You keep missing the point, that the machine controls both sides of all issues. Oil money builds wind turbines and solar panels while we fight over the scraps. There isn't one of your suggestions listed above that I wouldn't support.
AGW Denial, The Greatest Scam in History?
- Thread starter Avro
- Start date
You keep missing the point, that the machine controls both sides of all issues. Oil money builds wind turbines and solar panels while we fight over the scraps. There isn't one of your suggestions listed above that I wouldn't support.
To bad for you science isn't on the side of the dirty energy.....just the handful of hacks funded by dirty energy.
Every science has a fringe element
....and a few wack jobs.
Heck, dirty Corps have been lying for years....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQE5JHvHX98&p=326A07B30C6769BD
Why support any of it when there isn't a problem with made made emmissions.
Last edited:
What did Harrison Schmitt Know? And When?
In the ongoing controversy over whether former astronaut and New Mexico Senator Harrison Schmitt intentionally misled NASA with his 2009 white paper on climate change, we come to the age old questions: What did Schmitt know? And when did he know it?
Schmitt says in that paper that "Artic (sic) sea ice has returned to 1989 levels of coverage." When Dr. Mark Boslough, a physicist and computational modeler at Sandia National Laboratories brought to Schmitt's attention that this was incorrect, Schmitt failed to correct it. Well, not everyone likes to admit making a mistake.
But was it a mistake? Joseph Bast, President of the tobacco and oil-stained Heartland Institute, of which Schmitt is a Director, wrote in a snarling defence of his boss that, "In fact, National Snow and Ice Data Center records show conclusively that in April 2009, Arctic sea ice extent had indeed returned to and surpassed 1989 levels." And you can see from the little graph at the left that, for a week or so in April and May, that's correct.
But Schmitt submitted his paper in September, and a colleague who has seen an electronic copy of that document reports that it was last edited on August 29, 2009. And here is a comparison of Arctic sea ice in 1989 and 2009 on that day.
So, we know the information on sea ice extent was wrong on the day Schmitt pushed the button. We know that the error was called to his attention and that he failed to correct it. We know that when that factual abdication was brought to public attention, Joe Bast, the president of Schmitt's smokey organization jumped to his defence and we know that Jim Lakely, the communications director for Heartland, has spent a fair amount of time dissembling further on the Huffington Post story on this issue written by Dr. Peter Gleick.
But I still have questions for Mr. Schmitt:
Do you think this is an acceptable standard for reporting on science?
Is this the kind of rigour you'll bring to the job if you actually get confirmed as Director of the New Mexico Department of Energy Minerals and Natural Resources?
Are you willing to assure us that this was an act of incompetence and not dishonesty?
And if so, is that supposed to make us feel better?
In the ongoing controversy over whether former astronaut and New Mexico Senator Harrison Schmitt intentionally misled NASA with his 2009 white paper on climate change, we come to the age old questions: What did Schmitt know? And when did he know it?
Schmitt says in that paper that "Artic (sic) sea ice has returned to 1989 levels of coverage." When Dr. Mark Boslough, a physicist and computational modeler at Sandia National Laboratories brought to Schmitt's attention that this was incorrect, Schmitt failed to correct it. Well, not everyone likes to admit making a mistake.
But was it a mistake? Joseph Bast, President of the tobacco and oil-stained Heartland Institute, of which Schmitt is a Director, wrote in a snarling defence of his boss that, "In fact, National Snow and Ice Data Center records show conclusively that in April 2009, Arctic sea ice extent had indeed returned to and surpassed 1989 levels." And you can see from the little graph at the left that, for a week or so in April and May, that's correct.
But Schmitt submitted his paper in September, and a colleague who has seen an electronic copy of that document reports that it was last edited on August 29, 2009. And here is a comparison of Arctic sea ice in 1989 and 2009 on that day.
So, we know the information on sea ice extent was wrong on the day Schmitt pushed the button. We know that the error was called to his attention and that he failed to correct it. We know that when that factual abdication was brought to public attention, Joe Bast, the president of Schmitt's smokey organization jumped to his defence and we know that Jim Lakely, the communications director for Heartland, has spent a fair amount of time dissembling further on the Huffington Post story on this issue written by Dr. Peter Gleick.
But I still have questions for Mr. Schmitt:
Do you think this is an acceptable standard for reporting on science?
Is this the kind of rigour you'll bring to the job if you actually get confirmed as Director of the New Mexico Department of Energy Minerals and Natural Resources?
Are you willing to assure us that this was an act of incompetence and not dishonesty?
And if so, is that supposed to make us feel better?
Global Change Climate Warming has a theme song...
YouTube - Betty Boop(Helen Kane) - Abba Dabba Honeymoon
YouTube - Betty Boop(Helen Kane) - Abba Dabba Honeymoon
Oily Strategists Mint Another Silly Climate Petition
The public relations man and energy industry front group promoter Tom Harris has partnered with the Exxon-sponsored Idso family on a new petition dismissing the risks of climate change as "small to negligible."
The petition is currently headlining at the WattsUpWithThat website, which probably shouldn't surprise anyone, given that proprietor and weather guy Anthony Watts was one of the original signatories to one of the original silly climate petitions: the Leipzig Declaration.
These petitions are, in the most important ways, all the same. They feature the same cast of discredited characters (Pat Michaels, Fred Singer) and the same discredited arguments. The biggest such effort of the last 20 years was the Oregon Petition, which used a fraudulent National Academy of Sciences letterhead to solicit something in excess of 30,000 signatures from "scientists," including a small handfull who had actually studied or practiced climate science.
But the point has never been to advance the science. The goal has been to give the impression that a legitimate scientific argument persists. And here we go again.
The wedge for this particular effort was a letter that 18 legitimate climate scientists submitted a couple of weeks ago to the Members of Congress. Those scientists appealed to legislators to stop fiddling with the "abstractions" (I would have said, deceptions) of the climate argument and to get on with some solutions that will spare us all from a future that no one wants.
In response, Harris, a former APCO Worldwide PR pro, who has since launched energy-linked front groups including the Friends of Science and the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, and remains a policy bender at the International Climate Science Coalition, teamed up with the oil-implicated Idso-family business, the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Climate Change. Together, they produced a new letter and began soliciting new signatures, taking care to get to a number larger than 18, so they can say they carry more weight than the impressive scientists whom they are trying to shout down.
I will leave it to the experts to dismiss the specious arguments that the Harris-Idso cabal have advanced, but bid you to look at the names (and ages) of those "experts" who have signed this letter. There are many complaints from this community that a tight group of climate scientists control the peer-reviewed literature and keep them out. But the real reason these people don't crop up much in scientific journals discussing climate change is that - at least with people like Singer, Michaels and the Idsos - they are not much engaged in science. They're in PR. Which can be an honourable calling. Or not. It really depends on who's practicing and who's paying.
Petition points debunked.
The public relations man and energy industry front group promoter Tom Harris has partnered with the Exxon-sponsored Idso family on a new petition dismissing the risks of climate change as "small to negligible."
The petition is currently headlining at the WattsUpWithThat website, which probably shouldn't surprise anyone, given that proprietor and weather guy Anthony Watts was one of the original signatories to one of the original silly climate petitions: the Leipzig Declaration.
These petitions are, in the most important ways, all the same. They feature the same cast of discredited characters (Pat Michaels, Fred Singer) and the same discredited arguments. The biggest such effort of the last 20 years was the Oregon Petition, which used a fraudulent National Academy of Sciences letterhead to solicit something in excess of 30,000 signatures from "scientists," including a small handfull who had actually studied or practiced climate science.
But the point has never been to advance the science. The goal has been to give the impression that a legitimate scientific argument persists. And here we go again.
The wedge for this particular effort was a letter that 18 legitimate climate scientists submitted a couple of weeks ago to the Members of Congress. Those scientists appealed to legislators to stop fiddling with the "abstractions" (I would have said, deceptions) of the climate argument and to get on with some solutions that will spare us all from a future that no one wants.
In response, Harris, a former APCO Worldwide PR pro, who has since launched energy-linked front groups including the Friends of Science and the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, and remains a policy bender at the International Climate Science Coalition, teamed up with the oil-implicated Idso-family business, the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Climate Change. Together, they produced a new letter and began soliciting new signatures, taking care to get to a number larger than 18, so they can say they carry more weight than the impressive scientists whom they are trying to shout down.
I will leave it to the experts to dismiss the specious arguments that the Harris-Idso cabal have advanced, but bid you to look at the names (and ages) of those "experts" who have signed this letter. There are many complaints from this community that a tight group of climate scientists control the peer-reviewed literature and keep them out. But the real reason these people don't crop up much in scientific journals discussing climate change is that - at least with people like Singer, Michaels and the Idsos - they are not much engaged in science. They're in PR. Which can be an honourable calling. Or not. It really depends on who's practicing and who's paying.
Petition points debunked.
You are crazy man, anyone can buy a dozen out of work scientists for a bowl of soup (sarcasm) and they'll say anything for money and tell you they've proven it with math.
Yep and all the other science organizations that have agree with AGW.
They have all been paid off in some mass conspiracy.
Heard this one before, getting kind of boring.
The Koch-Exxon-Skeptic Argument Went Up In Smoke On Eve Of Upton's Show Trial
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and its authority to regulate global warming pollution went through its first shakedown today before the Koch Industries and ExxonMobil funded [pdf] House Committee on Energy and Commerce’s Energy and Power Subcommittee.
The show trial was a chance for the Kochtopus, fossil fuel interests, and global warming skeptics (including Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) who announced he is releasing a denialist book) to cry foul that industry is being victimized and that global warming is not a threat, and does not pose any risks to the health and well-being of Americans, and the planet.
But Chairman Fred Upton's (R-MI) and co-author Sen. Inhofe’s polluter-friendly bill, “The Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011” (see memo [pdf]) had to contend with the “bombshell” revelations released late on the eve before the meeting. Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), the ranking Democrat on the Committee, posted a particularly relevant January 2008 letter [pdf] from former EPA Administrator Steven L. Johnson to then President George W. Bush.
Reported first by Climate Progress, Johnson’s letter instructed President Bush “to use EPA’s authority under the Clean Air Act to reduce” global warming pollution and that his administration must release an “endangerment finding” since carbon emissions endanger public health and the environment:
"The Supreme Court’s Massachusetts v EPA decision still requires a response. That case combined with the latest science of climate change requires the Agency to propose a positive endangerment finding…. the state of the latest climate change science does not permit a negative finding, nor does it permit a credible finding that we need to wait for more research."
Johnson also told the President that his administration must cut global warming pollution:
"Within the next several months, EPA must face regulating greenhouse gases from power plants, some industrial sources, petroleum refineries and cement kilns."
Prior to today’s trial, Waxman wrote to Upton reminding him that:
“…both Republican and Democratic Administrations have had the same view of the science: carbon emissions are a serious threat to our nation’s welfare. I urge you to leave the science to scientists and drop your effort to use legislation to overturn EPA’s endangerment finding.”
Releasing the Johnson letter effectively undermined any legitimacy that the polluter-funded attacks on the EPA may have had in asserting that there are no health risks from global warming pollution.
As well, overturning the Upton-Inhofe economic “argument” that curbing carbon emissions means the loss of jobs, CERES has just released a new report which specifies that the EPA’s new air pollution rules are expected to create high-skilled and well-paying jobs, nearly 1.5 million over the next five years. So much for "job killing".
At the very least, the next time Sen. Inhofe declares that the “EPA’s regulations will impose enormous costs for no meaningful benefits—in other words, all pain for no climate gain” - tell him he really does need to have scientists attest to his personal claims (or at least have one attend his meetings) - and that you won’t be buying his book.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and its authority to regulate global warming pollution went through its first shakedown today before the Koch Industries and ExxonMobil funded [pdf] House Committee on Energy and Commerce’s Energy and Power Subcommittee.
The show trial was a chance for the Kochtopus, fossil fuel interests, and global warming skeptics (including Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) who announced he is releasing a denialist book) to cry foul that industry is being victimized and that global warming is not a threat, and does not pose any risks to the health and well-being of Americans, and the planet.
But Chairman Fred Upton's (R-MI) and co-author Sen. Inhofe’s polluter-friendly bill, “The Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011” (see memo [pdf]) had to contend with the “bombshell” revelations released late on the eve before the meeting. Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), the ranking Democrat on the Committee, posted a particularly relevant January 2008 letter [pdf] from former EPA Administrator Steven L. Johnson to then President George W. Bush.
Reported first by Climate Progress, Johnson’s letter instructed President Bush “to use EPA’s authority under the Clean Air Act to reduce” global warming pollution and that his administration must release an “endangerment finding” since carbon emissions endanger public health and the environment:
"The Supreme Court’s Massachusetts v EPA decision still requires a response. That case combined with the latest science of climate change requires the Agency to propose a positive endangerment finding…. the state of the latest climate change science does not permit a negative finding, nor does it permit a credible finding that we need to wait for more research."
"Within the next several months, EPA must face regulating greenhouse gases from power plants, some industrial sources, petroleum refineries and cement kilns."
“…both Republican and Democratic Administrations have had the same view of the science: carbon emissions are a serious threat to our nation’s welfare. I urge you to leave the science to scientists and drop your effort to use legislation to overturn EPA’s endangerment finding.”
As well, overturning the Upton-Inhofe economic “argument” that curbing carbon emissions means the loss of jobs, CERES has just released a new report which specifies that the EPA’s new air pollution rules are expected to create high-skilled and well-paying jobs, nearly 1.5 million over the next five years. So much for "job killing".
At the very least, the next time Sen. Inhofe declares that the “EPA’s regulations will impose enormous costs for no meaningful benefits—in other words, all pain for no climate gain” - tell him he really does need to have scientists attest to his personal claims (or at least have one attend his meetings) - and that you won’t be buying his book.
Are you going to invest in Madasgascar oil sands while closing down ours? The lemurs are homeless thanks to those who won't buy CDN synthetic oils.
Valhalla Consensus: Majority of Gods prepared to let Humanity destroy the Earth
In a hard-argued consensus statement, the first ever divine gathering announced that they were prepared to let humanity destroy the Earth. This countered an earlier unilateral announcement from Jehova through his earthly representative John Shimkus. Through congressman Shimkus, Jehova had claimed that (a) only Jehova and not humanity was capable of destroying the Earth, and (b) Jehova was not going to do so.
Both these propositions were refudiated at GoDS-1 (The first Gathering of Deities & Spirits, which was held at Valhalla under the Framework Convention on Celestial Cataclysms). GoDS-1 was larger then expected due to new members of AOSIS (Association of Small Indigenous Spirits). Many former nature gods have been released from colonial disenfranchisement after spending centuries re-badged as Catholic Saints. However those former nature Gods who remain as folk saints were denied voting rights at GoDS-1.
Disputes over voting rights among the major players erupted when Jehova demanded to be counted as three Gods prompting a counter proposal from Rama to allow voting for his 10,000 avatars. A request from observers in NGOs (Non-God Organisations) for a definitive list of Gods was dismissed as an attempt to pre-empt discussion by destroying the entire universe.
Although GoDS-1 was dominated by procedural issues the gathering finally managed to address destroying Earth, issuing a consensus statement that papered over their divergent views.
A pro-active group headed by Kali announced their intention to destroy the Earth and said that if humanity wanted to do so, they had better get on with it quick-smart.
A larger group with Odin as their spokes-God said that destroying the Earth was definitely part of their divine mission statement, but it would have to take its turn behind other tasks such as cleaning out the attic. If humanity wanted to help any of the Gods destroy the Earth then so be it, but most Gods would rather have help cleaning out the attic first.
The nature gods in AOSIS took a different view. They were more into assisting with calving, helping village maidens find true love, holding off rain during the harvest and maybe keeping it dry enough for rumpy-pumpy in the haystack after the harvest. Generally nature gods dabbled in matters sexual with the hope of getting a bit of the action for themselves. Destroying the Earth was not really their thing, but if humanity wanted to destroy the Earth, then the nature Gods couldn't do much to stop them.
Even though divine destruction is effectively on indefinite hold, the increasing number of environmental calamities have nothing to do with human-induced climate change and are mainly due to a few impatient Gods getting in some practice.
A final procedural dispute erupted over the form in which to issue the communique. Among the methods proposed were gold tablets, scrolls in a cave in a sacred valley, divinely appointed congressmen and fiery letters burnt into the side of a mountain. This divine debate was rendered moot when the communique and the full transcript of discussions were posted on the wikileaks website.
Andew Nut Waikikamukau, NZ.
In a hard-argued consensus statement, the first ever divine gathering announced that they were prepared to let humanity destroy the Earth. This countered an earlier unilateral announcement from Jehova through his earthly representative John Shimkus. Through congressman Shimkus, Jehova had claimed that (a) only Jehova and not humanity was capable of destroying the Earth, and (b) Jehova was not going to do so.
Both these propositions were refudiated at GoDS-1 (The first Gathering of Deities & Spirits, which was held at Valhalla under the Framework Convention on Celestial Cataclysms). GoDS-1 was larger then expected due to new members of AOSIS (Association of Small Indigenous Spirits). Many former nature gods have been released from colonial disenfranchisement after spending centuries re-badged as Catholic Saints. However those former nature Gods who remain as folk saints were denied voting rights at GoDS-1.
Disputes over voting rights among the major players erupted when Jehova demanded to be counted as three Gods prompting a counter proposal from Rama to allow voting for his 10,000 avatars. A request from observers in NGOs (Non-God Organisations) for a definitive list of Gods was dismissed as an attempt to pre-empt discussion by destroying the entire universe.
Although GoDS-1 was dominated by procedural issues the gathering finally managed to address destroying Earth, issuing a consensus statement that papered over their divergent views.
A pro-active group headed by Kali announced their intention to destroy the Earth and said that if humanity wanted to do so, they had better get on with it quick-smart.
A larger group with Odin as their spokes-God said that destroying the Earth was definitely part of their divine mission statement, but it would have to take its turn behind other tasks such as cleaning out the attic. If humanity wanted to help any of the Gods destroy the Earth then so be it, but most Gods would rather have help cleaning out the attic first.
The nature gods in AOSIS took a different view. They were more into assisting with calving, helping village maidens find true love, holding off rain during the harvest and maybe keeping it dry enough for rumpy-pumpy in the haystack after the harvest. Generally nature gods dabbled in matters sexual with the hope of getting a bit of the action for themselves. Destroying the Earth was not really their thing, but if humanity wanted to destroy the Earth, then the nature Gods couldn't do much to stop them.
Even though divine destruction is effectively on indefinite hold, the increasing number of environmental calamities have nothing to do with human-induced climate change and are mainly due to a few impatient Gods getting in some practice.
A final procedural dispute erupted over the form in which to issue the communique. Among the methods proposed were gold tablets, scrolls in a cave in a sacred valley, divinely appointed congressmen and fiery letters burnt into the side of a mountain. This divine debate was rendered moot when the communique and the full transcript of discussions were posted on the wikileaks website.
Andew Nut Waikikamukau, NZ.
tp://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
Wow, those charts just blew me away.....:lol:
Thanks for supporting the IPCC beave.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_ZfdtLyHnA&feature=related
Anyways....another vid.
YouTube - Carbon Nation Trailer
Thanks for supporting the IPCC beave.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_ZfdtLyHnA&feature=related
Anyways....another vid.
YouTube - Carbon Nation Trailer
Last edited: