt California's auto emissions standards as soon as the federal Environmental Protection Agency grants California permission to impose them.
    California has been battling the EPA for two years to get permission to implement a state law that would require automakers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, mainly carbon dioxide. Crist said he is willing to join California if it sues the EPA.
    Schwarzenegger said that auto makers and others who say guarding the environment is bad for the economy are just wrong.
    "This is all bogus, because we won't have an economy if we destroy our environment," Schwarzenegger said. "We can grow the economy and still simultaneously protect the environment. It's not a choice, it's not either or; the two go hand in hand."
    Meanwhile in Washington, Democratic Sens. Bill Nelson of Florida and Barbara Boxer of California said they would sponsor legislation to try to force federal environmental officials to rule on California's new stricter auto emissions standards.
    Nelson said Florida and 11 other states are waiting on the EPA to approve the California rules.
    http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-07-13-voa56.cfm

    US States Seek to Take Lead in Pollution Controls, Alternative Fuels
    By Brian Wagner
    Miami
    13 July 2007
    The governor of the southern U.S. state of Florida has signed some of the nation's toughest laws aimed at reducing greenhouse gases. In Miami, VOA's Brian Wagner reports that environmentalists are urging Florida and other states to craft their own environmental policies because they say federal officials have been slow to act.
    Florida Gov. Charlie Crist during a news conference at ServetoPreserve, A Florida Summit on Global Climate Change, in Miami, 12 July 2007Florida Governor Charlie Crist signed the measures into law during an environmental conference with researchers, business leaders and environmental protection groups.
    State officials organized the event to highlight environmental research being done at local universities, and to generate interest in more environmental-friendly business practices.
    Crist has sought to take the lead on environmental issues by installing solar panels on the governor's mansion and driving a vehicle that can run on ethanol.
    He says he hopes his state's actions will spur others to act to reduce their role in global warming, which many scientists believe is caused by greenhouse gas emissions.
    "Scientists say that climate change could endanger Florida's agricultural industry, cause violent patterns, jeopardize also our water supply," he said. "These are things we must address, things we are addressing."
    Under the new rules, Florida's power companies must reduce power plant emissions and increase the share of power from renewable energy sources from about two percent to 20 percent. The measures also will require automobile emissions to be lower than federal standards.
    Environmental groups say Florida's pollution controls will be some of the toughest in the nation. They say they provide an example for other states.
    Critics of the federal government say Washington has been too slow to raise environmental standards in recent years, prompting Florida and many other states to pass their own legislation. The U.S. Congress is expected to consider legislation to create stronger emission controls later this year.
    Terry Tamminen, an environmentalist who advised Florida on the new measures and spoke at the conference, said action at the state level may help pressure the federal government.
    "I think we are at a political tipping point," he said. "So your leadership, Governor Crist, on this issue is absolutely essential to winning the battle here in the United States, which in turn will send the message to China, India and many other countries around the world."
    Earlier this year, President Bush called for a series of meetings with 15 key nations to agree on new global targets for reducing greenhouse gases. A recent Dutch report says China has surpassed the United States as the largest emitter of carbon dioxide, the gas blamed for global warming. U.S. officials have said any international plan must include China and India.

  4. #109
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    24,235

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    ^^^ Politicians pandering to the crowd... is this supposed to be compelling evidence? Well, I'm still unconvinced MMGW is any more real now than before the governator's speech.

    MMGW is big business, that's the only thing "real" about MMGW IMHO. As many times as the MMGW crowd crows about "oil" money being behind the anti-MMGW movement... none are willing to own up, as this scientist states clearly and follow the pro-MMGW grant money.



    Claim That Sea Level Is Rising Is a Total Fraud

    A famous tree in the Maldives shows no evidence of having been swept away by rising sea levels, as would be predicted by the global warming swindlers. A group of Australian global-warming advocates came along and pulled the tree down, destroy-ing the evidence that their “theory” was false.

    They call themselves scientists, and they're destroying evidence! A scientist should always be open for reinterpretation, but you can never destroy evidence. And they were being watched, thinking they were clever.

    EIR: How does the IPCC get these small island nations so worked up about worrying that they're going to be flooded tomorrow?

    Mörner: Because they get support, they get money, so their idea is to attract money from the industrial countries. And they believe that if the story is not sustained, they will lose it. So, they love this story. But the local people in the Maldives— it would be terrible to raise children—why should they go to school, if in 50 years everything will be gone? The only thing you should do, is learn how to swim.

    EIR: To take your example of Tuvalu, it seems to be more of a case of how the water manage-ment is going on, rather than the sea level rising.
    Mörner: Yes, and it's much better to blame something else. Then they can wash their hands and say, “It's not our fault. It's the U.S., they're putting out too much carbon dioxide.”

    EIR: Which is laughable, this idea that CO2 is driving global warming.

    Mörner: Precisely, that's another thing. And like this State of Fear, by Michael Crichton, when he talks about ice. Where is ice melting? Some Alpine glaciers are melting, others are advancing. An-tarctic ice is certainly not melting; all the Antarctic records show expansion of ice. Greenland is the dark horse here for sure; the Arctic may be melting, but it doesn't matter, because they're already floating, and it has no effect. A glacier like Kilimanjaro, which is important, on the Equator, is only melting because of deforestation. At the foot of the Kilimanjaro, there was a rain forest; from the rain forest came moisture, from that came snow, and snow became ice. Now, they have cut down the rain forest, and instead of moisture, there comes heat; heat melts the ice, and there's no more snow to generate the ice. So it's a simple thing, but has nothing to do with temperature.

    It's the misbehavior of the people around the mountain. So again, it's like Tuvalu: We should say this deforestation, that's the thing. But instead they say, “No, no, it's the global warming!”

    EIR: Here, over the last few days, there was a grouping that sent out a power-point presenta-tion on melting glaciers, and how this is going to raise sea level and create all kinds of problems.

    Mörner: The only place that has that potential is Greenland, and Greenland east is not melting; Greenland west, the Disco Bay is melting, but it has been melting for 200 years, at least, and the rate of melting decreased in the last 50-100 years. So, that's another falsification.

    But more important, in 5,000 years, the whole of the Northern Hemisphere experienced warming, the Holocene Warm Optimum, and it was 2.5 degrees warmer than today. And still, no problem with Antarctica, or with Greenland; still, no higher sea level.
    EIR: These scare stories are being used for political purposes.

    Mörner: Yes. Again, this is for me, the line of demarcation between the meteorological community and us: They work with computers; we geologists work with observations, and the observations do not fit with these scenarios. So what should you change? We cannot change observations, so we have to change the scenarios!

    Instead of doing this, they give an endless amount of money to the side which agrees with the IPCC. The European Community, which has gone far in this thing: If you want a grant for a research pro-ject in climatology, it is written into the document that there must be a focus on global warming. All the rest of us, we can never get a coin there, because we are not fulfilling the basic obligations. That is really bad, because then you start asking for the answer you want to get. That's what dictator-ships did, autocracies. They demanded that scientists produce what they wanted.

    EIR: Increasingly science is going in this direction, including in the nuclear industry—it's like playing computer games. It's like the design of the Audi, which was done by computer, but not tested in reality, and it flipped over. They didn't care about physical principles.

    Mörner: You frighten a lot of scientists. If they say that climate is not changing, they lose their research grants. And some people cannot afford that; they become silent, or a few of us speak up, because we think that it's for the honesty of science, that we have to do it.

    EIR: In one of your papers, you mentioned how the expansion of sea level changed the Earth's rotation into different modes—that was quite an eye-opener.

    Mörner: Yes, but it is exceptionally hard to get these papers published also. The publishers com-pare it to IPCC's modeling, and say, “Oh, this isn't the IPCC.” Well, luckily it's not! But you cannot say that.
    EIR: What were you telling me the other day, about 22 authors being from Austria?

    Mörner: Three of them were from Austria, where there is not even a coast! The others were not specialists. So that's why, when I became president of the INQUA Commission on Sea-Level Chan-ge and Coastal Evolution, we made a research project, and we had this up for discussion at five international meetings. And all the true sea level specialists agreed on this figure, that in 100 years, we might have a rise of 10 cm, with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10 cm—that's not very much.

    And in recent years, I even improved it, by considering also that we're going into a cold phase in 40 years. That gives 5 cm rise, plus or minus a few centimeters. That's our best estimate. But that's very, very different from the IPCC statement. Ours is just a continuation of the pattern of sea level going back in time. Then you have absolutely maximum figures, like when we had all the ice in the vanishing ice caps that happened to be too far south in latitude after the Ice Age.

    You couldn't have more melting than after the Ice Age. You reach up to 10 mm per year—that was the super-maximum: 1 meter in 100 years. Hudson Bay, in a very short period, melted away: it came up to 12 mm per year. But these are so exceptionally large, that we cannot be anywhere near it; but still people have been saying, 1 meter, 3 meters. It's not feasible! These are figures which are so large, that only when the ice caps were vanishing, did we have those types of rates.

    They are absolutely extreme. This frame is set by the maximum-maximum rate, and we have to be far, far lower. We are basing ourselves on the observations—in the past, in the present, and then predicting it into the future, with the best of the “feet on the ground” data that we can get, not from the computer.

    EIR: Isn't some of what people are talking about just shoreline erosion, as opposed to sea-level rise?

    Mörner: Yes, and I have very nice pictures of it. If you have a coast, with some stability of the sea level, the waves make a kind of equilibrium profile—what they are transporting into the sea and what they are transporting onshore. If the sea rises a little, yes, it attacks, but the attack is not so vigorous. On the other hand, if the sea goes down, it is eating away at the old equilibrium level. There is a much larger redistribution of sand.

    We had an island, where there was heavy erosion, everything was falling into the sea, trees and so on. But if you looked at what happened: The sand which disappeared there, if the sea level had gone up, that sand would have been placed higher, on top of the previous land. But it is being placed below the previous beach. We can see the previous beach, and it is 20-30 cm above the current beach. So this is erosion because the sea level fell, not because the sea level rose. And it is more common that erosion is caused by falling sea level, than by rising sea level.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  5. #110
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    24,235

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    SUBMIT OR ELSE!!! At least they are not hiding their threats any more... MMGW is big business... and the people in the business do not like to be exposed for the snake oil salesmen they are.



    EPA to Probe Threatening E-Mail Sent to Global Warming Skeptic

    EPA to Probe Threatening E-Mail Sent to Global Warming Skeptic
    By Noel Sheppard | July 26, 2007 - 18:29 ET

    On July 13, NewsBusters reported that Michael T. Eckhart, president of the American Council on Renewable Energy, sent an e-mail message to Dr. Marlo Lewis of the Competitive Enterprise Institute threatening to destroy his career:

    If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity.
    During a hearing of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Thursday, this matter was brought to the attention of Stephen Johnson, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, as was the shocking revelation that the EPA is a part of ACORE.

    Presenting this information was Sen. James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), who showed and read the following panel of the offensive e-mail message for the record (video available here):



    After reading the text of the e-mail message, Inhofe pointed out:

    We have all of these people who have a stake in [promoting man-made climate hysteria] like the Weather Channel's Heidi Cullen. If the trend now in science is refuting that anthropogenic gases are a primary cause of climate change, then she is out of business, her whole weekly program is gone, her career is gone.
    Inhofe then showed a chart indicating that the EPA is a part of ACORE:



    Johnson acknowledged that he was aware of this, and told the committee:

    Statements like this are of concern to me...I am a believer in cooperation and collaboration across all sectors. This is an area I will look into for the record.
    Inhofe replied:

    This is so typical of these hate filled people who threaten and use vile language. I was called a traitor by one of the extreme left, this is what happens when you lose your case and this is the best evidence of it. So I would like to have you look into this and make an evaluation, talk it over with your people and see if it is appropriate to be a part of an organization that is headed up by a person who makes this statement.
    As Eckhart admitted to the Washington Times that he did indeed send this e-mail message, it will be interesting to see how the EPA responds now that it has been made aware.

    Stay tuned.
    [Recommend story on Digg.com]
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  6. #111
    Joined
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    8,887

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    We should really rename this forum to "Scooter's Self-Gratification Blog-posting Sandbox".
    Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.

  7. #112
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    24,235

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangutan View Post
    We should really rename this forum to "Scooter's Self-Gratification Blog-posting Sandbox".
    Another Orang "all about me" obligatory "Scooter's Self-Gratification" post.

    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  8. #113
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    24,235

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    As I've said before... MMGW is BIG business... And Newsweak is all about promoting business..

    Newsweek's Climate Editorial Screed Violates Basic Standards of Journalism


    Newsweek's Climate Editorial Screed Violates Basic Standards of Journalism

    Newsweek Magazine’s cover story of August 13, 2007 entitled, “The Truth About Denial” contains very little that could actually be considered balanced, objective or fair by journalistic standards. (LINK)

    The one-sided editorial, masquerading as a “news article,” was written by Sharon Begley with Eve Conant, Sam Stein and Eleanor Clift and Matthew Philips and purports to examine the “well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change.”


    The only problem is -- Newsweek knew better. Reporter Eve Conant, who interviewed Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the Ranking Member of the Environment & Public Works Committee, was given all the latest data proving conclusively that it is the proponents of man-made global warming fears that enjoy a monumental funding advantage over the skeptics. (A whopping $50 BILLION to a paltry $19 MILLION for skeptics – Yes, that is BILLION to MILLION - see below )


    This week’s “news article” in Newsweek follows the Magazine’s October 23, 2006 article which admitted the error of their ways in the 1970’s when they predicted dire global cooling. (See: Senator Inhofe Credited For Prompting Newsweek Admission of Error on 70's Predictions of Coming Ice Age – LINK )

    Use of Word ‘Denier’

    First, let’s take a look at Newsweek’s use of the word “denier” when describing a scientist who views with skepticism the unproven computer models predicting future climate doom. The use of this terminology has drawn the ire of Roger Pielke, Jr. of the University of Colorado's Center for Science and Technology Policy Research. “The phrase ‘climate change denier’ is meant to be evocative of the phrase ‘holocaust denier,’” Pielke, Jr. wrote on October 9, 2006 (LINK)

    “Let's be blunt. This allusion is an affront to those who suffered and died in the Holocaust. This allusion has no place in the discourse on climate change. I say this as someone fully convinced of a significant human role in the behavior of the climate system,” Pielke, Jr. explained.

    Newsweek Fails Basic Arithmetic

    Newsweek reporter Eve Conant was given the documentation showing that proponents of man-made global warming have been funded to the tune of $50 BILLION in the last decade or so, while skeptics have received a paltry $19 MILLION by comparison.

    Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter, who has testified before the Senate EPW committee, explains how much money has been spent researching and promoting climate fears.

    “In one of the more expensive ironies of history, the expenditure of more than $US50 billion on research into global warming since 1990 has failed to demonstrate any human-caused climate trend, let alone a dangerous one.” (LINK )

    For a breakdown of how much money flows to promoters of climate fear, see a Janaury 17, 2007 EPW blog post: (LINK)

    "The [climate] alarmists also enjoy a huge financial advantage over the skeptics with numerous foundations funding climate research, University research money and the United Nations endless promotion of the cause. Just how much money do the climate alarmists have at their disposal? There was a $3 billion donation to the global warming cause from Virgin Air’s Richard Branson alone. The well-heeled environmental lobbying groups have massive operating budgets compared to groups that express global warming skepticism. The Sierra Club Foundation 2004 budget was $91 million and the Natural Resources Defense Council had a $57 million budget for the same year. Compare that to the often media derided Competitive Enterprise Institute’s small $3.6 million annual budget. In addition, if a climate skeptic receives any money from industry, the media immediately labels them and attempts to discredit their work. The same media completely ignore the money flow from the environmental lobby to climate alarmists like James Hansen and Michael Oppenheimer. (ie. Hansen received $250,000 from the Heinz Foundation and Oppenheimer is a paid partisan of Environmental Defense Fund) The alarmists have all of these advantages, yet they still feel the need to resort to desperation tactics to silence the skeptics. Could it be that the alarmists realize that the American public is increasingly rejecting their proposition that the family SUV is destroying the earth and rejecting their shrill calls for "action" to combat their computer model predictions of a 'climate emergency?'" (See EPW Blog for full article – LINK )

    As Senator Inhofe further explained in a September 25, 2006 Senate floor speech: “The fact remains that political campaign funding by environmental groups to promote climate and environmental alarmism dwarfs spending by the fossil fuel industry by a three-to-one ratio. Environmental special interests, through their 527s, spent over $19 million compared to the $7 million that Oil and Gas spent through PACs in the 2004 election cycle.”(LINK)

    Now contrast all of the above with how much money the “well funded” skeptics allegedly receive.

    The Paltry Funding of Skeptics (by comparision)

    The most repeated accusation is that organizations skeptical of man-made climate fears have received $19 Million from an oil corporation over the past two decades. This was the subject of a letter by two U.S. Senators in 2006 (See Senators letter of October 30, 2006 noting the $19 Million from Exxon-Mobil to groups skeptical of man-made global warming – LINK )

    To put this $19 Million over two decades into perspective, consider:

    One 2007 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) grant of $20 million to study how “farm odors” contribute to global warming exceeded all of the money that skeptics reportedly received in the past two decades. To repeat: One USDA grant to study the role of “farm odors” in global warming exceeded almost ALL the money skeptics have been accused of receiving over the past two decades. (Excerpt from article: “The United States Department of Agriculture has released reports stating that when you smell cow manure, you're also smelling greenhouse gas emissions.” (LINK or LINK )

    As erroneous and embarrassingly one-sided as Newsweek’s article is, the magazine sunk deeper into journalistic irrelevance when it noted that skeptical Climatologist Patrick Michaels had reportedly received industry funding without revealing to readers the full funding picture. The magazine article mentions NASA’s James Hansen as some sort of example of a scientist untainted by funding issues. But what Newsweek was derelict in reporting is that Hansen had received a $250,000 award from the Heinz Foundation run by Senator John Kerry’s wife Teresa in 2001 and then subsequently endorsed Kerry for President in 2004. (LINK )

    Science Vindicating Skeptics

    Finally, Newsweek’s editorial rant attempts to make it appear as though the science is getting stronger in somehow proving mankind is driving a climate catastrophe. There are, however, major problem with that assertion.

    Scientists are speaking up around the globe to denounce Gore, the UN and the media driven “consensus” on global warming. Just recently, an EPW report detailed a sampling of scientists who were once believers in man-made global warming and who now are skeptical. [See May 15, 2007 report: Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics: Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research – LINK ]

    Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans, who did carbon accounting for the Australian government, detailed how he left the global warming funding "gravy train" and became a skeptic. “By the late 1990's, lots of jobs depended on the idea that carbon emissions caused global warming. Many of them were bureaucratic, but there were a lot of science jobs created too. I was on that gravy train, making a high wage in a science job that would not have existed if we didn't believe carbon emissions caused global warming," Evans explained. "But starting in about 2000, the last three of the four pieces of evidence outlined above fell away or reversed,” Evans wrote. “The pre-2000 ice core data was the central evidence for believing that atmospheric carbon caused temperature increases. The new ice core data shows that past warmings were *not* initially caused by rises in atmospheric carbon, and says nothing about the strength of any amplification. This piece of evidence casts reasonable doubt that atmospheric carbon had any role in past warmings, while still allowing the possibility that it had a supporting role,” he added. (LINK)

    In addition, just last week, three new scientific studies further strengthened the skeptics’ views on climate change. (LINK) Further, a recent analysis of peer-reviewed literature thoroughly debunks any fears of Greenland melting and a frightening sea level rise. [See July 30, 2007 - Latest Scientific Studies Refute Fears of Greenland Melt - LINK ]

    More..
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  9. #114
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    8,132

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangutan View Post
    We should really rename this forum to "Scooter's Self-Gratification Blog-posting Sandbox".
    +1

    Whoops, need a picture to post here...


    Interesting "scientific" stuff by Inhofe and his man Marc Morano that lil scoot keeps regurgitating:
    Marc Morano is communications director for the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Morano commenced work with the committe under Senator James Inhofe, who was majority chairman of the committee until January 2007. In December 2006 Morano launched a blog on the committee's website that largely promotes the views of climate change sceptics.
    Morano is a former journalist with Cybercast News Service (owned by the conservative Media Research Center). CNS and Morano were the first source in May 2004 of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth claims against John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election [1] and in January 2006 of similar smears against Vietnam war veteran John Murtha.
    Morano was "previously known as Rush Limbaugh's 'Man in Washington,' as reporter and producer for the Rush Limbaugh Television Show, as well as a former correspondent and producer for American Investigator, the nationally syndicated TV newsmagazine." [2]

    Second Generation Climate Change Science Assassin


    Marc Morano was hired in Spring, 2007 as the Director of Communications to US Senator James Inhofe (R-OK). Senator Inhofe is a member and the former Chair of the Senate Committee for the Environment and Public Works, and has compared Tom Brokaws climate change documentary to the "Big Lie," a Third Reich propaganda technique. Inhofe also claimed that "if we were to embrace the Kyoto treaty [on climate change], it would shut down agriculture, military and oil production in Oklahoma..." [4].
    Many believe that is it Marc Morano who has been behind Inhofe's latest attacks on the science of climate change [5], and this was confirmed by an appearance of Morano at the 2006 Society of Environmental JOurnalists, where Morano was on a climate change panel with Andrew Revkin (New York Times) and Bill Blakemore (ABC News) [6]


  10. #115
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    17,173

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    ^^^ Ah yeah, you're still pissed off about the Swiftees... me thinks your wounds never heal.

    How you can get John Kerry and the Swift Boat Vets into a Scooter bash about global warming is very touching.

    Nice self portrait, BTW. Didn't know you were a tie guy.

  11. #116
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    8,132

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchcedar View Post
    ^^^ Ah yeah, you're still pissed off about the Swiftees... me thinks your wounds never heal.

    How you can get John Kerry and the Swift Boat Vets into a Scooter bash about global warming is very touching.

    Nice self portrait, BTW. Didn't know you were a tie guy.
    Enter scooters #1 fanboy. To be expected.

    I didn't write the material that tied scooters rant into the connection of professional smear guys. I only reported it. But like everything else around here, you imagine the conspiracy theories while ignoring the truth.

    I'm not pissed off about anything. You guys are the ones who seem angry. Hence the picture of what I think about your platform.

  12. #117
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    17,173

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    ^^^ Okey dokey, pokey.

    Kerry and the Swiftees in a global warming thread... its not your stuff, you just post it... No sheet, Sherlock.

  13. #118
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    24,235

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    Enter scooters #1 fanboy. To be expected.
    Someone who took the time to quote another poster and add:

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    +1
    calling someone else a fanboy... thanks for the laughs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchcedar
    ^^^ Okey dokey, pokey.

    Kerry and the Swiftees in a global warming thread... its not your stuff, you just post it... No sheet, Sherlock.
    Yup.. managed to do everything but respond to the content of the article.

    The only problem is -- Newsweek knew better. Reporter Eve Conant, who interviewed Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the Ranking Member of the Environment & Public Works Committee, was given all the latest data proving conclusively that it is the proponents of man-made global warming fears that enjoy a monumental funding advantage over the skeptics.A whopping $50 BILLION to a paltry $19 MILLION for skeptics
    Cannot refute the evidence.. attack the poster and author. Then have the gall to call others "fanboys and professional smear guys".... pot...kettle..black..
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  14. #119
    Joined
    Jun 2004
    Location
    In a house
    Posts
    5,755

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    Nice self portrait, BTW. Didn't know you were a tie guy.
    How you do that otoc? lmfao

  15. #120
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    24,235

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    The Goracle takes time from his hunt for man-bear-pig to claim anti-mmgw conspiracy...

    Gore: Polluters Manipulate Climate Info

    "There has been an organized campaign, financed to the tune of about $10 million a year from some of the largest carbon polluters, to create the impression that there is disagreement in the scientific community," Gore said at a forum in Singapore. "In actuality, there is very little disagreement."
    And how much do the MMGW proponents spend to push their agenda?

    the proponents of man-made global warming fears that enjoy a monumental funding advantage over the skeptics.A whopping $50 BILLION to a paltry $19 MILLION for skeptics
    Goracle still pimping the "consensus" line. It's over already... your hysterical rantings, lies and exaggerations of impending doom have turned off most sane people. Please return to obscurity and take the Holleywierdo's with you. Kthxgbye.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •