CLIMATEGATE!!!!!!!!!!!!! - Page 6
Old 12-05-2009, 08:36 PM   #101 (permalink)
the gat'll killya quicker, when I'm drunk off the liquor

The Mara sisters are hot!
 
Bill Haverchuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,272
Representing:
Default

Bill Haverchuck is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2009, 08:41 PM   #102 (permalink)
the gat'll killya quicker, when I'm drunk off the liquor

The Mara sisters are hot!
 
Bill Haverchuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,272
Representing:
Default

^
|
|
|
The mainstream media is covering it.
Bill Haverchuck is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2009, 02:47 AM   #103 (permalink)
Marion: "when I came to Toronto I felt tired, lazy, skin started to dry up, so I left.

Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 377
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArmChairGM View Post


It's pretty hard looking at this guy to even pay attention to him, good job mainstream media of not putting a good looking man or woman to talk about this issue....
The average Canadian probably won't even pay attention to this guy, instead of trying to talk straight up and clear about the issue he has a long story where you will be lost unless you listen from the beginning....

Don't expect people to even listen to this guy especially females.
lumi398 is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2009, 04:08 AM   #104 (permalink)
a dick

Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,151
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArmChairGM View Post
^
|
|
|
The mainstream media is covering it.
Yeah Rex Murphy talked about it once. Give me more than that. I watched that. That's all that's really been tossed out there on CBC besides one quick blurp earlier. Yes, what you posted totally debunks the fact that most major news outlets aren't willing to touch the story with a ten foot pole. They're not even willing to attack the story and that in itself is odd given that they're usually raping anyone who dares suggest anything that goes against what the sheep are being force fed. I guess if there is no defense the best thing to do is just pretend its not happening?... Especially with Copenhagen about to start. Let's allow China and India to continue to grow with no restrictions on production, pumping out more pollutants than anyone, but let's all shoot ourselves in the crotch here in North America with this cap and trade farse that's going to kill jobs and shrink GDP. Killing jobs and shrinking GDP due to cap and trade based on cooked books is a great way to fight the recession.

Last edited by Apollo; 12-06-2009 at 04:21 AM.
Apollo is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2009, 04:00 PM   #105 (permalink)
the gat'll killya quicker, when I'm drunk off the liquor

The Mara sisters are hot!
 
Bill Haverchuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,272
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Apollo View Post
Yeah Rex Murphy talked about it once. Give me more than that. I watched that. That's all that's really been tossed out there on CBC besides one quick blurp earlier. Yes, what you posted totally debunks the fact that most major news outlets aren't willing to touch the story with a ten foot pole. They're not even willing to attack the story and that in itself is odd given that they're usually raping anyone who dares suggest anything that goes against what the sheep are being force fed. I guess if there is no defense the best thing to do is just pretend its not happening?... Especially with Copenhagen about to start. Let's allow China and India to continue to grow with no restrictions on production, pumping out more pollutants than anyone, but let's all shoot ourselves in the crotch here in North America with this cap and trade farse that's going to kill jobs and shrink GDP. Killing jobs and shrinking GDP due to cap and trade based on cooked books is a great way to fight the recession.

Apollo, if you looked for actual stories from the msm, they are out there. The thing is, you obvious didn't seek them out. What's so hillarious, is that you could have found MSM stories that support your position. You didn't even need to rely on "user generated content." I've read several stories in the Toronto Sun (reprinted nationally in other sun papers) that have been critical of the situation, similar to the article posted by Benzo from the National Post. This story is receiving coverage. But, nope, you chose user generated content. The fact that you did that, just demonstrates you're not even looking.

By the way, I would love to here a response to the criticisms levied against Tim Ball. You dodged it when I first brought it up, then you dodged LX. Were you aware of his connections to Oil Companies? Given his connection to that industry, why do you find him more trustworthy than other sources?

Apollo, you calling anyone a sheep is ironic. Yes, a lot of society is sheep, but that goes for both sides of the spectrum. People who believe everything about the doom and gloom without having the knowledge to understand it are being sheep, to a degree, which is why I have said repeatedly that I am not certain all predictions based on computer models are entirely accurate. It's a cost benefit analysis for me, though. I don't necessarily want to do everything people are proposing, but some changes would be wise. And that can be said for reasons other than just global warming. I take into consideration a host of variables. Yes, worrying about the economy is important in the short term. I understand that a lot of people in certain sectors of the economy would be sensitive to this issue, especially those in Alberta.

But people who think that cap and trade is based solely on research connected to the CRU emails are also fucking sheep who are talking out of their asses. I mean, any smart global warming denier would even know that. They would know that there is lots of other research that has nothing to do with the emails and the comments made in the emails.

Now, here is a larger sample of some coverage I read/watched over the past few days, in addition to the two articles Benzo posted, the one Trane posted, and the CBC video I posted. I could post more links, since I read more coverage today. And I didn't even include the American and British coverage that I've read.


Link 1:

UN panel to do its own climategate probe

Link 2 (two short print coverages AND two videos. The Layton interview is worth watching):

CTV stories

Link 3:

Why Climategate won't stop greens

Link 4:

Botch after botch after botch

Link 5:

Prentice dismisses 'climategate' allegations

Link 6:

Breach in the global warming bunker

Link 7 (It even popped up on the financial page):

Don't let climategate melt your portfolio

Link 8:

Canadian duo ripped

Link 9:

From Climategate to Copenhagen

And link 10 will be Lloyd Robertson.

Last edited by Bill Haverchuck; 12-06-2009 at 04:11 PM.
Bill Haverchuck is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2009, 04:03 PM   #106 (permalink)
the gat'll killya quicker, when I'm drunk off the liquor

The Mara sisters are hot!
 
Bill Haverchuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,272
Representing:
Default

Bill Haverchuck is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2009, 04:44 PM   #107 (permalink)
a paranoid android

My name is Iņigo Montoya

 
Belsius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Madrid, Spain
Posts: 10,546
Representing:
Default

Jon Stewart has mentioned it quite a lot
Belsius is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2009, 11:31 AM   #108 (permalink)
a dick

Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,151
Representing:
Default

See here's the thing, you shouldn't have to dig and search for this stuff. It should be making headlines. Stuff of this magnitude should be making headlines but let me change gears here as everyone ignored an important thing I mentioned.

What do you want to come out of Copenhagen? Do these emails alarm you at all? If they don't then are you for cap and trade, more taxes, a lower GDP and less jobs? This is what is at the heart of things. If the emails shed doubt on the current warming theory then should we accept our country taking an economical hit during a recession? I think things need to come to a grinding halt until this is sorted out one way or the other.
Apollo is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2009, 11:37 AM   #109 (permalink)
a dick

Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,151
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Cap and Trade

Cap and trade is one method for regulating and ultimately reducing the amount of pollution emitted into the atmosphere. It is viewed as a more democratic solution to regulating pollution than a carbon tax as it creates a commodity out of the right to emit carbon and allows the commodity to be traded on the free market.
Quote:
PROS: The leading legislative bills project a cap and trade system can reduce carbon dioxide by over 80% of 2005 emission levels by 2050 and significantly reduce the rate of global warming. The system will also create billions of dollars for the government to spend on consumer energy programs. Current bills have indicated that government revenues derived from permit sales could be spent on public goods such as road improvements and national parks, as well as the possibility of personal checks being sent to households to offset energy costs.

CONS: What many fear is that if businesses and corporations are financially punished for their pollution emissions, the costs will eventually be handed over to the consumers. Basic economic principles state that if a good's price increases, demand usually decreases. However, because energy production is an inelastic good, utility companies can drive up their sale price to cover their rising production costs without seeing a decrease in demand from their customers.
Cap and Trade definition - An encyclopedia of environmental terms and topics from ecomii ecopedia
Apollo is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2009, 09:56 PM   #110 (permalink)
Marion: "when I came to Toronto I felt tired, lazy, skin started to dry up, so I left.

Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 377
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Apollo View Post
See here's the thing, you shouldn't have to dig and search for this stuff. It should be making headlines. Stuff of this magnitude should be making headlines but let me change gears here as everyone ignored an important thing I mentioned.

What do you want to come out of Copenhagen? Do these emails alarm you at all? If they don't then are you for cap and trade, more taxes, a lower GDP and less jobs? This is what is at the heart of things. If the emails shed doubt on the current warming theory then should we accept our country taking an economical hit during a recession? I think things need to come to a grinding halt until this is sorted out one way or the other.



The hacked emails or whatever they call it is probably just a new way to stir the news. It offers hope to those people who don't want to pay higher taxes. Even if nothing comes out of Copenhagen, Obama still has the power to make new rules and increase taxes, the whole hacked emails event is probably to offer false hope to the people so it seems like they aren't losing in all fronts. They are trying to rush all these new bills quickly, never seen them being signed this quickly before so i'm pretty sure they were all written in advance and then put a new face so Bush will not be blamed for everything.
Don't worry though, the people are busy with school and work and X-Factor that they won't even notice these changes in laws and increased taxes until it hits them.
lumi398 is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2009, 09:39 AM   #111 (permalink)
a dick

Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,151
Representing:
Default

Nothing legally binding is likely to come out of Copenhagen, based on what I've read leading up to the event.
Apollo is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2009, 10:44 AM   #112 (permalink)
I believe in Masai!

giant steps

 
'trane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 16,698
Representing:
Default

the economist has a fantastic 14-page special section on cliamte change and copenhagen this week.

the thing i love about the economist is that it puts its bias out in front. it is a pro-business, pro-free-trade, small l liberal newspaper with a social conscience that is balanced against low tax thresholds and the value of fair competition in the marketplace. above all though, it is decidedly non-partisan, a breath of fresh air in the toiday's media world.

the economist tries its best to give you balanced reporting, and it makes its bias so clear that it's easy to read through it. i encourage you all to check out the special section in this week's paper - it's thorough, balanced and gives fresh breath to many of these issues.

here are a couple of the articles, although the whole section is not available on line:

A special report on climate change and the carbon economy: : Getting warmer | The Economist

Quote:
In most of the world the climate changes to date are barely perceptible or hard to pin on warming. In British Columbia and farther north the effects of climate change are clearer. Air temperatures in the Arctic are rising about twice as fast as in the rest of the world. The summer sea ice is thinning and shrinking. The past three years have seen the biggest losses since proper record-keeping started in 1979. Ten years ago scientists reckoned that summer sea-ice would be gone by the end of this century. Now they expect it to disappear within a decade or so.

Since sea-ice is already in the water, its melting has little effect on sea levels. Those are determined by temperature (warmer water takes up more room) and the size of the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps. The glaciers in south-eastern Greenland have picked up speed. Jakobshavn Isbrae, the largest of them, which drains 6% of Greenland’s ice, is now moving at 12km a year—twice as fast as it was when the UNFCCC was signed—and its “calving front”, where it breaks down into icebergs, has retreated by 20km in six years. That is part of the reason why the sea level is now rising at 3-3.5mm a year, twice the average annual rate in the 20th century.

As with the mountain bark beetle, it is not entirely clear why this is happening. The glaciers could be retreating because of one of the countless natural oscillations in the climate that scientists do not properly understand. If so, the glacial retreat could well stop, as it did in the middle of the 20th century after a 100-year retreat. But the usual causes of natural variability do not seem to explain the current trend, so scientists incline to the view that it is man-made. It is therefore likely to persist unless mankind starts to behave differently—and there is not much sign of that happening.

Carbon-dioxide emissions are now 30% higher than they were when the UNFCCC was signed 17 years ago. Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 equivalent (carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases) reached 430 parts per million last year, compared with 280ppm before the industrial revolution. At the current rate of increase they could more than treble by the end of the century, which would mean a 50% risk of a global temperature increase of 5ēC. To put that in context, the current average global temperature is only 5ēC warmer than the last ice age. Such a rise would probably lead to fast-melting ice sheets, rising sea levels, drought, disease and collapsing agriculture in poor countries, and mass migration. But nobody really knows, and nobody wants to know.

Some scientists think that the planet is already on an irreversible journey to dangerous warming. A few climate-change sceptics think the problem will right itself. Either may be correct. Predictions about a mechanism as complex as the climate cannot be made with any certainty. But the broad scientific consensus is that serious climate change is a danger, and this newspaper believes that, as an insurance policy against a catastrophe that may never happen, the world needs to adjust its behaviour to try to avert that threat.

The problem is not a technological one. The human race has almost all the tools it needs to continue leading much the sort of life it has been enjoying without causing a net increase in greenhouse-gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Industrial and agricultural processes can be changed. Electricity can be produced by wind, sunlight, biomass or nuclear reactors, and cars can be powered by biofuels and electricity. Biofuel engines for aircraft still need some work before they are suitable for long-haul flights, but should be available soon.

Nor is it a question of economics. Economists argue over the sums (see article), but broadly agree that greenhouse-gas emissions can be curbed without flattening the world economy.

A hard sell
It is all about politics. Climate change is the hardest political problem the world has ever had to deal with. It is a prisoner’s dilemma, a free-rider problem and the tragedy of the commons all rolled into one. At issue is the difficulty of allocating the cost of collective action and trusting other parties to bear their share of the burden. At a city, state and national level, institutions that can resolve such problems have been built up over the centuries. But climate change has been a worldwide worry for only a couple of decades. Mankind has no framework for it. The UN is a useful talking shop, but it does not get much done.

The closest parallel is the world trading system. This has many achievements to its name, but it is not an encouraging model. Not only is the latest round of negotiations mired in difficulty, but the World Trade Organisation’s task is child’s play compared with climate change. The benefits of concluding trade deals are certain and accrue in the short term. The benefits of mitigating climate change are uncertain, since scientists are unsure of the scale and consequences of global warming, and will mostly accrue many years hence. The need for action, by contrast, is urgent.

The problem will be solved only if the world economy moves from carbon-intensive to low-carbon—and, in the long term, to zero-carbon—products and processes. That requires businesses to change their investment patterns. And they will do so only if governments give them clear, consistent signals. This special report will argue that so far this has not happened. The policies adopted to avoid dangerous climate change have been partly misconceived and largely inadequate. They have sent too many wrong signals and not enough of the right ones.
The Copenhagen Summit: Stopping climate change | The Economist

Climate change e-mails: Reply all | The Economist

Climate change: What lies beneath | The Economist

The Copenhagen climate-change conference: Searching for harmony | The Economist
'trane is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2009, 11:21 AM   #113 (permalink)
a dick

Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,151
Representing:
Default

Another famous scientist criticizing the current enforced theory:

Quote:
MINING geology Professor Ian Plimer, from the University of Adelaide, has reignited debate on the issue of climate change with a book for "the average punter".

Heaven and Earth. Global warming: the missing science was launched in Adelaide this week by former Premier Dean Brown. The book professes to "destroy every single argument that has ever been raised about human-induced climate change".

But the University of Adelaide's climate change Professor Barry Brook says it "pushes mainstream science out of context, again and again".

ARE HUMANS TO BLAME FOR CLIMATE CHANGE? Have your say in the comment box below

"Ian's stated view of climate science is that a vast number of extremely well respected scientists and a whole range of specialist disciplines have fallen prey to delusional self interest and become nothing more than unthinking ideologues," he says.

"Plausible to conspiracy theorists, perhaps, but hardly a sane world view – and insulting to all those genuinely committed to real science."

An overwhelming majority of the world's climate scientists are convinced the planet is now warming as a result of human activity, mainly the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and gas.

About 2500 scientists, including more than 100 Australians, were involved in writing the major assessment reports for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which are widely held as a statement of scientific consensus on the topic.

Most of these scientists are concerned with recent changes to the Earth's atmosphere and how the planet can be expected to respond to rising levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases such as methane.

Professor Plimer believes the IPCC has neglected historical evidence of past climate changes, which are recorded in the rocks.

"When we look at the history of climate changes, not one has been driven by carbon dioxide," he says.

"Climate always changes, as do sea levels, as does life (on Earth) and we are living in times that are not extraordinary. The only way you can have the view that humans change climate is if you ignore history."

But Professor Brook rejects the claim that a huge body of scientific evidence, from geology and astronomy, has been ignored by the IPCC.

"This is an extraordinary proposition and quite at odds with the published literature, as reviewed by the IPCC," he says.

"I wonder if Ian has ever read their reports to find out what they actually do say."

Professor Brook was at the launch and has read Professor Plimer's book, but he is in the minority when it comes to climate scientists.

Australian Science Media Centre chief executive, Dr Susannah Eliott, has encouraged climate scientists to read the book and make informed comment.

"A lot of them haven't read the book and don't want to read the book," she said.

"I bought four copies and we've farmed it out to different people and said `read it, have a look at it, give us your comments'. So far what we gather is there isn't anything new in there, they are all old arguments."

SA Museum director Suzanne Miller says she attended the launch to support a colleague and bought the book, but hasn't had a chance to read it yet.

"I think that it is incredibly healthy to have a debate and discussion about the science behind climate change," she says.

"As a geologist I agree entirely with practically all other geologists, including Ian, that there has been change throughout the history of the planet. It's a very dynamic place."

UniSA chancellor Dr Ian Gould was also in attendance and was pointed out by Professor Plimer as having purchased 10 books.

A geologist by profession, Dr Gould has 40 years of experience in the minerals industry in diverse and senior positions, mainly within the CRA and Rio Tinto group.

Dr Gould says he was prepared to comment only as an individual, not as a representative of industry or the university.

"Climate change is real, it is happening, there's no doubt," he says. "It's only an issue of how much is about carbon dioxide caused by man-made processes."

Professor Plimer says he called in the "big guns" to back him up on this one, such as European Union President Vaclav Klaus, who has written a cover note.

"I've done that very deliberately to show that there is a great body of extremely clever and well-known people out there that do not agree with the Chicken Little arguments that are being put up," he says.

"What I've done is I've written this book as a compendium of the science so that the average punter can read it and validate the intuitive gut feelings that they've had because the punters out there are not stupid, they know when they've been fed rubbish."

Journalist Christopher Pearson from The Australian said he was honoured to serve as the master of ceremonies at the launch.

He says Dr Plimer has given sceptics a "campaign document" that contains all the ammunition they could want, packed into 493 eloquent pages.

"Heartened by it, perhaps some timid politicians in both main parties will at last feel at liberty to own up to their private reservations about warmist catastrophe," he says.
Source: News.com

Awaiting the standard character attacks against this gentleman...
Apollo is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2009, 01:49 PM   #114 (permalink)
a dick

Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,151
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Mohammad Al-Sabban told BBC News that the issue will have a "huge impact" on next week's UN climate summit, with countries unwilling to cut emissions.
Quote:
"It appears from the details of the scandal that there is no relationship whatsoever between human activities and climate change," he told BBC News.

"Climate is changing for thousands of years, but for natural and not human-induced reasons.

"So, whatever the international community does to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will have no effect on the climate's natural variability."
Quote:
Mr Al-Sabban said the UN summit should encourage a "full investigation" of the CRU e-mails affair.
Source: BBC
Apollo is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2009, 02:57 PM   #115 (permalink)
the gat'll killya quicker, when I'm drunk off the liquor

The Mara sisters are hot!
 
Bill Haverchuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,272
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Apollo View Post
Apollo, Apollo, Apollo. Yikes.

Dude, you're quoting the lead negotiator from Saudi Arabia, one of the world's largest oil producing countries. Conflict of interest?

Let's look at another quote from the same article:
Quote:
Scientists say the e-mails from the University of East Anglia do not alter the picture of man-made warming.
You can spin that story either way.
Bill Haverchuck is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2009, 04:16 PM   #116 (permalink)
is pounding the rock!

Captain Ding Dong
 
Aar_Canada's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: St.Catharines
Posts: 4,924
Representing:
Default

For what it's worth...

CTS Television: Online Video Player
Aar_Canada is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2009, 04:34 PM   #117 (permalink)
the gat'll killya quicker, when I'm drunk off the liquor

The Mara sisters are hot!
 
Bill Haverchuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,272
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Apollo View Post
Another famous scientist criticizing the current enforced theory

Awaiting the standard character attacks against this gentleman...
Why would anybody need to make a character attack against this guy? When you refer to "standard character attacks", I'm assuming you mean the legitimate conflicts of interest pointed out in the case of Tim Ball, the gentleman in an earlier video you posted. There were legitimate conflicts of interest. He accepts money from "Big Oil."

1 - I am familiar with Dr. Pilmer's work. The article you posted is from April. Since then, several flaws with his work have been highlighted. Most scientists won't bother with him because his work is junk, not because they are afraid of him. And this is not a generic ad hominem or character attack, it's an attack on his lack of academic honesty, which can be established.

I'll give you one of the most glaring examples. In his book, Dr. Pilmer uses the exact same graph from the movie the "The Great Global Warming Swindle" in order to try and make the case for global cooling during the second half of the 20th century. In doing so, he neglects to include the temperature increases from the post-1975 years. It's so dishonest. If you're going to get pissy about proxy data and the use of the word "trick", then you should be REALLY angry over somebody leaving out the most recent 30 years from the equation when we are talking about an ongoing situation. This guy cut 30 years out of the graph.

Also, he makes the same old erroneous solar activity argument that you brought up with the link about the Russian scientist. As I already explained, the atmospheric temperature readings completely belie the solar activity theory. The stratosphere (upper atmosphere) is cooling. The warming the planet has experienced is NOT uniform throughout the atmosphere. Furthermore, solar activity has gone down since the 80s, even though global temperatures went up during the 90s and the long term trend has continued to increase (2005 is a perfect example of the long term trend of warming).

A little fact checking is all that is required to expose the inadequacies and lack of logic in his book. Seriously. The solar activity argument is old and shit. That's the reason people don't take people like Dr. Pilmer serious. I mentioned before, there are smart people who think the gloom and doom is total bullshit, but even they would not publish a book like Dr. Pilmer's. I mean, their egos would not allow them to publish something that is so weak. The inadequacies may not be obvious on the surface, but anyone who acquires basic knowledge of the discipline will pick up on them.

2 - I'm actually kind of glad you posted that Dr. Pilmer article, though, because it validates a point I was trying to get Benzo to comprehend:

Quote:
An overwhelming majority of the world's climate scientists are convinced the planet is now warming as a result of human activity, mainly the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and gas.
Get that? Overwhelming majority. One group of scientists who send out emails making themselves look like douches does not destroy all the other research done by the rest of the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY who accept man made global warming. Again, I'm not saying all of the doom and gloom will be accurate; this is about whether man made global warming is occuring and whether or not there is potential for serious problems.
Bill Haverchuck is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2009, 05:22 PM   #118 (permalink)
pensive

feat. Otto Neurath
 
Ligeia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,087
Representing:
Default

I've read a few reviews of Plimer's book "Heaven and Hell" (his attempt at climate skepticism) and they have destroyed him for poor sourcing, red herrings, and simply inaccurate information. Granted, I should read the book myself before passing judgement, but the early returns do not look good.

Also, I don't know if you've ever heard Plimer speak, or read any of his previous work, but I don't think he ranks as a serious or prudent skeptical thinker, particularly when his view is opposed to the majority of scientific opinion.



Came across an interesting image today: http://www.informationisbeautiful.ne...the-consensus/
Ligeia is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2009, 06:52 PM   #119 (permalink)
a dick

Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,151
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArmChairGM View Post
Apollo, Apollo, Apollo. Yikes.

Dude, you're quoting the lead negotiator from Saudi Arabia, one of the world's largest oil producing countries. Conflict of interest?

Let's look at another quote from the same article:


You can spin that story either way.
Al Gore got the man caused climate change wheels really spinning and he's made over a $100M off of it so cry me a river. Facts are facts and those boys in the UK cooked the books.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArmChairGM View Post
Apollo, Apollo, Apollo. Yikes.

Dude, you're quoting the lead negotiator from Saudi Arabia, one of the world's largest oil producing countries. Conflict of interest?

Let's look at another quote from the same article:


You can spin that story either way.
Scientists say it does alter the theory too though. Those scientists haven't been caught with their pants down.

Last edited by Apollo; 12-08-2009 at 06:55 PM.
Apollo is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2009, 08:05 PM   #120 (permalink)
LX
synapse jelly

In the Paint


 
LX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 28,739
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 'trane View Post
the economist has a fantastic 14-page special section on cliamte change and copenhagen this week.

the thing i love about the economist is that it puts its bias out in front. it is a pro-business, pro-free-trade, small l liberal newspaper with a social conscience that is balanced against low tax thresholds and the value of fair competition in the marketplace. above all though, it is decidedly non-partisan, a breath of fresh air in the toiday's media world.

the economist tries its best to give you balanced reporting, and it makes its bias so clear that it's easy to read through it. i encourage you all to check out the special section in this week's paper - it's thorough, balanced and gives fresh breath to many of these issues.
Thanks - it's a great place for solid information, because interestingly enough, our business elites do not want spin when they are investing.
LX is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright RaptorsForum.com 2005-2011

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24