31,000 scientists reject 'global warming' agenda

[EagleSmack]

I am surprised GW is even a topic these days. Here we are in New England experiencing the coldest spring we can remember but I suppose we have to ignore "local weather" except in Greenland as there are patches of earth visible.

Each day the GW movement, which is now more political than anything scientific, slips behind. People have just lost interest. The folly of the Hollywood elite, each one burning up more energy than all of us combined here on CanCon. The silliness of Carbon Credits which is just a money making scam off people who think they are doing good. And I can bet not a one of you have given your hard earned cash to make yourself carbon neutral.

Once Biofuels took a hit people are beginning to realize there is not much alternative energy. We should be going nuclear but that is not too politically correct either. We can't go bio because that will cause a world food shortage as we are finding out as of late. Wind farms can only help small areas and as we are finding out in Massachusetts that if you put a wind farm where the rich and wealthy global warming supporters sail their yachts on weekends...well alternative energy is not such a great idea. At least not where it impedes their lavish lifestyle.

 

[Tonington]

That isn't how the propaganda is spun: "save the planet."

Save the planet, save the rainforest, save the polar bear, save the Arctic ice, yah, theres a lot of slogans people choose. Maybe they'd be better of saying save the planet as we know it now. In any event, the propaganda is spun many ways. You've done a nice job of repeating some yourself in this thread. Hell your consensus of 31,000+ scientists is propaganda.

Your making assumptions when you use the mass noun "mankind," that is a favorite trick of the propagandist. It will be hard on some people but it will benefit others.

Right, assuming that there are consequences, you yourself are using non-specific nouns. Mankind includes others, unless you're willing to definitively say which 'people' and which 'others' are going to experience said hardships and benefits. I'm not, I have suspicions, but anyways, a word is a word. I doubt you're the authority on correct grammatical usage and context.

We are suffering because our industry is being hobbled as are we.

What are you talking about. Some sectors are doing very well here in Canada. Other sectors are more tied to the depressed global market. Should I now accuse you of non-specific noun usage?

The auto industry (like any industry) responds to the market. They will fight any dictates that are not profitable and the majority of people do not want.

You're insane. You think consumers wouldn't welcome better mileage right now? You think people haven't seen this coming, and have been trying to take action beforehand? What they[consumers] want is very much at the whims of advertising. You don't ask customers what they want, you tell them what they want. If that doesn't work, you astroturf. Look how in the 90's people were duped into driving a 5000 pound mobile living room, that was "safer." Funny thing that sense of safety is isn't it?

Your confusing the coal industry with the auto industry.

No I'm not, you just quoted me above. Do I have to come right out and say auto industry or coal industry? When you break a paragraph into individual quotes, it's apparently easy to quote out of context. :roll:

This is a conspiracy then? If what your saying is true then I recommend you start an electrical company and undersell the competition. You shouldn't have any problem if your solution can undercut their prices so much.

Read this post,http://forums.canadiancontent.net#post943595 and follow the link at the bottom if you need further clarification on how the electric utilities work. They were set up initially as monopolies, if you think I could undercut them without that nice government money to build the infrastructure, pffffffft.

There is an approach though, in BC we just got a new tax and we can expect taxes everywhere to go up as the government seeks to restrict the use of fuel by the poor so the wealthy can use as much as they want.

Like I said, not much of an approach. You think everyone who reads this wonky stuff likes it because of some greenwash? You don't read much from the environmentalist community I take it.

 

[Tonington]

I am surprised GW is even a topic these days. Here we are in New England experiencing the coldest spring we can remember but I suppose we have to ignore "local weather" except in Greenland as there are patches of earth visible.

Somewhere along the way, people got the idea in their heads that what global warming means is monotonically increasing temperatures, which of course it doesn't. It doesn't help that at every turn, you have extremist warmers and coolers saying, "look, a record month of warmth, or a record month of cold, or a record season," and that means precisely jack sh!t.

It's not only possible that in a warming climate, we get a string of years with no growth in the global heat budget, it's inevitable. You people love to throw out the natural causes and say that the science misses that. It obviously doesn't. Look at any forecast, and you will see peaks and troughs in that projections line.

That's because of those natural causes. Weather patterns that are somewhat regular. This year, we have a solar minimum, and a strong La Nina. That didn't stop the idiots from claiming in January that "100 years of global warming gone in a month." Then came a warming spring (the shock! :smile:", did you hear anyone saying that we had entered a runaway warming that would take us to Venusian temperatures? No, that's ridiculous.

Over long time periods, the regular movement of heat from one area of the earth to another tends to average out. In thirty years, you'd have roughly three complete solar cycles(that's three maximums, and three minimums), you'd have anywhere from about 4 to 10 ENSO cycles( that's from El Nino to La Nina). Interannual variability is stronger than the climates trend. Just look at the change from summer to winter!

So, when the timescale is longer, all of these variabilities are averaged out, and you can clearly make out the signal.

Think about it. It's projected at 0.2 °C per decade. You can get that change in one minute, in one hour, in one day. It would be pretty foolish to say what the earth is trending towards based on one minute wouldn't it?

I can flip a fair coin over and over again. The odds are 50:50. But it's inevitable that if I continue flipping, I will get a run of 10 tails or 20 tails. Would that prove that the coin isn't fair?

 

[Stretch]

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Climate change spreads to Jupiter and Mars [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]'While the former vice president is leading the charge for drastically changing the way humans do business in a bid to avert catastrophic, man-made global warming, scientists reported today there is noticeable climate change taking place on Jupiter, too. The news follows reports as far back as three years ago that ice caps on Mars are also retreating much as some of the ice in the Earth's Arctic circle.'[/FONT]

Damn their carbon footprint.​

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=65165

 

[Praxius]

I am surprised GW is even a topic these days. Here we are in New England experiencing the coldest spring we can remember but I suppose we have to ignore "local weather" except in Greenland as there are patches of earth visible.

Each day the GW movement, which is now more political than anything scientific, slips behind. People have just lost interest. The folly of the Hollywood elite, each one burning up more energy than all of us combined here on CanCon. The silliness of Carbon Credits which is just a money making scam off people who think they are doing good. And I can bet not a one of you have given your hard earned cash to make yourself carbon neutral.

Once Biofuels took a hit people are beginning to realize there is not much alternative energy. We should be going nuclear but that is not too politically correct either. We can't go bio because that will cause a world food shortage as we are finding out as of late. Wind farms can only help small areas and as we are finding out in Massachusetts that if you put a wind farm where the rich and wealthy global warming supporters sail their yachts on weekends...well alternative energy is not such a great idea. At least not where it impedes their lavish lifestyle.

Well actually the food shortage due to biofuels being used is questionable.... even the "Specialists" claim they haven't taken over enough farm lands to cause a noticable difference.... and quite honestly I believe it. Before people started talking about bio fuels and the sort, I was seeing on the news of multiple farms going out of business because they weren't getting any business during the late 90's/early 2000's.... now they have the bio fuel business to look towards and keep their family businesses running..... now we got people complaining they're taking away from our food...... well where the hell were these people complaining about the food when these farmers were going out of business?

 

[Praxius]

Oh yeah and we're experiencing one of the latest springs in a long time, had one of the biggest snowfall ammounts in the winter in years, last years hurricane season was timid in comparison to the previous ones, which concludes that the temps are dropping..... OH AND GUESS WHAT? Apparently the Global Wing Nuts are claiming that Global Warming is going to be put on hold for 15 years because we're entering a cool trend..... oh but after that 15 years, we can start counting down again.

Does this sound familiar to anybody?

Didn't I say for the longest time that they've been preaching the same information and stats since the late 70's/80's? Didn't I say that back then they claimed we'd be having all these scary effects hit us in the 90's and then they didn't happen and everybody shut up?

Then the century turns and we have Gore dish out his movie to us and everybody starts up with the same crap yet again and actually gets more attention this time.

OH BUT NOW THEY'RE PUSHING IT BACK ANOTHER 15 YEARS...... AGAIN!!! With some lame excuse of hitting a cold trend.....

Fk'n duh people.... we've been heading into a cold trend for some time now, and guess what? in another 15 years, they'll claim Global Warming will be in full swing again... scare the crap out of everyone again for a couple of years, and then call it off for another 15 years.....

.... and so on.....

..... and so forth......

..... why? Because they know the pattern.... we heat up a bit, then we cool down a bunch.... it's like a wave on the tide.... pull the water back, then get splashed with a bunch of water. The planet heats up, and then cools right down, and either these Global Warming nuts know this and are playing the game on the public for their own agenda, or they're totally ignorant of the thing they claim they're experts on and should be hanged for causing all this crap.

 

[Scott Free]

Oh yeah and we're experiencing one of the latest springs in a long time, had one of the biggest snowfall ammounts in the winter in years, last years hurricane season was timid in comparison to the previous ones, which concludes that the temps are dropping..... OH AND GUESS WHAT? Apparently the Global Wing Nuts are claiming that Global Warming is going to be put on hold for 15 years because we're entering a cool trend..... oh but after that 15 years, we can start counting down again.

Does this sound familiar to anybody?

'They predicted global cooling in the 1970s'

 

[Tonington]

'They predicted global cooling in the 1970s'

They, oh yah that 7 out of 47 thing.

http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf
Pay attention to the number of citations too. If 'they' is media(who love to scare, look at every hurricane season for starters(also the same type of example that Praxius gave-it's weather for crying out loud.)) then you're right Scott. If you mean that science organizations predicted(who tend to move with the rest of the crowd) cooling, then you'd be wrong.

You can swallow that version of The Big Lie if you wish. Fair warning.

 

[Scott Free]

This is just more global warming propaganda. No evidence is given except to say there was a misinterpretation and then it launches back into the typical global warming screed. That while scientists were warning about global cooling they actually meant global warming.

Yeah right, tell me another one. :roll:

 

[Tonington]

Feel free Scott Free, to Google the names given in Table 1. Computers are a marvelous thing.