Whens this global warming going to start? Got a blizzard happening here right now.
10,000 years? Can we accelerate it somehow?
10,000 years? Can we accelerate it somehow?
Epic Anti-Global Warming Monologue
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
There's some really funny nonsense being peddled by Levant. Like this:
And as for the part about funding, that is easily disproved. First of all, it's not university administrators who give out billions of dollars in research grants worldwide. Tuition rates just aren't that high...:lol:
It's funding agencies, largely government agencies. As for research grants to skeptics?
Take a look at this quote, from an article written by a skeptical scientist from a Canadian university:
http://http-server.carleton.ca/~tpatters/research/research.html
I'll grant that more research funds go to those scientists who have published results showing the human cause is significant and the largest forcing factor. But that isn't really shocking to me. Grants are competitive, maybe 1 in 10 proposals will actually get funding. Levant would tell you it's not merit based at all.
It's a conspiracy theory. He can't provide any evidence that "Universities" are picking who receives the funding...it's obvious he doesn't even know how the funding of science works. Which is really the funniest of all!
Thanks for the laugh Locutus :lol:
Beating the drum for big government solutions? Sure. There's lots of that. What's funny about that? The reason that is so predominant is because the other loud folks, simply deny what the science literature is producing. They are denying what the measurements are showing us. So how can we expect to hear other solutions when the predominantly right-wing skeptics won't even acknowledge what the experts are finding when they dig in?
And as for the part about funding, that is easily disproved. First of all, it's not university administrators who give out billions of dollars in research grants worldwide. Tuition rates just aren't that high...:lol:
It's funding agencies, largely government agencies. As for research grants to skeptics?
Take a look at this quote, from an article written by a skeptical scientist from a Canadian university:
Definitely a skeptic. Later in the same article he bangs the global cooling drum. And look at his faculty research page:
http://http-server.carleton.ca/~tpatters/research/research.html
Qualified graduate Students Sought for Northwest Territories Ice Road Paleoclimate Project
Application deadline: open
Major funding in support of a three-year Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada Strategic Project grant has been awarded to study the "Impact of Climate Change on the Long-Term Viability of the Strategically Important Tibbitt to Contwoyto Winter Road, Northwest Territories". A broad overview of the project and the ojectives is provided below. Graduate students in a number of subdisciplines are sought to carry out the multiproxy analysis. Please address any general queries to Tim Patterson (tpatters@earthsci.carleton.ca).
Funny! Wrong, but funny nonetheless. I wonder how many people just accept what he says at face value, versus those who qualify as skeptics and actually test his specific claims? :lol:Application deadline: open
Major funding in support of a three-year Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada Strategic Project grant has been awarded to study the "Impact of Climate Change on the Long-Term Viability of the Strategically Important Tibbitt to Contwoyto Winter Road, Northwest Territories". A broad overview of the project and the ojectives is provided below. Graduate students in a number of subdisciplines are sought to carry out the multiproxy analysis. Please address any general queries to Tim Patterson (tpatters@earthsci.carleton.ca).
I'll grant that more research funds go to those scientists who have published results showing the human cause is significant and the largest forcing factor. But that isn't really shocking to me. Grants are competitive, maybe 1 in 10 proposals will actually get funding. Levant would tell you it's not merit based at all.
It's a conspiracy theory. He can't provide any evidence that "Universities" are picking who receives the funding...it's obvious he doesn't even know how the funding of science works. Which is really the funniest of all!
Thanks for the laugh Locutus :lol:
Just so that you will not be unhappy and feel ignored, I visited your site. In spite of a warning from Firefox that it is an unsafe site. But, that's me! Any risk in the cause of science.
What jumped out about the first graph and was confirmed when I dug up the text from its source, was that it was a phony. The commentary said that it was the original in a peer reviewed study and that a revised chart by the same authors changed their study in order not to contradict Mann et all.
Yeah! Scientists do that all the time. Submerge their egos to seek the applause of other scientists.
In fact, the absurdity of the comment is revealed in the statement that, for the revised graph they omitted 20,000 years. That would have put it slap in the last Ice Age and not in the MWP or the Holocene
The reality is that the graph they show is Monckton's distortion of the original.
A real commentary is here.
Rabett Run
My offer is open. Choose any part of your source and we can consider the 'merits.'
Ezra Levant and Fox News? There are two really unbiased sources. They have about as much credibility as the tobacco industry. In fact most global warming deniers appear to have picked up their propagandist techniques from that industry.
I really dont care,too Jesse venturish for me.
This post has been peer reviewed by my cat.
you peeps better hope a wayward asteroid doesnt hit earth and black out the sun for a few hundred years,that would undo all your hard work.
So do you know what a stringer is in geological sediments?
i'll make this easy for you,how about a stringer in a coal seam,do you know what it represents?
From a rockhound or geologists eye?
This post has been peer reviewed by my cat.
you peeps better hope a wayward asteroid doesnt hit earth and black out the sun for a few hundred years,that would undo all your hard work.
So do you know what a stringer is in geological sediments?
i'll make this easy for you,how about a stringer in a coal seam,do you know what it represents?
From a rockhound or geologists eye?
Last edited:
First of all something is happening, personally I think it is the natural evolution of
climate altering its course of events as it has throughout history The planet cools
and heats up that's it.
Follow the money, that is right, the economy runs on things that become obsolete
or need to change and adapt. First the environmentalists were hippies and crazies
until the man decided there was a buck in it then the whole issue became the norm,
the in thing the status quo. In fact they combined it with the new religion Organic
food and packaged it with GMOs so they could control the food supply and the price.
yes it is about money, the original people were pushed aside for corporate leaders,
the organic people were brought under the control of a sham system called food auditing
which has no interest in food safety or quality, they care about money.
There are some truths and some unknowns we could learn from but they are over shadowed
by the greed and the inflated ego's of those who want to expand their personal power base
at the expense of everyone else. The media is sucked in, the government reps are sucked
in because the message is all about survival. The people believe the companies and the
self appointed saviours of the planet.
I do think we have to do our part to ensure we don't destroy human and animal habitat but
really farting cows and dumping milk down the sink will not bring an end to the world.
Greedy private interests that preach a green world to us while they produce their consumer
products in filthy factories polluting the third world will create more problems than we ever
dreamed possible.
End of Rant.
climate altering its course of events as it has throughout history The planet cools
and heats up that's it.
Follow the money, that is right, the economy runs on things that become obsolete
or need to change and adapt. First the environmentalists were hippies and crazies
until the man decided there was a buck in it then the whole issue became the norm,
the in thing the status quo. In fact they combined it with the new religion Organic
food and packaged it with GMOs so they could control the food supply and the price.
yes it is about money, the original people were pushed aside for corporate leaders,
the organic people were brought under the control of a sham system called food auditing
which has no interest in food safety or quality, they care about money.
There are some truths and some unknowns we could learn from but they are over shadowed
by the greed and the inflated ego's of those who want to expand their personal power base
at the expense of everyone else. The media is sucked in, the government reps are sucked
in because the message is all about survival. The people believe the companies and the
self appointed saviours of the planet.
I do think we have to do our part to ensure we don't destroy human and animal habitat but
really farting cows and dumping milk down the sink will not bring an end to the world.
Greedy private interests that preach a green world to us while they produce their consumer
products in filthy factories polluting the third world will create more problems than we ever
dreamed possible.
End of Rant.
Bummer huh?
Don't serve carbon lies, ACCC warns
SHOPS and restaurants could face fines up to $1.1 million if waiters or sales staff wrongly blame the carbon tax for price rises or exaggerate the impact.
And households are being warned to watch out for telephone scammers offering to deposit carbon tax compensation into their bank accounts.
The prices watchdog, the ACCC, will today launch its countdown to the July 1 carbon tax with a special focus on helping small businesses understand their obligations and consumers to be vigilant for false claims.
It is releasing internet videos to help business, a 16-page guide and has set up a dedicated website www.accc.gov.au/carbon.
ACCC deputy chairman Dr Michael Schaper told the Herald Sun companies were entitled to increase their prices and did not have to justify or explain why.
"It is business as usual,'' Dr Schaper said.
But if they blamed the carbon tax they must be able to prove it and not use it as a cover for other price increases related to wages, rent or stock.
"If a business claims that a price is linked to the carbon price, that claim must be truthful and have a reasonable basis,'' he said.
Dr Schaper said the warning applied to comments made by staff over the phone, on the shop floor or in meetings.
It also covers advertising, product labels, websites, invoices, contracts and contract negotiations.
The ACCC has the power to force a business to substantiate that a price rise has been caused by the carbon tax.
The guide explains what businesses can and cannot do, and provides a checklist to follow.
Dr Schaper said businesses must be sure price rises were "based on your own costs''
The FACT that the sun once orbited the earth, was disproved. The FACT that the earth was flat, was disproved.
You fail again.
LMAO!!!
Ummm...
I love it when you contradict yourself.
If you can't support your position, just say so.
The common term is, "The lifeblood of research". As Tonington can attest to.
You fail again.
Ummm...
Now that's some good fear mongering!
You fail again.
Don't you usually cry about such divisive insults?
FIFY.
Oh oh, you proved Cabbagefarts wrong, lol.
It is? I haven't seen anything but opinion from you or your sock puppet.
Ummm, ya. Suzuki, the guy that says we should lock up people who deny AGW. And claims the time for debate is over.
I can see why YOU would appreciate that kind of mentality and think he's smart.
I'm so sorry, I forgot to tell him that was your shtick. I'll PM him right away.
On your hip, or the stroller?
The bulk of the forums most active have been saying that to you and about you, for weeks.
You fail again.
It gives me a good idea that you post other peoples material, without proper accreditation.
Geezus, you fail a lot.
Can you show me who has denied that the climate is changing?
Why not, apart from being dead, he's right up there in the credentials department as many of those that signed onto the IPCC.
At least he posted a link to support his position, unlike your sock puppet.
I wouldn't say you're sore.
Why, are you going to get someone objective to post for you?
LOL, now that's funny, with all the reps you lavish your buddy with, for doing things you would literally burst into tears over.
Your hypocrisy is getting worse.
Last edited:
Yes, but why? Your personal opinion can't explain why, you're stating what happens. Scientists examine the why, the how, the when. It does no good to simply state this has happened before. You can point to any number of natural phenomena on earth that humans can alter, magnify, reduce, or even prevent.
The fact is, that more energy is entering our atmosphere than is leaving. Satellites can measure the difference. That means the planet must warm. A pot of water is going to heat up if you put it on a stove and turn the burner on. It's temperature will change if you leave it outside too. But the cause won't be the same now will it?
We would have a life expectancy far lower than we have now, a quality of life far less than we have now, if scientists didn't try to understand anything more than what is happening.
Last edited by a moderator:
Just wrong. They wouldn't write it down in a proposal like that, but the experiments they plan to run are designed to test their hypothesis. Sometimes they are looking for evidence or proof that supports the position. Other times they are looking for evidence or proof that falsifies a hypothesis/theory. In fact it would be a great accolade for their career to prove a well established theory to be wrong.
Technically they don't really live off grants. They would have their salary covered by their employer. But publishing is a product they are hired to produce, and that includes writing grant proposals and securing funding for their lab. In fact it's a big part of their job. It can take a long time from writing the first proposal until the results are actually published. The proposal might get conditionally approved, then they have to write more thorough literature reviews. Then they need to find grad students or post-docs to conduct the experiments, to analyze the results, and finally to publish. Can take multiple years. They may not last very long as a researcher if they can't deliver results.
This might have escaped you, but there are no dinosaurs walking the planet. I read this research a few weeks ago. It's interesting as a proof of concept.
No you didn't. My comment was high level, if you're going to include specifics then you left out a lot of other important factors.
None of the managers where I work write the proposals. At school my professors were writing the proposals. It's part of their job description.