See other Science/Tech Articles
Title: No smoking hot spot
Source:
The Australian
URL Source: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.a ... /0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html
Published: Jul 18, 2008
Author: David Evans
Post Date: 2008-07-18 13:33:59 by farmfriend
Ping List: *Agriculture-Environment* Subscribe to *Agriculture-Environment*
Keywords: None
Views: 1496
Comments: 126
David Evans | July 18, 2008 I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector. FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I've been following the global warming debate closely for years. When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects. The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet. But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts: 1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it. Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever. If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again. When the signature was found to be missing in 2007 (after the latest IPCC report), alarmists objected that maybe the readings of the radiosonde thermometers might not be accurate and maybe the hot spot was there but had gone undetected. Yet hundreds of radiosondes have given the same answer, so statistically it is not possible that they missed the hot spot. Recently the alarmists have suggested we ignore the radiosonde thermometers, but instead take the radiosonde wind measurements, apply a theory about wind shear, and run the results through their computers to estimate the temperatures. They then say that the results show that we cannot rule out the presence of a hot spot. If you believe that you'd believe anything. 2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming. 3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). Land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the "urban heat island" effect: urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling. 4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect. None of these points are controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with them, though they would dispute their relevance. The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician's assertion. Until now the global warming debate has merely been an academic matter of little interest. Now that it matters, we should debate the causes of global warming. So far that debate has just consisted of a simple sleight of hand: show evidence of global warming, and while the audience is stunned at the implications, simply assert that it is due to carbon emissions. In the minds of the audience, the evidence that global warming has occurred becomes conflated with the alleged cause, and the audience hasn't noticed that the cause was merely asserted, not proved. If there really was any evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming, don't you think we would have heard all about it ad nauseam by now? The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming. Evidence consists of observations made by someone at some time that supports the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory. What is going to happen over the next decade as global temperatures continue not to rise? The Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions. If the reasons later turn out to be bogus, the electorate is not going to re-elect a Labor government for a long time. When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it. And if the Liberals support the general thrust of their actions, they will be seen likewise. The onus should be on those who want to change things to provide evidence for why the changes are necessary. The Australian public is eventually going to have to be told the evidence anyway, so it might as well be told before wrecking the economy. Dr David Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005.
No smoking hot spot
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-68) not displayed.
.
.
.
#69. To: FormerLurker (#13)
Yea, and they put it together and blew it up AFTER gathering enough QUANTITATIVE evidence that it would work, they didn't think up the concept, then gather a bunch of sand and try to compress it with cap gun caps to intitiate the chain reaction...
Government blows and that which governs least blows least...
The bottom line is that the oil and coal industries lose money if the world stops buying their product. They can and will fight that to the bitter end. If you don't understand that, then you need to think long and hard about what money is all about, and what a group of people who control the world's energy supply would do to maintain that control.
As for random quack, he DID create the modeling warez, you're not going to weasel oout on a "creds" arguement on this one... Actually, the government itself sides with the oil companies, as expected. Bush's people have tried to silence scientists such as Dr. Hansen. So are you now a big fan of "W" Bush and Dick Cheney, who is also on the anti-global warming bandwagon?
Dr. Hansen is a quack. Global cooling is occurring right now. More CO2 in the atmosphere is good for the Earth and all living things. Do some research and find out how very little infrared radiation from Earth actually is affected by CO2 compared to water vapor and you will then have to acknowledge that CO2 cannot cause runaway global warming on Earth.
God is always good!
God is always good!
Yes they will but that doesn't mean that CO2 causes runaway global warming. The oil and gas companies are actively blocking new breakthroughs in solar panel technologies by lobbying the government to block land use for experiments due to "environmental" concerns. Yes, the oil and gas companies don't care about cheap energy or alternate forms of energy and they are hurting us all by being so greedy. But that doesn't change the fact that more CO2 in the atmosphere is actually good for Earth and not bad and in no way can cause runaway global warming.
God is always good!
And who told you that, your mentor George Bush, or your master Dick Cheney? Report Links Cheney Office, Oil Giant to Global Warming Policy Shift
Time for YOU to do some research. By ITSELF, CO2 might not pose as much of a risk, but as there are OTHER greenhouse gases emitted by man, it DOES pose a risk when the other gases are taken into consideration. Try reading these publications, educate yourself on any science you might not understand, then after a year or more, maybe you could actually make a valid statement concerning the topic. As of late, you've posted fraudulent info concerning sunspots and a fraudulent petition with fake names posing as a real petition signed by real scientists. So I take what you post as just the ranting of someone who either doesn't know the first thing of what he's talking about, or one who is deliberately posting false information for profit and/or pleasure.
Yeah, if anyone doesn't buy into Al's bs about the sky falling they just automatically must be a shill for the coal and oil industry. Never mind the fact that I have never received a penny for my "shilling," but have paid them plenty for the gas I use. I couldn't give less than two $#it$ about the "coal and oil industries," never have derived any benefit from them. But your hero, Hansen, takes all the money Soros throws at him. And isn't that "special"?
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. I was out of line about getting your meds adjusted. I understand that you are passionate about what you believe and that is ok. I tried to tell you more than once that your beliefs are your business and if you want to believe in "global warming" have at it. But I was wrong to make it personal I guess. Just got tired of all that stuff about how people who worked for the government were so smart and how it would be almost impossible for them to be wrong (and that is the way you come across on this issue). But anyway, I apologize to you for saying what I did about getting your meds adjusted, it was uncalled for.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Soros funds NASA? That's funny, I thought it was the US taxpayers.
That isn't what I said. Soros has provided mega money to Hansen. I didn't say a word about him funding NASA. Here is an article I found about Hansen and I imagine there are more. Is Global Warming Alarmist James Hansen a Shill for George Soros? By Jake Gontesky The claims against anthropogenic global warming skeptics are often the same: they're all shills for big oil or other industry wishing to poke holes in the 'consensus theory' of global warming (which isn't a consensus at all). Under the so-called "politicization of science" program, George Soros' (the favorite fundraiser of many democrats) has reportedly given as much as $720,000 to Hansen to help package his alarmist claims and get them pushed by the mainstream media (The Soros Threat to Democracy): How many people, for instance, know that James Hansen, a man billed as a lonely "NASA whistleblower" standing up to the mighty U.S. government, was really funded by Soros' Open Society Institute , which gave him "legal and media advice"? That's right, Hansen was packaged for the media by Soros' flagship "philanthropy," by as much as $720,000, most likely under the OSI's "politicization of science" program. So he got some big paychecks from Soros - but was there a quid pro quo? The evidence certainly indicates as much: That may have meant that Hansen had media flacks help him get on the evening news to push his agenda and lawyers pressuring officials to let him spout his supposedly "censored" spiel for weeks in the name of advancing the global warming agenda. Hansen even succeeded, with public pressure from his nightly news performances, in forcing NASA to change its media policies to his advantage. Had Hansen's OSI-funding been known, the public might have viewed the whole production differently. The outcome could have been different. Did Soros' funding pay off? You be the judge. Do a quick google search on James Hansen to read any of the thousands of mainstream media stories touting Hansen's claims of censorship by the Bush administration. This wouldn't be the first time credibility questions have been raised regarding Hansen and his alarmist claims [see "When does 1,400 Media Interviews = Muzzled" (03/20/07)]. But the alarmist's favorite poster-boy James Hansen is hardly the only benefactor of Soros' funding designed to get more media play for politicized topics important to the left - check out the full article for more on the non-disclosure disclosures regarding immigration and other big topics of the day. ___________________
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Now that's a mouthful.
You are the bigger man. FL never appologizes for the personal attacks he lobs and he spends more time doing that then arguing the science. For my part, I'll continue to post science information. Anything else is just not worth it.
Thank you. I try not to make these things personal and I recognize that others can have a different idea and it doesn't make them a bad person. But everything I have read about this issue seems to indicate that the earth goes through these cycles of warming and cooling and has done so throughout all known history. And it has also been said that one volcanic eruption of any size will pump more CO2 into the atmosphere than man ever has. So unless there is some way that Al and his minions can control natural cycles and things like volcanoes I see no hope for anything much different than the regular warming and cooling cycles.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. On a more humorus note. Man contributes 3% of the CO2. Ocean outgassing is the main CO2 source. Did you read the recent study showing that the deserts are a bigger carbon sink than forests? Quite the surprise. Do you think we will see enviros calling for increasing desert size to offset carbon emissions?
The cartoonist made Al look way too smart. Good cartoon though.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. It all depends on what Al tells them to do I suppose.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. FL, you need to get over the concept of a "cabal" controlling oil interests and over the fact that whether or not their is a cabal, it's irrelevant to the climate debate. The western oil companies comprise about 15-20% of total world oil companies, with most of the rest, far bigger, being government owned. The planet is awash in hydrocarbons, they're use is not, and won't perceptibly for quite a while if ever, contribute significantly to the climate dynamics. The KEY point is that their use is widespread enough, and the conundrum posed by the government paid fear mongerers is nebulous enough, that you can force policy through it and gain greater control. Haven't you noticed that it's like the freakin' Borg lately, Ads everywhere, R's and D's laying side by side on the issue???
Government blows and that which governs least blows least...
Hey farmgirl, for one I don't spend 24/7 on Internet chat boards or forums, I actually work for a living. For two, I see you as an agent provocateur here on this forum, leading the sheep to the slaughter. You post mostly propaganda, and use that propaganda to troll for a response to it, pinging people that you know will find the material false and/or misleading. After baiting said people, you launch attacks on them and then cry that you've been personally offended. You are playing a game here, and it's a game only played by those who either collect money for their efforts, or who are quite insane.
You don't know that, and scientists with much more knowledge and experience in the matter than you or I have said the opposite. Remember, it's not the government that is warning us about global warming, it's a neutral body of scientists who are simply doing their job that are doing so. Cheney and his oil buddies are on YOUR side, where they oppose the concept of global warming. Doesn't that make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside?
Uh uh. There is a team of Chinese scientists who have made that claim, yet they can't account for where the CO2 would go if the sand actually did absorb CO2 as they claim. The evidence is shakey at best, and it isn't for certain that the claim is valid. Of course you treat it as gospel.
I suggest the bozo.
Speaking of ad hominem attacks....
I've never bozo'd anyone here, and don't intend to. I like to know what's being said about me, especially by one as determined as her to trash me here on the 4um.
Just got tired of all that stuff about how people who worked for the government were so smart and how it would be almost impossible for them to be wrong (and that is the way you come across on this issue). I was trying to point out that dedicated scientists who work at NASA and who have the most advanced equipment available to gather and collect data are a bit more believable than some "consultant" who works for Exxon/Mobil in order to debunk the claims made by NASA scientists. That is especially true when one considers the fact that those claims WOULD negatively impact oil company and coal industry profits if they resulted in corrective measures such as alternative fuels and energy sources. But anyway, I apologize to you for saying what I did about getting your meds adjusted, it was uncalled for. If you were who I thought you were, I doubt you would have even thought of saying that since we had come to each other's defence countless times on another forum. I've never personally attacked you nor made you appear to be an idiot, which I COULD have done if I was so inclined. Anyways, apology accepted. I reacted harshly due to the surprise and betrayal I felt from your words. I apologize for those comments.
That is a claim made in an editorial, with NO supporting evidence. One link I found referred to a Soros PDF file, where if you look through it closely, there is NO reference to Hansen receiving money from Soros. Besides, from what I've seen, Soros has been a huge pain in the ass for neocons and zionists, but I don't see why people who claim to be patriots would have a problem with him. As far as Hansen, yes, he did have quite a few media interviews largely BECAUSE of NASA's former policy of censoring his remarks and articles concerning global warming. But he and his team WERE being censored for a period of time... Watchdog: NASA misled on global warming studies So are you a fan of Dick Cheney all of a sudden? Report Links Cheney Office, Oil Giant to Global Warming Policy Shift
I work as well and I don't give a shit how you see me. I have a well documented internet history. Too many people know who I am and what I do. Remember this crap was tried on me over at LP when I came out against the MCDC. People tried to lob these same accusation against me. What happened? People who knew me but were on the oppisite side of the argument came out and spoke in my favor. It didn't work there and it won't work here. *shakes head* I post interesting articles on a subject I've dealt with for many years now going back to the Klamath Basin Crisis. I ping people who have signed up for a list. I don't care what side of the argument they are on. I've maintained a similar list on FR, LP, and LF. As I recall you were the one whining about being personally attacked not me. I'm not playing any game. I take our freedoms including property and water rights very serious. AGW is just the latest issue used to take our rights from us.
Now that is just plain funny. That's even funnier.
Where exactly have I tried to trash you? As I recall you were the one trashing me in PMs to everyone. I am not the one making unfounded accusations against your character thread after thread after thread.
2. I've never personally attacked you nor made you appear to be an idiot, which I COULD have done if I was so inclined. 3. Anyways, apology accepted. I reacted harshly due to the surprise and betrayal I felt from your words. I apologize for those comments. 1. You wouldn't seriously suggest that ALL of the scientists who say that global warming is a bunch of bs work for Exxon/Mobil, would you? I find that pretty incredible. 2. I suspect that gate swings both ways. And if you think that mild comment about getting your meds adjusted, a comment I have made before to my friends who thought nothing of it, was an "attack" all I can say is that we have a different idea about what constitutes an "attack." Telling someone to "eat shit bud" probably qualifies but I could let it pass because I can see how dedicated you are to your beliefs about global warming. 3. I am glad you accepted the apology. Likewise, I accept yours. And I will refrain from posting directly to you on this issue since your mind is made up about it. I have no problem with that but have no desire to beat my head over a brick wall either.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Oh yeah, I guess that must be it. Of course I have called him just about every kind of jackass and horse's ass you can think of but I guess that makes me a big fan of his.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Sure your not. It's as I said, you bait people, then when they respond to what you post and call a spade a spade, you accuse them of personal attacks. Where exactly have I tried to trash you? The post I responded to, #82, is a glowing example. As I recall you were the one trashing me in PMs to everyone. A handful of people does not constitute "everyone", and I wasn't "trashing you", I was simply telling them of my observations. I find some of your past actions and comments "curious" at minimum.
So how neutral is your friend who works for Rush Limburgh and headed the swiftboat attack team?
I don't believe a word of what you say.
Uh huh. Who's the one that brought up the phrase "personal attack" on this thread. Check post #82 and see who posted it.
I'd say just about every one of them are either RNC backed, fossil fuel energy industry backed, or backed by governments who stand to lose if they can't burn all the oil, coal, and gas their little hearts desire, such as China and India.
I still don't think it is too credible to believe that none of the scientists who argue against this stuff are all in bed with the oil companies while all of the ones who argue for it and are financed by Soros and fronted by people like Al Gore--and I think we all know what a crooked sob he is--are all salt of the earth, honest people, who would never, ever lie for money. No, not credible at all.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. You have not proved that ANY of them are financed by Soros. Your reference to Hansen was bogus. At most, Hansen was aided by a whistleblower assistance group, who had once obtained a grant from OSI, a Soros corporation. It was rather dishonest of the authors whose articles you've read that accuse Hansen of being funded by Soros. And THAT is what raises the red flag for me, where the level of dishonesty and deception on the side of the global warming critics is absolutely blatent.
Swiftboat attack team? What the heck does that have to do with global warming or cooling? This issue really should have nothing to do with politics. I have looked at the facts only and have concluded it is utter BS. Noble peace prizes are not usually given to people who are deserving but rather the opposite. Al Gore sure the heck wasn't deserving of such an award.
God is always good!
Comments (110 - 126) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestThe atomic bomb was just a theory before they actually put one together and blew it up.
#70. To: Axenolith (#67)
Scientifically managed technocracy, that's what they want.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#71. To: Axenolith (#68)
FL - The... Government... Has... Our... Best... Interests... At... Heart...
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#72. To: FormerLurker (#71)
Bush's people have tried to silence scientists such as Dr. Hansen.
#73. To: FormerLurker (#70)
(Edited)
#74. To: FormerLurker (#70)
(Edited)
The bottom line is that the oil and coal industries lose money if the world stops buying their product.
#75. To: RickyJ (#72)
Dr. Hansen is a quack. Global cooling is occurring right now.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#76. To: RickyJ (#72)
Do some research and find out how very little infrared radiation from Earth actually is affected by CO2 compared to water vapor and you will then have to acknowledge that CO2 cannot cause runaway global warming on Earth.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#77. To: FormerLurker (#66)
Let's see, we have a shill for the coal and oil industries and a shill from the ADL posing as a Jew hater playing kissy face and swapping spit. How special.
Lord Acton
#78. To: FormerLurker (#65)
Eat shit bud.
Lord Acton
#79. To: James Deffenbach (#77)
But your hero, Hansen, takes all the money Soros throws at him.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#80. To: FormerLurker (#79)
Soros funds NASA?
Lord Acton
#81. To: Axenolith (#67)
Scientifically managed technocracy,
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#82. To: James Deffenbach, Axenolith (#78)
But anyway, I apologize to you for saying what I did about getting your meds adjusted, it was uncalled for.
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#83. To: farmfriend (#82)
Lord Acton
#84. To: James Deffenbach, Axenolith (#82)
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#85. To: James Deffenbach, Axenolith (#83)
And it has also been said that one volcanic eruption of any size will pump more CO2 into the atmosphere than man ever has.
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#86. To: farmfriend (#84)
Lord Acton
#87. To: farmfriend (#85)
Did you read the recent study showing that the deserts are a bigger carbon sink than forests? Quite the surprise. Do you think we will see enviros calling for increasing desert size to offset carbon emissions?
Lord Acton
#88. To: FormerLurker (#71)
#89. To: farmfriend, James Deffenbach, Axenolith, Original_Intent, wudidiz, TwentyTwelve, angle (#82)
FL never appologizes for the personal attacks he lobs and he spends more time doing that then arguing the science. For my part, I'll continue to post science information.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#90. To: Axenolith (#88)
The planet is awash in hydrocarbons, they're use is not, and won't perceptibly for quite a while if ever, contribute significantly to the climate dynamics.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#91. To: farmfriend (#85)
(Edited)
Did you read the recent study showing that the deserts are a bigger carbon sink than forests?
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#92. To: FormerLurker (#89)
(Edited)
#93. To: farmfriend (#84)
http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/varv07192008a.jpg
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#94. To: angle (#92)
I suggest the bozo.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#95. To: James Deffenbach (#78)
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#96. To: James Deffenbach (#80)
Under the so-called "politicization of science" program, George Soros' (the favorite fundraiser of many democrats) has reportedly given as much as $720,000 to Hansen to help package his alarmist claims and get them pushed by the mainstream media (The Soros Threat to Democracy):
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#97. To: FormerLurker (#89)
Hey farmgirl, for one I don't spend 24/7 on Internet chat boards or forums, I actually work for a living. For two, I see you as an agent provocateur here on this forum, leading the sheep to the slaughter.
You post mostly propaganda, and use that propaganda to troll for a response to it, pinging people that you know will find the material false and/or misleading. After baiting said people, you launch attacks on them and then cry that you've been personally offended.
You are playing a game here, and it's a game only played by those who either collect money for their efforts, or who are quite insane.
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#98. To: Axenolith, FormerLurker (#90)
(Edited)
You don't know that, and scientists with much more knowledge and experience in the matter than you or I have said the opposite.
Remember, it's not the government that is warning us about global warming, it's a neutral body of scientists who are simply doing their job that are doing so.
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#99. To: FormerLurker (#94)
I like to know what's being said about me, especially by one as determined as her to trash me here on the 4um.
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#100. To: FormerLurker (#95)
1. I was trying to point out that dedicated scientists who work at NASA and who have the most advanced equipment available to gather and collect data are a bit more believable than some "consultant" who works for Exxon/Mobil in order to debunk the claims made by NASA scientists.
Lord Acton
#101. To: FormerLurker (#96)
So are you a fan of Dick Cheney all of a sudden?
Lord Acton
#102. To: farmfriend (#99)
I am not the one making unfounded accusations against your character thread after thread after thread.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#103. To: farmfriend (#98)
That's even funnier.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#104. To: farmfriend (#97)
I'm not playing any game. I take our freedoms including property and water rights very serious. AGW is just the latest issue used to take our rights from us.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#105. To: farmfriend (#97)
As I recall you were the one whining about being personally attacked not me
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#106. To: James Deffenbach (#100)
You wouldn't seriously suggest that ALL of the scientists who say that global warming is a bunch of bs work for Exxon/Mobil, would you? I find that pretty incredible.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#107. To: FormerLurker (#106)
I'd say just about every one of them are either RNC backed, fossil fuel energy industry backed, or backed by governments who stand to lose if they can't burn all the oil, coal, and gas their little hearts desire, such as China and India.
Lord Acton
#108. To: James Deffenbach (#107)
ones who argue for it and are financed by Soros
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#109. To: FormerLurker (#103)
So how neutral is your friend who works for Rush Limburgh and headed the swiftboat attack team?
.
.
.