See other Immigration Articles
Title: How much longer will California remain a part of the United States?
Source:
www.dvorak.org
URL Source: http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2010/06/ ... n-a-part-of-the-united-states/
Published: Jun 6, 2010
Author: Dvorak
Post Date: 2010-06-06 11:50:16 by Mind_Virus
Keywords: None
Views: 5218
Comments: 283
How much longer will California remain a part of the United States? Published on June 6th, 2010 California’s white population has declined since 2000 at an unprecedented rate, hastening the day when Hispanics will be the state’s largest population group, according to newly released state figures. Analysts said the decline can be attributed to two main causes – a natural population decrease as Baby Boomers enter their later years and die at a faster rate than younger whites have children, and a migration from California since 2001 among whites who sought affordable housing as real estate costs soared. The study also confirmed projections that a steadily growing Hispanic population will surpass whites as the state’s largest racial demographic in 2016. Hispanics are expected to become a majority of all Californians in 2042, Heim said. A University of New Mexico Chicano Studies professor predicts a new, sovereign Hispanic nation within the century, taking in the Southwest and several northern states of Mexico. Truxillo, 47, has said the new country should be brought into being “by any means necessary,” but recently said it was unlikely to be formed by civil war. Instead, its creation will be accomplished by the electoral pressure of the future majority Hispanic population in the region, he said.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-192) not displayed.
.
.
.
#193. To: farmfriend (#191)
Do you mean that See BS is not a reliable source? I'm shattered.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
The reports of CO2 destroying coral reefs were originally published in a paper contributed to by the science panels of scientists of 69 countries, you brainless zombie. The media then reported the conclusions of this international scientific conference, which is their job. You shamelessly lie as if this statement of CO2 destroying coral reefs, and the science panel's prediction of marine habitat being irreversibly destroyed by 2050, were invented in some news media office. The rate at which the oceans are turning acidic because of rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere is faster than at any other time since the extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, the scientists said in a joint statement issued today in advance of this week's pre-Copenhagen conference on climate change in Bonn. As carbon dioxide increases in the air above the ocean, more of the gas gets dissolved in the surface water of the sea, creating carbonic acid. Since the start of the industrial revolution, the acidic activity of the oceans has increased by 30 per cent. At current rates, they will become so acidic that few shell-forming organisms and coral reefs will be able to survive by mid-century
The oceans are not turning acidic. The oceans are base. They have always been base and will always remain base. Ask yourself how the coral reefs survived much higher CO2 levels in the past. Remember, CO2 is at historic lows for the planet. And remember, computer modeling is not science.
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." Cuz' Al, the great Carbon Profit, Gore sez' so that's why. Don't fergit' "Earth in the Lurch". You mean they're fallible? Even a Sooper Computer? That the inputs, which control the model's output, are subject to the same kind of data manipulation as was done at that great fiction factory known as the Climate Research Unit where good'ol Phil Used to work?
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
A panel of scientists from 69 countries has stated in its report released at an international conference in Europe that the increased supply of CO2 in the atmosphere - predicted over 100 years ago by John Tyndall and Svante Arrhenius - will irreversibly destroy marine habit and biodiversity by 2050. In your usual manner, you blithely dismiss anything which contradicts your own point of view, while demanding science from others. Hers is the link: Again.
Repeating the same crap doesn't make it true. From your link: As I said before, computer models are NOT science. The study you are citing is nothing more than computer projects designed to force a political outcome. No reality involved.
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." D-d-d-d-oes that mean that Tron wasn't real? Computer modeling is wholly dependent for its outcome upon the design of the modeling software and the input parameters and assumptions made by the modeler. You could make a model quack like Daffy Duck with the right controlled inputs. The integrity and the accuracy of Climate Modeling for CO2 in particular, given the revelations of the CRU e-mails and the campaign of fraudulent science they promoted for over a decade, the backtracking of the IPCC, Algore's repeated lies, etc., ANY Computer Model coming forth from the interested parties MUST be presumed to be false and manipulated until proven otherwise by at least one or two independent sources.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
Gavin Schmidt used to post on the climate forum but stopped when the guys just tore him apart over the modeling. Of course he is the one who started Real Climate which is nothing more than a propaganda arm designed to push AGW. And yes he was involved in the CRU climategate. BTW, the Michael they were talking about in the "hide the decline" email was Michael Mann of the infamous hockey stick. There is a DA going after him now.
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." That is your own false cherry picked definition of science. Tens of thousands of real scientists use computer models, including the scientists of 69 countries attending an international conference. False. There is much more in the report than computer projects. There are actual empirical measurements that were reported. Then there are the predictions of Tyndall and Arrhenius done over 100 years ago when computers were not even invented, prize winning scientists, that are being fulfilled although more rapidly than they foresaw. So we have another completely unsupported character assasaination of people who rebut you. Another lie in your endless litany of lies.
Good. That was out and out criminal fraud. It blows my mind that people so gullibly take as factual the results from easily manipulated computer modeling. And I do mean E-A-S-Y. The results of a model can be changed, slanted, stilted, manipulated, and deformed by simply controlling the input parameters to the program model. The mode is NOT reality. In honest usage it is at best a tool to look at and explore questions of "what if"? What IF the CO2 levels double does not mean the CO2 levels are going to double. It is an assumption and an input parameter designed for exploring a variety of scenarios of which none may come to pass. One can go further and point out that computer models, particularly ones on climate, NEVER account for all of the variables. The "Butterfly Effect" is always present, and any "Model" may leave unaccounted for any number of "Butterflies" as well as including "Butterlies".
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
One of biggest problems with climate modeling is they don't take into account clouds. Since they can't model water vapor and clouds they can't possibly be correct in the climate "predictions". Some models have shown clouds to be a positive feed back while some show a negative feed back.
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." I linked to a completely new website with dozens of sources and citing 2 historical figures going back to the 1800's who predicted global warming as a direct consequence from the Industrial Revloution: John Tyndall and Svante Arrhenius. The predictions of Tyndal and Arrhenius about global temperature increases are being fulfilled even faster then they stated. Are you going to choose being oblivious and shut your eyes, put your fingers in your ears, hum to yourself to drown out the sound, or look at something that is supported and goes back over 100 years? Since you have opened the door, utilizing the Argumentum ad Hominem fallacy shamelessly toward other posters when you were getting “pwned” (as you predictably then *projected* back upon others in such a trendy way), in the possibility of your edification and others, I will indulge in a little psychological observation, offered in a sincere, though possibly searing, effort to provide useful feedback. Anyone who actually lives up to the rigor of the scientific method or even the standard of Reason, is clear that cherry picking the facts, throwing out data that does not fit your preconceived theory, however cherished, is piss poor science and even more dishonest reasoning. Citing from a select group of authorities to win the debate for you is fallacious; argument by authority, nothing more. If you cannot detect the intellectual dishonesty and childishness of throwing fallacies around in a petulant tantrum to get your way in the discussion, I suggest either that your training in reason is lacking or there are integrity issues. In fact, the recent discrediting and disgrace of the CRU and the entire AGW lobby highlights this violation of reason and the scientific method for everyone, if they have eyes to see! However, you may take some comfort from being in good company, among poor scientific practitioners throughout the history of Western science, following their peers instead of the experimental facts, staying within the politically current rather than pushing the envelope of knowledge through discovery, getting those corporate/government grants rather than breaking fragile edifices of theory. In the context of other posts, when you share the mindset of the majority of 4um posters, your piling-on to the theme of the threads appears to be rational and reasonable. When your thinking process is challenged, you regress back to a defensiveness that can only come from ego issues, not reason. Without boxing the dialog into the old binary contrast game that appeals to the level of the vestigial reptilian brain, such as false dichotomies of liberal/conservative, R vs. D, fight or flight, good/bad, black or white, I observe that the modern, self-identified progressive tends toward instant regression when confronted with reason. This may be expected since the “progressive” mindset is dominant in the media-Matrix, into which the herd is being led, manipulating those who conform into believing that they are in fact the superior enlightened members of society and the only problems retarding progress come from the fact that there are too many other poor deluded Americans who insist upon resisting “progress”. Of course in point of fact, the problems are systemic not subverted by the disenfranchised people; ALL truly intractable problems are the result of the bureaucratized agendas of the government/financial/corporate oligarchs. Though there is some pandering in the media-Matrix to the false opposite of the “progressive” ideology, with the condescension for the “unenlightened” resisters to the forward march of the State-ist religion of Big Sister, the true mainstream of accepted PC “thought” in the u.s. is collectivist, with a dash of sentimentality, the I-am-so-righteous-I-feel-sorry-for-those-who-are-not-me meme that appeals to white-guilt-ers and other varieties of the self-deluded. In other words, the shock of awakening from the unthinking delusion that being part of the PC in-crowd of the “intelligentsia”, holding the allowed beliefs of the herd inculcated insidiously by the years of exposure to the massage of the media-Matrix, confers an honorary degree in Reasoning (like the Scarecrow in The Wizard of Oz), causes such a severe case of cognitive dissonance that the “progressive” instantly loses all cool and reverts to name-calling and derisive labeling to regain their unearned feeling of superiority! Since reasoning, especially the rigor of scientific reasoning, REQUIRES the experience of cognitive dissonance, the balancing of two opposing theories and the juggling of seemingly contradictory facts, those who have not been practicing this skill and training their minds to handle the sharp awareness that confronting Reality always brings are taken by surprise when moments of cognitive dissonance intrude upon their slumber. This emotional shock and its cascade of visceral reaction explains the intense vitriol of the “enlightened progressive” when confronted with uncomfortable facts and superior critical reasoning. Oh, but where are the sources for these assertions? Where are the official talking heads confirming this so that I can select from multiple choice to decide my opinion on this? First, even if I were to compile an exhaustive list of thinkers supporting this perceptual and conceptual modeling of the world, the reason-resistant mind would merely select one whose point triggered a reflexive revulsion and in a towering display of illogic, deduce that if “fault” is found in one of the timbers supporting the intellectual edifice, then the entire structure can be dismissed with one easy label: Radical, Crackpot, Wingnut, Heretic, Conspiracy Theorist or shudder: a Denier! In addition, I would be encouraging the continued use of intellectual crutches, the leaning upon argument by authority, instead of emphasizing the use of the faculty for critical thinking, long atrophied among self-styled intellectuals or the “ignoratti” as someone has coined. If you are still reading along, I would like to add one more point, appealing to your sense of manhood in the hope of inducing a cathartic gut check: There are several outstanding posters of the female persuasion who grace this forum, including this site’s esteemed hostess, who show more maturity and balanced reason at all times in their discourse than you have displayed in this thread. Since self-knowledge is the essence and goal of the human game and since (assuming that you are male) you do not have the natural advantage of motherhood to deepen your understanding of yourself, may I advise you to emulate these exemplary woman in your style of discourse and stop disgracing yourself in, dare I say it, the clichéd fury of a woman scorned? Of course, if your main motivation is merely to "win" the debate and score ego-surfing points, instead of clarifying the truth for the greater good through reasoned discourse and dialog, then you will continue to spew on, in a demented defense of your sense of self.... You may reply to the thread but I will not engage; this post was a courtesy, nothing more. Learn from the posters who have schooled you or not, that is always our choice; to grow or to regress, there is no hovering for long in life.
And therefrom came a new branch of scientific inquiry i.e., "Chaos Theory". The original models from which it sprang were early climate models which, as they ran, began to diverge further, and further, and further, from what the modeler thought he was doing. Thus we also get the phrase "sensitive dependence on initial conditions" and the "Butterfly effect" which simply stated is that a minor variable in any model, and particularly climate, can, over a period of time cause greater and greater randomity in the running of the model. The principles, and mathematics arriving from it, have had a rather profound affect on how we see and understand things - and not just climate.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
That was an awesome post. Glad you took the time and made the effort.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. He (Gordon Duff) also implies that forcibly removing Obama, a Constitution-hating, on-the-down-low, crackhead Communist, is an attack on America, Mom, and apple pie. I swear these military people are worse than useless. Just look around at the condition of the country and tell me if they have fulfilled their oaths to protect the nation from all enemies foreign and domestic. Thank you! My pleasure, James. Just trying to lighten things up a bit! 8=>
I can think of only one word to describe your essay - brilliant. It is a shining gem standing out as a clear call to reason. Just as a slight footnote, not that your essay requires it, the scientific method if rigorously applied can be summed in the immortal words of Sgt. Joe Friday: "Just the facts Ma'am." (Edit to include omitted word - "a".)
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
So you finally bring up some actual scientists. Sadly you miss a lot when you take stuff like this out of context. First, actual measurements of CO2 taken in the late 1800s show CO2 levels that are higher than today. One fact you over look. Man's contribution to atmospheric CO2 is 3%. It is logical that increasing the amount of these gases will cause greater warming, like adding a blanket to the duvet. And since the Industrial Revolution, humanity has dug, squeezed and pumped half a trillion tons of carbon in coal, gas and oil from beneath the surface of the Earth, burnt it, and released it as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It is inconceivable that this would not increase the warming effect and, indeed, it has done so. This is incorrect statements on what happens in the atmosphere. Layman's understanding if you will. Take this part for example: "Much of it is reflected back as slow-moving infra-red radiation – and most of this gets absorbed by greenhouse gases". This is just wrong. The photons are absorbed and re-emitted immediately. They don't hang on to them. Not to mention that comparing our atmosphere to a greenhouse is apples and oranges anyway. It is not the CO2 in the greenhouse that makes it get warm. It is the lack of convention. The glass acts as a barrier against radiated heat. No such glass exists in the atmosphere to restrict heat loss to space. Nor do greenhouse gases act like glass stopping the radiation. All the computer models showed the upper atmosphere heating as the GHGs trap the heat. No such heating is taking place. The upper atmosphere is actually cooling. The increase in gasses causes the atmosphere to expand outward causing cooling. As for the heating that has taken place since the 70s. Assuming the temp measurements are correct and there is ample evidence to suggest they are not, we have just come through record setting solar cycles. Solar cycles 22 and 23 produces the highest solar output of any recorded. Remember all those record setting solar flares you heard about in the news? Gosh, you think that could have contributed some? Nah it had to be man's fault. And don't even get me started on ice core and tree ring proxies. We don't have all day to go over the problems with those.
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." Just as a slight footnote, not that your essay requires it, the scientific method if rigorously applied can be summed in the immortal words of Sgt. Joe Friday: "Just the facts Ma'am." Thank you sir! Coming from you, that is high praise indeed! Yes, "Just the facts Ma'am." but ALL the facts, no throwing out anomalies as "experimental error", such as Millikan did in his pioneering efforts to measure the charge of the electron. His otherwise exemplary experiment COULD have pointed toward the quark underpinning of elementary particles, had he kept the data anomalies instead of discarding them. The most common misuse of Occam's razor is to exclude "inconvenient" facts from the process, favoring the established theories by "curve fitting" the data. The simplest theory that covers ALL the known facts Ma'am is most likely to be the truth. Exclude the anomalies and cripple the theoretical model, sometimes for more than 100 years, mental inertia and moneyed interests compounding the problem....
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." Tee hee! Your patience, clear thinking and lucid articulation are exemplary! Not that this post is exceptional; it is indeed characteristic. It is fun to read your posts, especially when you are gently restraining your passion for the benefit of the wee ones, but cannot fully suppress your wit from spicing up your expression... 8=> By exemplary, I was aiming at some who could use a good example to model in their expression.... 8=>
Wow! I am humbled by your compliments. "With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." Thank you. Your acknowledgment is deeply appreciated. Glad you enjoyed it (and that I did not inadvertently ruffle any feathers with my reference to the fury potential of the femme!)
You are most welcome - I had to restrain myself from being too effusive as to over praise often under states. Occam's Razor is one of my pet peeves. It's simplistic misuse to explain away inconvenient data is so pervasive as to inspire aspiration upon sighting. It is particularly prevalent in Archaeology, one of my enduring interests, where it is used to discredit any and all discoveries in conflict with the established Academic Paradigm. Of course that is the antithesis of the Scientific Method which requires that validated data be accounted for in the theory, and as you point out, not discarded because it is in disagreement with the current academic fad. Which immediately makes me thing of Fr. Gregor Mendel and his work on the inheritability of traits. He was laughed at and derided in his own time, and his work lay unnoticed for 100 years. Today it is part of the basic curriculum. Interesting how that happens. In like mode meteorites were derided as fantasy by the Academic/Scientific establishment - "harmummmph - rocks don't fall from the sky". I could go on but I would be playing to the gallery and preaching to the choir. No doubt you have read Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". Oh, how the establishment hates him even now. The all purpose heretic. ;-)
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
LOL not at all. Biology and hormones can be difficult to over come. Denying their existence doesn't work for me. forgot to add the smilie. "With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." One of the most visible in that area, at least to me, is the age of the Sphinx and Egytologist's reactions to the idea that geology doesn't support their contentions.
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." If I may wax on, the political and financial pressures to subvert the Scientific Method in order to maintain the social and economic status quo, is not only the anti-thesis of a powerful method to approach the truth, but in our technology-driven cultural evolution, its results have been so destructive and downright evil that one could call this corruption of Reason the anti-Christ, to dramatize by anthropomorphization. Agreed that Big Science hates having its skirts raised by anyone and Kuhn certainly made a cogent case for the politics and social foibles of the scientific process. He was preceded more succinctly by Arthur Schopenhauer, German philosopher (1788 – 1860) All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. and by Mahatma Gandhi "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
Ooooooooooooooh!!!! You hit a sore spot with that one. I could go off on that for a while. Not only does the water weathering clearly point to a construction date of 10,000 B.C. or earlier the architectural style of the Sphinx enclosure is markedly different than any other Egyptian Architecture. It has no hieroglyphics whatsoever, save the Stele erected by Chephren, and it is a very advanced and elegantly simple megalithic structure much unlike the ornate works attributed, falsely in my opinion, to Pharaohonic Egypt. The only other comparable structure is at Abydos, and was only relatively recently dug out of the marsh mud. As for the age of the Pyramids the circumstantial evidence points toward a minimum age of 18 to 24 thousand years - and the translation of one Stele, by Ibn Ben Said, suggests 74,000.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
Hmmm I've missed that one. You'll have to send me some links to explore. I did like the show I saw which suggested the grand galleria was built to house the counter weights used to lift the stones over the king's chambers.
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." If I may wax on, the political and financial pressures to subvert the Scientific Method in order to maintain the social and economic status quo, is not only the anti-thesis of a powerful method to approach the truth, but in our technology-driven cultural evolution, its results have been so destructive and downright evil that one could call this corruption of Reason the anti-Christ, to dramatize by anthropomorphization. Absolutely dead on. As is frequently the case we're on the nearly the same page. Just a slight expansion - this control of scientific progress is a control mechanism. For example we have had the technology and ability to send a manned mission to Mars for at least 20 years, and probably a bit longer. However, technological advance and scientific discovery are mind expanding and pardadigm shattering. That last is one of the reasons for suppressing it. The controllers Platonic Slave Society is highly dependent upon eliminating free thought, dreams of greater worlds, etc., .... The model is to maintain a "sameness" - each day like the last with eyes aimed groundward and greater thoughts forbidden. The predominance of materialism and the "Man is just another Animal" limiting paradigm are part of this. With the increasing awareness that Darwinian Materialism is incomplete and founders upon the shoals of the Scientific Method the stridency has become all the greater. All are dangerous to the status quo which is that all are "equal" in all respects and that the hive is more important than the individual - "you will be assimilated". Independence of thought and not conforming to the "group" are to be punished. Ray Bradbury was perhaps the first to strike out and try to expose what was going on when he wrote "Farenheit 451". I think readers of Science Fiction have had a much better handle on reality than those who scoff at it and deride it. This of course helps explain why it has received so little attention in "Literature Departments" as it has been, in many ways, some of the most subversive literature of the 20th Century exploring concepts and ideas that are "taboo" in the mainstream. I think they were perhaps offended most by his suggestion that Scientific Progress is held back by the very "paragons" which defend the current dominant paradigm. Scientists, or I should say Academics as there is a difference, are heavily invested in the paradigm they have built their life around and data and conclusions contrary to that view are treated as personal assaults. As well vested interests want to maintain the paradigm they have established and slide smoothly into an Ant Hive society with themselves the "Lords and Ladies" of creation. Hubris, insanity, psychosis. I'm aware of Schopenhauer but have read all too little of his writings. What little I have been introduced to I have loved. Given my love of Science Fiction I can't resist closing with Clarke's Laws of revolutionary ideas: 1. It is a ridiculous idea and it is impossible. 2. It is possible but it is not worth doing. 3. I said it was a good idea all along.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
Your long-winded poitifications and generalizations about everything except specific issues I raised is really too full of psychobabble to deserve any specific replies. The issues I raised are
Hmmm I've missed that one. You'll have to send me some links to explore. I did like the show I saw which suggested the grand galleria was built to house the counter weights used to lift the stones over the king's chambers. Here are a few starting points. I don't have a clear reference link for the age of the Pyramid as that is largely based on books I've read and it would take a while and some research just to reconstruct the bibliography. The problem with reading a lot for my own interest is that I do so without the intent to write it up formally and so just read rather than document. John Anthony West bio at World Mysteries I like some of the research West has done while falling short of endorsing his mystical interpretations. Another whom I take with a grain of salt, not that his research is not solid and he is the first solid geologist who stood up and said the Academic Egyptologists had no clothes, but he is, I think, excessively conservative in his dating of the age of the Sphinx. His website has some great photos of evidence of ancient high technology in Egypt. Well worth a visit for the photos alone. He has also done some interesting work on measuring, with aerospace grade machinist tools, the precision with which various parts of the Great Pyramid were put together. I've linked to this before and Michael Cremo wants you to buy his books and so does not give as much free stuff as I would like. Still it is worth visiting as what he has put up is stuff that does excite the intellectual taste buds. I also fall short of accepting his Hindu religious interpretations, but the data is first rate and well researched.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
Translation: It went right over your head to be filtered out by your prejudices, preconceptions, and erudition challenged viewpoint.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
Doesn't help you a bit. There are tens of thousands of "actual scientists" across the planet who can rebut you, whom you trash and whose work you reflexively dismiss. no matter where or when they make their statements First of all, your lack of mention of these 2 scientific pioneers - whose work was published in 1861 and the 1890's - shows a profound and deliberate denial of the very scientific work you claim to rely upon. As well as intellectual dishonesty by not starting at the beginning of the issue with the pioneers, and working your way forward. Next you ignore the links I provided showing their 100+ year old forecasts being corroborated by current data by making unsubstantiated opinions about agendas and data manipulation - as if you aren't the main culprit yourself. With your agenda-driven dishonesty, you really don't deserve any scientific evidence before you addess the main issues on which scientific conclusions are based, which are Now of course you can't effectively rebut any of this, so instead you try to muddy the waters with blanket unsubstantiated denials, invective, mantralike repeating of selfmade nonsense phrases, and calls for more "science" similar to shyster lawyers wanting more "evidence" because what's in front of them proves them wrong.
I just don't believe your data, and that's all I have to say about that. Yes it is. O_I gets his data points from the John Birch Society website that has consistently maintained the benefits of increased industrialization without consideration of the effects of pollution. The John Birch Society believes in the Bilderbergs/Rothchilds/bankers///// et al.... as Original_Intent. The John Birch Society maintains that increased levels of CO2 is beneficial for mankind since trees and plants thrive in that same environment. Yet, plants and trees don't thrive in enrich CO2 environments. Plants and trees thrive in a blend of Oxygen, Nitrogen and CarbonDioxide. The more CO2, the smaller the growth of plants and certainly fruits, vegetables and all ornamental trees. With about 150 years of climbing CO2, the world has found increasing tree growth towards both Antartica and the Artic. Why? It has been measured that CO2 concentrations don't exist in the extreme cold (probably due to industrial pollutants) while average increasing temperatures exist with CO2 concentrations. It is a fact that all plants thrive in a mixture or blend blend of O,N and CO2 with appropriate controlled temperatures and water H2O. On the planet, the temperature is climbing. On the planet, the levels of CO2 is climbing. Plants don't thrive in this changing environment.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
Uh, buckie? The level of confusion and misrepresentation of my position, and where I cull the data from is somewhere out beyond Pluto. Even had I gotten it from the Birch Website, which I have visited once out of curiosity in the last ten years., it would be irrelevant. Either the facts and data are as stipulated or they are not. Attacking a Strawman as you did proves absolutely nothing other than you are dishonest.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
LOL that's funny. Here are the scientists I correspond with personally on a daily basis. "Significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming." BALI, Indonesia - The UN climate conference met strong opposition Thursday from a team of over 100 prominent international scientists, who warned the UN, that attempting to control the Earth's climate was "ultimately futile." The scientists, many of whom are current and former UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) scientists, sent an open letter to the UN Secretary-General questioning the scientific basis for climate fears and the UN's so-called "solutions." "Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems," the letter signed by the scientists read. The December 13 letter was released to the public late Thursday. (LINK) The letter was signed by renowned scientists such as Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists; Dr. Reid Bryson, dubbed the "Father of Meteorology"; Atmospheric pioneer Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, formerly of the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; Award winning physicist Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu of the International Arctic Research Center, who has twice named one of the "1000 Most Cited Scientists"; Award winning MIT atmospheric scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen; UN IPCC scientist Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand; French climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux of the University Jean Moulin; World authority on sea level Dr. Nils-Axel Morner of Stockholm University; Physicist Dr. Freeman Dyson of Princeton University; Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Poland; Paleoclimatologist Dr. Robert M. Carter of Australia; Former UN IPCC reviewer Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, head of the Geological Museum in Norway; and Dr. Edward J. Wegman, of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. "It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables," the scientists wrote. "In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is ‘settled,' significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming," the open letter added. [EPW Blog Note: To read about the latest peer-reviewed research debunking man-made climate fears, see: New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears - LINK - & New Peer-Reviewed Study Finds: "Warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence." (LINK) - For a detailed analysis of how "consensus" has been promoted, see: Debunking The So-Called "Consensus" On Global Warming - LINK ] The scientists' letter continued: "The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions." "The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by government representatives. The great majority of IPCC contributors and reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts," the letter added. [EPW Note: Only 52 scientists participated in the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers in April 2007, according to the Associated Press. - LINK - An analysis by Australian climate researcher Dr. John Mclean in 2007 found the UN IPCC peer-review process to be "an illusion." LINK ] # # # Complete Letter with all signatories - As published in Canada's National Post on December 13, 2007: The National Post Dec. 13, 2007 Key Quote from Scientists’ Letter to UN: “Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems.” His Excellency Ban Ki-MoonSecretary-General, United Nations New York, N.Y. Dear Mr. Secretary-General, Re: UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it. The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by government representatives. The great majority of IPCC contributors and reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts. Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports: *Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability. *The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years. *Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling. In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is "settled," significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed ( http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg1_time..._2006-08-14.pdf ) to consider work published only through May, 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated. The UN climate conference in Bali has been planned to take the world along a path of severe CO2 restrictions, ignoring the lessons apparent from the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, the chaotic nature of the European CO2 trading market, and the ineffectiveness of other costly initiatives to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Balanced cost/benefit analyses provide no support for the introduction of global measures to cap and reduce energy consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions. Furthermore, it is irrational to apply the "precautionary principle" because many scientists recognize that both climatic coolings and warmings are realistic possibilities over the medium-term future. The current UN focus on "fighting climate change," as illustrated in the Nov. 27 UN Development Programme's Human Development Report, is distracting governments from adapting to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever forms they may take. National and international planning for such changes is needed, with a focus on helping our most vulnerable citizens adapt to conditions that lie ahead. Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems. Yours faithfully, The following are signatories to the Dec. 13th letter to the Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations on the UN Climate conference in Bali [Link to List of signatories]: Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa Richard S. Courtney, PhD, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K. Willem de Lange, PhD, Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, School of Science and Engineering, Waikato University, New Zealand David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma Freeman J. Dyson, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J. Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University Lance Endersbee, Emeritus Professor, former dean of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor of Monasy University, Australia Hans Erren, Doctorandus, geophysicist and climate specialist, Sittard, The Netherlands Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University Christopher Essex, PhD, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Associate Director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario David Evans, PhD, mathematician, carbon accountant, computer and electrical engineer and head of 'Science Speak,' Australia William Evans, PhD, editor, American Midland Naturalist; Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame Stewart Franks, PhD, Professor, Hydroclimatologist, University of Newcastle, Australia R. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor, Hawai'i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawai'i at Manoa Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas; former director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey Gerhard Gerlich, Professor for Mathematical and Theoretical Physics, Institut für Mathematische Physik der TU Braunschweig, Germany Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, sc.agr., Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, INTTAS, Paraguay Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adjunct Professor, Royal Institute of Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden Vincent Gray, PhD, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001, Wellington, New Zealand William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University and Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut Louis Hissink MSc, M.A.I.G., editor, AIG News, and consulting geologist, Perth, Western Australia Craig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, AZ, USA Andrei Illarionov, PhD, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity; founder and director of the Institute of Economic Analysis Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, physicist, Chairman - Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland Jon Jenkins, PhD, MD, computer modelling - virology, NSW, Australia Wibjorn Karlen, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Research Associate, Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Institute of Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics, Toravere, Estonia Joel M. Kauffman, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research, New Zealand Madhav Khandekar, PhD, former research scientist, Environment Canada; editor, Climate Research (2003-05); editorial board member, Natural Hazards; IPCC expert reviewer 2007 William Kininmonth M.Sc., M.Admin., former head of Australia's National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization's Commission for Climatology Jan J.H. Kop, MSc Ceng FICE (Civil Engineer Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers), Emeritus Prof. of Public Health Engineering, Technical University Delft, The Netherlands Prof. R.W.J. Kouffeld, Emeritus Professor, Energy Conversion, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands Salomon Kroonenberg, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Geotechnology, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands Hans H.J. Labohm, PhD, economist, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), The Netherlands The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist; Chairman of the Central Europe Trust; former Chancellor of the Exchequer, U.K. Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary David R. Legates, PhD, Director, Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware Marcel Leroux, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS Bryan Leyland, International Climate Science Coalition, consultant and power engineer, Auckland, New Zealand William Lindqvist, PhD, independent consulting geologist, Calif. Richard S. Lindzen, PhD, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology A.J. Tom van Loon, PhD, Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geology), Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland; former President of the European Association of Science Editors Anthony R. Lupo, PhD, Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Dept. of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri-Columbia Richard Mackey, PhD, Statistician, Australia Horst Malberg, PhD, Professor for Meteorology and Climatology, Institut für Meteorologie, Berlin, Germany John Maunder, PhD, Climatologist, former President of the Commission for Climatology of the World Meteorological Organization (89-97), New Zealand Alister McFarquhar, PhD, international economy, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K. Ross McKitrick, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph John McLean, PhD, climate data analyst, computer scientist, Australia Owen McShane, PhD, economist, head of the International Climate Science Coalition; Director, Centre for Resource Management Studies, New Zealand Fred Michel, PhD, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences and Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University Frank Milne, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Economics, Queen's University Asmunn Moene, PhD, former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway Alan Moran, PhD, Energy Economist, Director of the IPA's Deregulation Unit, Australia Nils-Axel Morner, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden Lubos Motl, PhD, Physicist, former Harvard string theorist, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic John Nicol, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Physics, James Cook University, Australia David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa James J. O'Brien, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University Cliff Ollier, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Geology), Research Fellow, University of Western Australia Garth W. Paltridge, PhD, atmospheric physicist, Emeritus Professor and former Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University Al Pekarek, PhD, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, Minnesota Ian Plimer, PhD, Professor of Geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology, Sedimentology, University of Saskatchewan Harry N.A. Priem, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Planetary Geology and Isotope Geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences Alex Robson, PhD, Economics, Australian National University Colonel F.P.M. Rombouts, Branch Chief - Safety, Quality and Environment, Royal Netherland Air Force R.G. Roper, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, B.C. Tom V. Segalstad, PhD, (Geology/Geochemistry), Head of the Geological Museum and Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, University of Oslo, Norway Gary D. Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, CA S. Fred Singer, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia and former director Weather Satellite Service L. Graham Smith, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville Peter Stilbs, TeknD, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Research Leader, School of Chemical Science and Engineering, KTH (Royal Institute of Technology), Stockholm, Sweden Hendrik Tennekes, PhD, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute Dick Thoenes, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands Brian G Valentine, PhD, PE (Chem.), Technology Manager - Industrial Energy Efficiency, Adjunct Associate Professor of Engineering Science, University of Maryland at College Park; Dept of Energy, Washington, DC Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD, geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand Len Walker, PhD, Power Engineering, Australia Edward J. Wegman, PhD, Department of Computational and Data Sciences, George Mason University, Virginia Stephan Wilksch, PhD, Professor for Innovation and Technology Management, Production Management and Logistics, University of Technolgy and Economics Berlin, Germany Boris Winterhalter, PhD, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland David E. Wojick, PhD, P.Eng., energy consultant, Virginia Raphael Wust, PhD, Lecturer, Marine Geology/Sedimentology, James Cook University, Australia A. Zichichi, PhD, President of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva, Switzerland; Emeritus Professor of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Italy Senate Report Debunks "Consensus" INTRODUCTION: Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007. Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears “bite the dust.” (LINK) In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" the green movement. (LINK) This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new “consensus busters” report is poised to redefine the debate. Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated. “Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media,” Paldor wrote. [Note: See also July 2007 Senate report detailing how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation - LINK ] Scientists from Around the World Dissent This new report details how teams of international scientists are dissenting from the UN IPCC’s view of climate science. In such nations as Germany, Brazil, the Netherlands, Russia, New Zealand and France, nations, scientists banded together in 2007 to oppose climate alarmism. In addition, over 100 prominent international scientists sent an open letter in December 2007 to the UN stating attempts to control climate were “futile.” (LINK) Paleoclimatologist Dr. Tim Patterson, professor in the department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa, recently converted from a believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. Patterson noted that the notion of a “consensus” of scientists aligned with the UN IPCC or former Vice President Al Gore is false. “I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority.” This new committee report, a first of its kind, comes after the UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri implied that there were only “about a dozen" skeptical scientists left in the world. (LINK) Former Vice President Gore has claimed that scientists skeptical of climate change are akin to “flat Earth society members” and similar in number to those who “believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona.” (LINK) & (LINK) The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; oceanography; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore. Additionally, these scientists hail from prestigious institutions worldwide, including: Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; the Belgian Weather Institute; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Stockholm University; University of Melbourne; Columbia University; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London. The voices of many of these hundreds of scientists serve as a direct challenge to the often media-hyped “consensus” that the debate is “settled.” A May 2007 Senate report detailed scientists who had recently converted from believers in man-made global warming to skepticism. [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) - In addtiion, an August 2007 report detailed how proponents of man-made global warming fears enjoy a monumental funding advantage over skeptical scientists. (LINK) ] This report counters the claims made by the promoters of man-made global warming fears that the number of skeptical scientists is dwindling. Examples of “consensus” claims made by promoters of man-made climate fears: Former Vice President Al Gore (November 5, 2007): “There are still people who believe that the Earth is flat.” (LINK) Gore also compared global warming skeptics to people who 'believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona' (June 20, 2006 - LINK) CNN’s Miles O’Brien (July 23, 2007): The scientific debate is over.” “We're done." O’Brien also declared on CNN on February 9, 2006 that scientific skeptics of man-made catastrophic global warming “are bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry, usually.” (LINK) On July 27, 2006, Associated Press reporter Seth Borenstein described a scientist as “one of the few remaining scientists skeptical of the global warming harm caused by industries that burn fossil fuels.” (LINK) Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC view on the number of skeptical scientists as quoted on Feb. 20, 2003: “About 300 years ago, a Flat Earth Society was founded by those who did not believe the world was round. That society still exists; it probably has about a dozen members.” (LINK) Agence France-Press (AFP Press) article (December 4, 2007): The article noted that a prominent skeptic “finds himself increasingly alone in his claim that climate change poses no imminent threat to the planet.” Andrew Dessler in the eco-publication Grist Magazine (November 21, 2007): “While some people claim there are lots of skeptical climate scientists out there, if you actually try to find one, you keep turning up the same two dozen or so (e.g., Singer, Lindzen, Michaels, Christy, etc., etc.). These skeptics are endlessly recycled by the denial machine, so someone not paying close attention might think there are lots of them out there -- but that's not the case. (LINK) The Washington Post asserted on May 23, 2006 that there were only “a handful of skeptics” of man-made climate fears. (LINK) UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland on May 10, 2007 declared the climate debate "over" and added “it's completely immoral, even, to question” the UN’s scientific “consensus." (LINK) ABC News Global Warming Reporter Bill Blakemore reported on August 30, 2006: “After extensive searches, ABC News has found no such [scientific] debate” on global warming. (LINK) # # Brief highlights of the report featuring over 400 international scientists: Israel: Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has authored almost 70 peer-reviewed studies and won several awards. “First, temperature changes, as well as rates of temperature changes (both increase and decrease) of magnitudes similar to that reported by IPCC to have occurred since the Industrial revolution (about 0.8C in 150 years or even 0.4C in the last 35 years) have occurred in Earth's climatic history. There's nothing special about the recent rise!” Russia: Russian scientist Dr. Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences has authored more than 300 studies, nine books, and a 2006 paper titled “The Evolution and the Prediction of Global Climate Changes on Earth.” “Even if the concentration of ‘greenhouse gases’ double man would not perceive the temperature impact,” Sorochtin wrote. Spain: Anton Uriarte, a professor of Physical Geography at the University of the Basque Country in Spain and author of a book on the paleoclimate, rejected man-made climate fears in 2007. “There's no need to be worried. It's very interesting to study [climate change], but there's no need to be worried,” Uriate wrote. Netherlands: Atmospheric scientist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute, and an internationally recognized expert in atmospheric boundary layer processes, “I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting – a six-meter sea level rise, fifteen times the IPCC number – entirely without merit,” Tennekes wrote. “I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached." Brazil: Chief Meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart of the MetSul Meteorologia Weather Center in Sao Leopoldo – Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil declared himself a skeptic. “The media is promoting an unprecedented hyping related to global warming. The media and many scientists are ignoring very important facts that point to a natural variation in the climate system as the cause of the recent global warming,” Hackbart wrote on May 30, 2007. France: Climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux, former professor at Université Jean Moulin and director of the Laboratory of Climatology, Risks, and Environment in Lyon, is a climate skeptic. Leroux wrote a 2005 book titled Global Warming – Myth or Reality? - The Erring Ways of Climatology. “Day after day, the same mantra - that ‘the Earth is warming up’ - is churned out in all its forms. As ‘the ice melts’ and ‘sea level rises,’ the Apocalypse looms ever nearer! Without realizing it, or perhaps without wishing to, the average citizen in bamboozled, lobotomized, lulled into mindless acceptance. ... Non-believers in the greenhouse scenario are in the position of those long ago who doubted the existence of God ... fortunately for them, the Inquisition is no longer with us!” Norway: Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, a professor and head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the UN IPCC: “It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction.” Finland: Dr. Boris Winterhalter, retired Senior Marine Researcher of the Geological Survey of Finland and former professor of marine geology at University of Helsinki, criticized the media for what he considered its alarming climate coverage. “The effect of solar winds on cosmic radiation has just recently been established and, furthermore, there seems to be a good correlation between cloudiness and variations in the intensity of cosmic radiation. Here we have a mechanism which is a far better explanation to variations in global climate than the attempts by IPCC to blame it all on anthropogenic input of greenhouse gases. “ Germany: Paleoclimate expert Augusto Mangini of the University of Heidelberg in Germany, criticized the UN IPCC summary. “I consider the part of the IPCC report, which I can really judge as an expert, i.e. the reconstruction of the paleoclimate, wrong,” Mangini noted in an April 5, 2007 article. He added: “The earth will not die.” Canada: IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer Madhav Khandekar, a Ph.D meteorologist, a scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project who has over 45 years experience in climatology, meteorology and oceanography, and who has published nearly 100 papers, reports, book reviews and a book on Ocean Wave Analysis and Modeling: “To my dismay, IPCC authors ignored all my comments and suggestions for major changes in the FOD (First Order Draft) and sent me the SOD (Second Order Draft) with essentially the same text as the FOD. None of the authors of the chapter bothered to directly communicate with me (or with other expert reviewers with whom I communicate on a regular basis) on many issues that were raised in my review. This is not an acceptable scientific review process.” Czech Republic: Czech-born U.S. climatologist Dr. George Kukla, a research scientist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. “The only thing to worry about is the damage that can be done by worrying. Why are some scientists worried? Perhaps because they feel that to stop worrying may mean to stop being paid,” Kukla told Gelf Magazine on April 24, 2007. India: One of India's leading geologists, B.P. Radhakrishna, President of the Geological Society of India, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. “We appear to be overplaying this global warming issue as global warming is nothing new. It has happened in the past, not once but several times, giving rise to glacial-interglacial cycles.” USA: Climatologist Robert Durrenberger, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, and one of the climatologists who gathered at Woods Hole to review the National Climate Program Plan in July, 1979: “Al Gore brought me back to the battle and prompted me to do renewed research in the field of climatology. And because of all the misinformation that Gore and his army have been spreading about climate change I have decided that ‘real’ climatologists should try to help the public understand the nature of the problem.” Italy: Internationally renowned scientist Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists and a retired Professor of Advanced Physics at the University of Bologna in Italy, who has published over 800 scientific papers: “Significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming." New Zealand: IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr. Vincent Gray, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990 and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001: “The [IPCC] ‘Summary for Policymakers’ might get a few readers, but the main purpose of the report is to provide a spurious scientific backup for the absurd claims of the worldwide environmentalist lobby that it has been established scientifically that increases in carbon dioxide are harmful to the climate. It just does not matter that this ain't so.” South Africa: Dr. Kelvin Kemm, formerly a scientist at South Africa’s Atomic Energy Corporation who holds degrees in nuclear physics and mathematics: “The global-warming mania continues with more and more hype and less and less thinking. With religious zeal, people look for issues or events to blame on global warming.” Poland: Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw: ““We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming—with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy—is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels.” Australia: Prize-wining Geologist Dr. Ian Plimer, a professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide in Australia: "There is new work emerging even in the last few weeks that shows we can have a very close correlation between the temperatures of the Earth and supernova and solar radiation.” Britain: Dr. Richard Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant: “To date, no convincing evidence for AGW (anthropogenic global warming) has been discovered. And recent global climate behavior is not consistent with AGW model predictions.” China: Chinese Scientists Say C02 Impact on Warming May Be ‘Excessively Exaggerated’ – Scientists Lin Zhen-Shan’s and Sun Xian’s 2007 study published in the peer-reviewed journal Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics: "Although the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate change is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated." Their study asserted that "it is high time to reconsider the trend of global climate change.” Denmark: Space physicist Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen is the director of the Danish National Space Centre, a member of the space research advisory committee of the Swedish National Space Board, a member of a NASA working group, and a member of the European Space Agency who has authored or co-authored around 100 peer-reviewed papers and chairs the Institute of Space Physics: “The sun is the source of the energy that causes the motion of the atmosphere and thereby controls weather and climate. Any change in the energy from the sun received at the Earth’s surface will therefore affect climate.” Belgium: Climate scientist Luc Debontridder of the Belgium Weather Institute’s Royal Meteorological Institute (RMI) co-authored a study in August 2007 which dismissed a decisive role of CO2 in global warming: "CO2 is not the big bogeyman of climate change and global warming. “Not CO2, but water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It is responsible for at least 75 % of the greenhouse effect. This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore's movie has hyped CO2 so much that nobody seems to take note of it.” Sweden: Geologist Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, professor emeritus of the Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology at Stockholm University, critiqued the Associated Press for hyping promoting climate fears in 2007. “Another of these hysterical views of our climate. Newspapers should think about the damage they are doing to many persons, particularly young kids, by spreading the exaggerated views of a human impact on climate.” USA: Dr. David Wojick is a UN IPCC expert reviewer, who earned his PhD in Philosophy of Science and co-founded the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie-Mellon University: “In point of fact, the hypothesis that solar variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth's surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The GHG (greenhouse gas) hypothesis does not do this.” Wojick added: “The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.” # # # Background: Only 52 Scientists Participated in UN IPCC Summary The over 400 skeptical scientists featured in this new report outnumber by nearly eight times the number of scientists who participated in the 2007 UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers. The notion of “hundreds” or “thousands” of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny. (See report debunking “consensus” LINK) Recent research by Australian climate data analyst Dr. John McLean revealed that the IPCC’s peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK) Proponents of man-made global warming like to note how the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) have issued statements endorsing the so-called "consensus" view that man is driving global warming. But both the NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to directly vote on these climate statements. Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these institutions produced the "consensus" statements. This report gives a voice to the rank-and-file scientists who were shut out of the process. (LINK) The most recent attempt to imply there was an overwhelming scientific “consensus” in favor of man-made global warming fears came in December 2007 during the UN climate conference in Bali. A letter signed by only 215 scientists urged the UN to mandate deep cuts in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. But absent from the letter were the signatures of these alleged “thousands” of scientists. (See AP article: - LINK ) UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri urged the world at the December 2007 UN climate conference in Bali, Indonesia to "Please listen to the voice of science.” The science has continued to grow loud and clear in 2007. In addition to the growing number of scientists expressing skepticism, an abundance of recent peer-reviewed studies have cast considerable doubt about man-made global warming fears. A November 3, 2007 peer-reviewed study found that “solar changes significantly alter climate.” (LINK) A December 2007 peer-reviewed study recalculated and halved the global average surface temperature trend between 1980 – 2002. (LINK) Another new study found the Medieval Warm Period “0.3C warmer than 20th century” (LINK) A peer-reviewed study by a team of scientists found that "warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence." (LINK) – Another November 2007 peer-reviewed study in the journal Physical Geography found “Long-term climate change is driven by solar insolation changes.” (LINK ) These recent studies were in addition to the abundance of peer-reviewed studies earlier in 2007. - See "New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears" (LINK ) With this new report of profiling 400 skeptical scientists, the world can finally hear the voices of the “silent majority” of scientists. "With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." I'm the one who post JBS stuff. My chapter leader is the son of one of the former Presidents. You'd actually like him Buck.
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." Talk about disproving the ice core proxies. I couldn't have done a better job.
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." Tosh and fiddlesticks (to put it nicely). There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998 For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero). Yes, you did read that right. And also, yes, this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say "how silly to judge climate change over such a short period". Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by the curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate. Does something not strike you as odd here? That industrial carbon dioxide is not the primary cause of earth's recent decadal-scale temperature changes doesn't seem at all odd to many thousands of independent scientists. They have long appreciated - ever since the early 1990s, when the global warming bandwagon first started to roll behind the gravy train of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - that such short-term climate fluctuations are chiefly of natural origin. Yet the public appears to be largely convinced otherwise. How is this possible? Since the early 1990s, the columns of many leading newspapers and magazines, worldwide, have carried an increasing stream of alarmist letters and articles on hypothetical, human-caused climate change. Each such alarmist article is larded with words such as "if", "might", "could", "probably", "perhaps", "expected", "projected" or "modelled" - and many involve such deep dreaming, or ignorance of scientific facts and principles, that they are akin to nonsense. The problem here is not that of climate change per se, but rather that of the sophisticated scientific brainwashing that has been inflicted on the public, bureaucrats and politicians alike. Governments generally choose not to receive policy advice on climate from independent scientists. Rather, they seek guidance from their own self-interested science bureaucracies and senior advisers, or from the IPCC itself. No matter how accurate it may be, cautious and politically non-correct science advice is not welcomed in Westminster, and nor is it widely reported. Marketed under the imprimatur of the IPCC, the bladder-trembling and now infamous hockey-stick diagram that shows accelerating warming during the 20th century - a statistical construct by scientist Michael Mann and co-workers from mostly tree ring records - has been a seminal image of the climate scaremongering campaign. Thanks to the work of a Canadian statistician, Stephen McIntyre, and others, this graph is now known to be deeply flawed.* There are other reasons, too, why the public hears so little in detail from those scientists who approach climate change issues rationally, the so-called climate sceptics. Most are to do with intimidation against speaking out, which operates intensely on several parallel fronts. First, most government scientists are gagged from making public comment on contentious issues, their employing organisations instead making use of public relations experts to craft carefully tailored, frisbee-science press releases. Second, scientists are under intense pressure to conform with the prevailing paradigm of climate alarmism if they wish to receive funding for their research. Third, members of the Establishment have spoken declamatory words on the issue, and the kingdom's subjects are expected to listen. On the alarmist campaign trail, the UK's Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir David King, is thus reported as saying that global warming is so bad that Antarctica is likely to be the world's only habitable continent by the end of this century. Warming devotee and former Chairman of Shell, Lord [Ron] Oxburgh, reportedly agrees with another rash statement of King's, that climate change is a bigger threat than terrorism. And goodly Archbishop Rowan Williams, who self-evidently understands little about the science, has warned of "millions, billions" of deaths as a result of global warming and threatened Mr Blair with the wrath of the climate God unless he acts. By betraying the public's trust in their positions of influence, so do the great and good become the small and silly. Two simple graphs provide needed context, and exemplify the dynamic, fluctuating nature of climate change. The first is a temperature curve for the last six million years, which shows a three-million year period when it was several degrees warmer than today, followed by a three-million year cooling trend which was accompanied by an increase in the magnitude of the pervasive, higher frequency, cold and warm climate cycles. During the last three such warm (interglacial) periods, temperatures at high latitudes were as much as 5 degrees warmer than today's. The second graph shows the average global temperature over the last eight years, which has proved to be a period of stasis. The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown. We are fortunate that our modern societies have developed during the last 10,000 years of benignly warm, interglacial climate. But for more than 90 per cent of the last two million years, the climate has been colder, and generally much colder, than today. The reality of the climate record is that a sudden natural cooling is far more to be feared, and will do infinitely more social and economic damage, than the late 20th century phase of gentle warming. The British Government urgently needs to recast the sources from which it draws its climate advice. The shrill alarmism of its public advisers, and the often eco-fundamentalist policy initiatives that bubble up from the depths of the Civil Service, have all long since been detached from science reality. Intern-ationally, the IPCC is a deeply flawed organisation, as acknowledged in a recent House of Lords report, and the Kyoto Protocol has proved a costly flop. Clearly, the wrong horses have been backed. As mooted recently by Tony Blair, perhaps the time has come for Britain to join instead the new Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (AP6), whose six member countries are committed to the development of new technologies to improve environmental outcomes. There, at least, some real solutions are likely to emerge for improving energy efficiency and reducing pollution. Informal discussions have already begun about a new AP6 audit body, designed to vet rigorously the science advice that the Partnership receives, including from the IPCC. Can Britain afford not to be there? • Prof Bob Carter is a geologist at James Cook University, Queensland, engaged in paleoclimate research And see this: *People who continue using this stupid hockey stick graph in their presentations and arguments are, at best, charlatans and quacks.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. He (Gordon Duff) also implies that forcibly removing Obama, a Constitution-hating, on-the-down-low, crackhead Communist, is an attack on America, Mom, and apple pie. I swear these military people are worse than useless. Just look around at the condition of the country and tell me if they have fulfilled their oaths to protect the nation from all enemies foreign and domestic. Any sightings of the Wooden One lately? Wondering what will be the Tubster's haul when the split is finalized?
And here are their motives: Biased towards making and keeping money rather than doing what it takes to find out the truth: "While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity" "Balanced cost/benefit analyses provide no support for the introduction of global measures to cap and reduce energy consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions."
Comments (234 - 283) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestYou really have to quit buying into these media reports.
#194. To: farmfriend, buckeroo (#191)
CO2 in the oceans is not destroying coral reefs. You really have to quit buying into these media reports.
Rising acidity in oceans is leading to a global catastrophe that would be unparalleled in tens of millions of years, according to the national science academies of 69 countries which want governments to take the issue more seriously in the run-up to the December climate change conference in Europe.
What a shameless liar you are pretending to be seeking debate and scientific facts, then dismissing scientific facts that rebut your kookblather as "media reports." The only suitable word to describe your intellectual dishonesty is "disgusting."
#195. To: AGAviator (#194)
(Edited)
The rate at which the oceans are turning acidic
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#196. To: farmfriend (#195)
Ask yourself how the coral reefs survived much higher CO2 levels in the past. Remember, CO2 is at historic lows for the planet.
And remember, computer modeling is not science.
#197. To: farmfriend (#195)
The oceans are not turning acidic. The oceans are base
Cut emissions or acidity will kill coral reefs, scientists say: 'Underwater catastrophe' is imminent without action
#198. To: AGAviator (#197)
"Global atmospheric CO2 concentrations are now at 387 parts per million ... model projections suggest that by mid-century, CO2 concentrations will be more than double pre-industrial levels and the oceans will be more acidic than they have been for tens of millions of years," the panel said.
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#199. To: farmfriend, AGAviator, all (#198)
(Edited)
The study you are citing is nothing more than computer projects designed to force a political outcome. No reality involved.
#200. To: Original_Intent (#199)
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#201. To: farmfriend, buckeroo (#198)
(Edited)
As I said before, computer models are NOT science
The study you are citing is nothing more than computer projects designed to force a political outcome. No reality involved.
#202. To: farmfriend (#200)
BTW, the Michael they were talking about in the "hide the decline" email was Michael Mann of the infamous hockey stick. There is a DA going after him now.
#203. To: Original_Intent (#202)
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#204. To: AGAviator, farmfriend, Original_intent, randge, James Deffenbach, Mind_Virus, christine, abraxas, AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt, GreyLmist, gengis gandhi, earthchild, TwentyTwelve, Horse, wudidiz, ada, Googolplex, all (#192)
(Edited)
It's not my data.
Anger? as a first reaction to get your a$$ moving, once you see through the Media Matrix and set yourself free from your lifelong mind control collar. Sustainable? not enough to screen your intention to be free from the Talosians, who can’t read primitive emotions but know what you watch on cable/sat, read on the Internet and eat. Our ultimate weapon is laughter and amused detachment at the folly of the would-be emperors. Fear mongers HATE it when the FEAR card doesn’t work. The humiliation of being seen as merely a naked ape is THEIR big fear. Laugh the bastards off the stage! Tell your friends that we can build a real civilization from the ruins of the totalitarian game!
#205. To: farmfriend (#203)
One of biggest problems with climate modeling is they don't take into account clouds. Since they can't model water vapor and clouds they can't possibly be correct in the climate "predictions". Some models have shown clouds to be a positive feed back while some show a negative feed back.
#206. To: HighLairEon (#204)
Lord Acton
OsamaBinGoldstein posted on 2010-05-25 9:39:59 ET (2 images) Reply Trace
#207. To: James Deffenbach (#206)
That was an awesome post. Glad you took the time and made the effort.
Anger? as a first reaction to get your a$$ moving, once you see through the Media Matrix and set yourself free from your lifelong mind control collar. Sustainable? not enough to screen your intention to be free from the Talosians, who can’t read primitive emotions but know what you watch on cable/sat, read on the Internet and eat. Our ultimate weapon is laughter and amused detachment at the folly of the would-be emperors. Fear mongers HATE it when the FEAR card doesn’t work. The humiliation of being seen as merely a naked ape is THEIR big fear. Laugh the bastards off the stage! Tell your friends that we can build a real civilization from the ruins of the totalitarian game!
#208. To: HighLairEon, AGAviator, farmfriend, James Deffenbach, wudidiz, christine, All, who would know reason (#204)
(Edited)
#209. To: AGAviator (#201)
Then there are the predictions of Tyndall and Arrhenius done over 100 years ago when computers were not even invented, prize winning scientists, that are being fulfilled although more rapidly than they foresaw.
Solar radiation passes through the atmosphere, as through glass in a greenhouse, to warm the earth. Much of it is reflected back as slow-moving infra-red radiation – and most of this gets absorbed by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, principally water and carbon dioxide, heating the world further. If it were not for this aerial duvet, the earth would be 20C colder, making it uninhabitable.
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#210. To: Original_Intent (#208)
I can think of only one word to describe your essay - brilliant. It is shining gem standing out as clear call to reason.
Anger? as a first reaction to get your a$$ moving, once you see through the Media Matrix and set yourself free from your lifelong mind control collar. Sustainable? not enough to screen your intention to be free from the Talosians, who can’t read primitive emotions but know what you watch on cable/sat, read on the Internet and eat. Our ultimate weapon is laughter and amused detachment at the folly of the would-be emperors. Fear mongers HATE it when the FEAR card doesn’t work. The humiliation of being seen as merely a naked ape is THEIR big fear. Laugh the bastards off the stage! Tell your friends that we can build a real civilization from the ruins of the totalitarian game!
#211. To: HighLairEon (#204)
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#212. To: farmfriend (#209)
... And don't even get me started on ice core and tree ring proxies. We don't have all day to go over the problems with those.
Anger? as a first reaction to get your a$$ moving, once you see through the Media Matrix and set yourself free from your lifelong mind control collar. Sustainable? not enough to screen your intention to be free from the Talosians, who can’t read primitive emotions but know what you watch on cable/sat, read on the Internet and eat. Our ultimate weapon is laughter and amused detachment at the folly of the would-be emperors. Fear mongers HATE it when the FEAR card doesn’t work. The humiliation of being seen as merely a naked ape is THEIR big fear. Laugh the bastards off the stage! Tell your friends that we can build a real civilization from the ruins of the totalitarian game!
#213. To: HighLairEon (#212)
Your patience, clear thinking and lucid articulation are exemplary! Not that this post is exceptional; it is indeed characteristic. It is fun to read your posts, especially when you are gently restraining your passion for the benefit of the wee ones, but cannot fully suppress your wit from spicing up your expression... 8=>
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#214. To: farmfriend (#211)
Anger? as a first reaction to get your a$$ moving, once you see through the Media Matrix and set yourself free from your lifelong mind control collar. Sustainable? not enough to screen your intention to be free from the Talosians, who can’t read primitive emotions but know what you watch on cable/sat, read on the Internet and eat. Our ultimate weapon is laughter and amused detachment at the folly of the would-be emperors. Fear mongers HATE it when the FEAR card doesn’t work. The humiliation of being seen as merely a naked ape is THEIR big fear. Laugh the bastards off the stage! Tell your friends that we can build a real civilization from the ruins of the totalitarian game!
#215. To: HighLairEon (#210)
(Edited)
The most common misuse of Occam's razor is to exclude "inconvenient" facts from the process, favoring the established theories by "curve fitting" the data.
The simplest theory that covers ALL the known facts Ma'am is most likely to be the truth. Exclude the anomalies and cripple the theoretical model, sometimes for more than 100 years, mental inertia and moneyed interests compounding the problem....
#216. To: HighLairEon (#214)
(Edited)
Glad you enjoyed it (and that I did not inadvertently ruffle any feathers with my reference to the fury potential of the femme!)
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#217. To: Original_Intent, HighLairEon (#215)
(Edited)
Occam's Razor is one of my pet peeves. It's simplistic misuse to explain away inconvenient data is so pervasive as to inspire aspiration upon sighting. It is particularly prevalent in Archaeology, one of my enduring interests, where it is used to discredit any and all discoveries in conflict with the established Academic Paradigm. Of course that is the antithesis of the Scientific Method which requires that validated data be accounted for in the theory, and as you point out, not discarded because it is in disagreement with the current academic fad.
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#218. To: Original_Intent (#215)
Of course that is the antithesis of the Scientific Method which requires that validated data be accounted for in the theory, and as you point out, not discarded because it is in disagreement with the current academic fad. ... I could go on but I would be playing to the gallery and preaching to the choir. No doubt you have read Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". Oh, how the establishment hates him even now. The all purpose heretic. ;-)
Anger? as a first reaction to get your a$$ moving, once you see through the Media Matrix and set yourself free from your lifelong mind control collar. Sustainable? not enough to screen your intention to be free from the Talosians, who can’t read primitive emotions but know what you watch on cable/sat, read on the Internet and eat. Our ultimate weapon is laughter and amused detachment at the folly of the would-be emperors. Fear mongers HATE it when the FEAR card doesn’t work. The humiliation of being seen as merely a naked ape is THEIR big fear. Laugh the bastards off the stage! Tell your friends that we can build a real civilization from the ruins of the totalitarian game!
#219. To: farmfriend (#217)
One of the most visible in that area, at lest to me, is the age of the Sphinx and Egytologist's reactions to the idea that geology doesn't support their contentions.
#220. To: Original_Intent (#219)
As for the age of the Pyramids the circumstantial evidence points toward a minimum age of 18 to 24 thousand years - and the translation of one Stele, by Ibn Ben Said, suggests 74,000.
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#221. To: HighLairEon (#218)
(Edited)
Of course that is the antithesis of the Scientific Method which requires that validated data be accounted for in the theory, and as you point out, not discarded because it is in disagreement with the current academic fad. ... I could go on but I would be playing to the gallery and preaching to the choir. No doubt you have read Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". Oh, how the establishment hates him even now. The all purpose heretic. ;-)
Agreed that Big Science hates having its skirts raised by anyone and Kuhn certainly made a cogent case for the politics and social foibles of the scientific process.
He was preceded more succinctly by Arthur Schopenhauer, German philosopher (1788 – 1860)
#222. To: HighLairEon, buckeroo (#204)
(1) CO2 is a poison to human beings, as biology and the English lanaguage define "poison,"
Now after these 100-some posts, it's quite obvious none of you can rebut any of this and you'r not honest enough to admit it. So what's left? Endlessly repeating kookbabble about media conspiracies with your pet invective added, and trashing anybody in any position - scientist or not - who contradicts your Internet opinions.
(2) Substantially greater amounts of CO2 are entering the atmosphere causing a global warming condition predicted over 100 years ago by 2 separate prize-winning scientists in 2 separate countries, and confirmed by current ***scientific research*** around the world
(3) Concurrent with the incease of the poison CO2 into the present atmosphere, hundreds of thousands of acres of vegetation are destroyed daily, reducing the capacity of the earth to assimilate and convert this CO2 into more developed life-benefitting substances, and
(4) Increased dissolved CO2 "carbonic acid" is rapidly making the oceans less alkaline and thereby less able to sustain coral reefs and the biodiversity they shelter.
#223. To: farmfriend, HighLairEon, wudidiz (#220)
As for the age of the Pyramids the circumstantial evidence points toward a minimum age of 18 to 24 thousand years - and the translation of one Stele, by Ibn Ben Said, suggests 74,000.
#224. To: AGAviator, HighLairEon, farmfriend (#222)
Your long-winded poitifications and generalizations about everything except specific issues I raised is really too full of psychobabble to deserve any specific replies.
#225. To: farmfriend, buckeroo (#209)
(Edited)
So you finally bring up some actual scientists.
(1) CO2 is a poison as science and English define poison,
(2) The Earth is undergoing a long-predicted temperature increase as the result of increased consumption of carbon-based fuels,
(3) The ability of the Earth to assimimilate and convert these fuels into something better is being hampered by large-scale destruction of vegetation, and
(4) The reliance upon the ocean to reconvert the poison CO2 into more beneficial substances is causing destruction of coral reefs and related habitats which will reach critical levels in another 40 years.
#226. To: randge, AGAviator, Original_Intent, hissy_fits_par excellent! (#188)
It's nothing to do with Bilderburgers.
#227. To: buckeroo, farmfriend, James Deffenbach (#226)
#228. To: AGAviator (#225)
First of all, your lack of mention of these 2 scientific pioneers - whose work was published in 1861 and the 1890's - shows a profound and deliberate denial of the very scientific work you claim to rely upon.
Over 100 Prominent Scientists Warn UN Against 'Futile' Climate Control Efforts
Don't Fight, Adapt; We Should Give Up Futile Attempts to Combat Climate Change
U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#229. To: buckeroo, randge, AGAviator, Original_Intent (#226)
O_I gets his data points from the John Birch Society website that has consistently maintained the benefits of increased industrialization without consideration of the effects of pollution. The John Birch Society believes in the Bilderbergs/Rothchilds/bankers///// et al.... as Original_Intent.
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#230. To: buckeroo, randge, AGAviator, Original_Intent, (#226)
With about 150 years of climbing CO2, the world has found increasing tree growth towards both Antartica and the Artic. Why? It has been measured that CO2 concentrations don't exist in the extreme cold (probably due to industrial pollutants) while average increasing temperatures exist with CO2 concentrations.
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#231. To: buckeroo (#226)
On the planet, the temperature is climbing.
Lord Acton
OsamaBinGoldstein posted on 2010-05-25 9:39:59 ET (2 images) Reply Trace
#232. To: James Deffenbach (#231)
#233. To: farmfriend (#228)
(Edited)
Here are the scientists I correspond with personally on a daily basis.
"We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation. "
.
.
.