|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
11-05-2009, 10:53 AM
|
#2 (permalink) |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Utah, USA
Posts: 153
|
They need to hurry up and get this passed while there are still a few people out there that believe in man made climate change. Luckily this didn't happen thirty years ago when scientists were proposing the idea increasing the greenhouse effect to stave off the impending ice age.
|
|
|
11-05-2009, 02:02 PM
|
#3 (permalink) |
|
-LIFETIME MEMBER-
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Berkshires
Posts: 3,212
|
I know... The 95%+ of scientists (the few) who believe in it are dwindling in number at an alarming rate.
__________________
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." 10/11 - 24, Smote on Feb 13 |
|
|
|
11-05-2009, 02:35 PM
|
#5 (permalink) |
|
-LIFETIME MEMBER-
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Berkshires
Posts: 3,212
|
OOoooo.. Youtube as a reliable source. And a youtube coverage of a lawsuit by John Coleman, a guy with a journalism degree, no less. Because we all know none of those have ever been filed without good cause. And we all know journalists are experts in meteorology and ALWAYS give you the straight story.
 The moment I hit 'reply' I began wondering if it would be youtube or a nutjob's blog you'd whip out as support. Seems to be a little of both this time. Here, these are what those with some sort of scientific background call a 'source'... A whopping 68 papers published since 2000 that challenge the theory: http://www.friendsofscience.org/asse...Feb%206-07.pdf And here's a World Meterological Organization document (in partnership with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the United Nations Environment Programme) using 4,617 papers supporting the climate change theory: IPCC WG1 AR4 Report Notice none of them are youtube? or a psycho ranter's blog? Grownups call those 'Peer reviewed publications.'
__________________
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." 10/11 - 24, Smote on Feb 13 Last edited by MunkySpunk; 11-05-2009 at 02:54 PM. |
|
|
|
11-05-2009, 03:22 PM
|
#6 (permalink) |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Utah, USA
Posts: 153
|
So now youtube is somehow biased? A site that allows you to post videos is itself somehow biased. John Coleman (founder of The Weather Channel) is somehow less important because this TV clip was posted on youtube?
Do you have any studies supporting global warming that have been produced by organizations that did not have anything to gain politically or financially? It is interesting that all of the proposals that have resulted from the global warming scare result in huge shifts in either money or power. I would have thought that we would have an immediate call for the construction of nuclear power plants in the U.S., but that is not the case. Instead, we have schemes which involve things like "carbon credits" and treaties that require the United States to pay lesser developed countries for our destruction of the environment. A non-youtube link for you: TESTIMONY OF DR. SYUN-ICHI AKASOFU |
|
|
|
11-05-2009, 04:54 PM
|
#7 (permalink) | |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Utah, USA
Posts: 153
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
11-05-2009, 05:08 PM
|
#8 (permalink) |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Rocket Ranch, FL
Posts: 236
|
No. Youtube isn't biased. It's a storage area for anybody(smart or clueless) to post anything. You really have to follow the chain of custody when trying to fact check(if you're into that). My Dad and most relatives are neo-cons. They would forward their bs to all of us. I would reply to all with snopes or factcheck links. It's funny, those kind of emails are only sent by conservatives. My liberal friends and myself never do that. It's like they're all doom and gloom junkies. If somethings not worrying the crap out of them, they feel naked. I don't get it
|
|
|
|
11-05-2009, 05:14 PM
|
#9 (permalink) | |||||||
|
-LIFETIME MEMBER-
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Berkshires
Posts: 3,212
|
Quote:
Youtube is totally unedited, unverified, and open access. Anyone, I mean anyone can put whatever they want on it. It doesn't make it qualified at all. Quote:
John Coleman is as important as he was before posting this, just as irrelevant to meteorological research and just as untrained in science. And he's got as much authority and actual research training in meteorology as a garbage man. He's got a degree in journalism. He's a weather newscaster. This means he's good at getting in front of the camera and bullshitting for 5 minutes twice an evening. That and a buck will get him a cup of coffee during a NASA tour. He's not a meteorologist. He's got no formal scientific training or qualifications. Quote:
Quote:
 Quote:
Actually it is the case. It's one proposal of a multi-pronged approach. Quote:
It's another part of a multi-pronged approach. Quite being so narrow minded. It's going to take a lot more than throwing up some nuclear plants, including FORCING the corps to reduce emissions. Quote:
1 scientist against climate change theory before congress. Did you notice the parade of scientists that disagreed with him also before congress. Anything else?
__________________
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." 10/11 - 24, Smote on Feb 13 |
|||||||
|
|
|
11-05-2009, 05:20 PM
|
#10 (permalink) | ||
|
-LIFETIME MEMBER-
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Berkshires
Posts: 3,212
|
Quote:
Quote:
It's not as bad as other stuff. But other stuff isn't being pumped into the air in such massive quantities like CO2. It's a matter of volume and continued volume every day. If it wasn't CO2, why would they be targeting as something as 'innocuous' as CO2? You'd think they'd be lighting methane clouds on fire to scare the shit out of people. That logic of 'falsely' singling out CO2 doesn't make sense.
__________________
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." 10/11 - 24, Smote on Feb 13 |
||
|
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
