If you read closely, it doesn't appear that he's changing his mind about climate science so much as he is changing his mind about the feasibility of a move toward cleaner energy that wouldn't have overwhelming negative economic implications.
BOWERBIRD!!!!!! How ya doin'
Fact is there bird, we have posted many things that are dismissed by the faithful believers in consensus brainwashing that is GW. So to continue to post it is fruitless. Look, when you get China to stop producing their 2 coal fired electric plants a week, then let me know.
j-mac
Aren't you confusing the list of Voters that Acorn signed up which had the Football Team Line up. The Flier was neither deceptive nor nebulous. It contained many pages of Climate data. With respect to the signers; go to the website and it breaks the signers down into their respective disciplines. It also list their qualifications and degrees. Also included is the UN resolution and the 600 signers whose commentary was NOT allowed. There are also hundreds of Climatologists. You can't count the PHD's unless you want to spend considerable time.
This statement is the usual Statist blurt - Make a sweeping generalization that has no relevancy and every body is supposed to run and hide because the Wizard has spoken.
Why should I care what a guy with a bachelor's in mettalurgy thinks about global warming, and since when does a bachelor's degree get you the title "scientist" anyway?
Considering the known and extended falsification of data exposed in the E-mails it seems realistic to go back and thoroughly examine the data and have an open dialog. That hasn't happened. It's all behind closed doors. To rely on certain involved scientists is delusional, under the circumstances.
Scientists - including - NASA are dependent on massive Government funding. The more important the work the greater the financial reward. Conversely Scientists that work in University environments can kiss their careers goodbye if or when they challenge the "favored" hypothesis. Their research funding rapidly dries up or disappears.
A good example of that was the publicized debate on Embryonic Stem Cell Research and Federal Funding.
There have been no discoveries made using embryonic research. Universities were in a tizzy in wanting Federal Funding. Why? They get million of "Free" taxpayer money to virtually use almost any way they want. They can buy more equipment, build another lab all of which increases their stature in attracting top researchers who also get "Liberal" grants of taxpayer money.
ANOTHER LITTLE KNOW BENEFIT OF FEDERAL FUNDING ARE THE --- PATENTS --- UNIVERSITIES OBTAIN. They get Millions and Millions of dollars in Royalties from those Patents. Just one Patent yielded over $300 million dollars in royalties for one University.
If there had been a likely or visible speck of gain through embryonic research - Investors would have been all over it. No Investors
By contrast there have been thousands of small and large advances in Placenta stem cells and now the discovery to turn normal cells into stem cells.
Meanwhile, polls of actual climatologists show that 95% support the concensus on global warming.
TV Advertisement polls were done with a book in which the person had to write down the TV programs they watched. Then there was a move to go electronic, with a box on the TV that electronically tracked everything. Result was a truer factual replication of actual viewing and the discovery - they switched off the ads. Advertisers no longer pay outrageous sumes for TV advertising. ( TV revenues plummeted as viewers deserted TV in large numbers in favor of the Internet. Gone was the vapor of consistent TV watching certain programs.
TV programs liver and die by ratings.
In my opinion until the World Wide Financial Platinum Mine seen by Greedy Investors in making Trillions of dollars off of Global Warming I want 100% proof which is not the case. Right now there is too much to be gained financially by too many if Global Warming stops the world from turning - which it will in a way.
I reject totally your trite wave of your Wizard wand and Statist aura of self assumed superiority.
My opinion. All Polls can be skewed, most are skewed and there is usually something to be gained from the results of the Poll.
I don't believe hardly any Polls unless I can see the questions, the circumstances, and the connections the poll takers have with the existing hypothesis and who was polled and who wasn't polled.
How Superior you think you are. That is the Problem with Liberals. Everybody else is stupid, ignorant and worthless. They are the lordly Intelligentsia and dismiss everyone else as inferior and incompetent. Do you obsess in front of the mirror?
Personally I often think Liberals are afflicted with Statist Megacephalic Cerebral Necrosis.
Nobody claimed that mankind is the only possible cause of temperature changes, so pointing out that melting on Mars couldn't be our fault is just stupid diversions so typical of your kind.
So we're all supposed to stand up and pay attention because someone sort of changed their view on GW? Whoa. Shocker.
Thanks for the clarification NYC. After reading the article, I didn't quite agree with the OP and then read your post. You said it better than I could have.
Top Climate Skeptic Reverses Course, Now Urges Bold Action | Triple Pundit: People, Planet, Profit
I can already see the replies to this:
- He's part of the hoax
- He's a convert to the 'religion' of global warming
- He's getting paid to switch sides
... We'll have to see how the story develops.
The Title to this article is FALSE. If you read their own PDF article only 5% of the scientists were climatologists. The others were in other fields. The article Proves "Nothing"
>>>>>> 97% of active climatologists agree that human activity is causing global warming : Deltoid <<<<<<<<
Many of those Scientists were being asked for their opinion. There is nothing to indicate that any of them had reviewed the Data for Scientific analysis, methodology or other. Nothing is indicated what "all" of them did as far as research. If you add up those that might be related - you come up to about 40%. 40% of 3,146 = a little over 1,200 Scientists.
10,257 Scientists were asked to participate. Only 3,146 responded to the survey. The Petition you dissed has almost ten times as many Scientists who agree otherwise.
Your blowing Smoke!
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
I don’t know much about scientific proof of global warming but in addition to hundreds of square miles of ice falling into the ocean and these little critters, which I see as far north as Nebraska now….to me it looks pretty suspicious. Whether it’s man-made???Who knows but something happening.
Well, that's fairly anecdotal but it does lead to the point that nature itself does show thousands of signs of a warming planet. There's a subset of the skeptic crowd who thinks the earth isn't actually getting warmer. I guess the birds and plants are in on the conspiracy, then. Anyone who thinks the earth is the same temperature as it was 100 years ago is just plain ignorant. Thinking it's "natural" is one thing, but thinking it isn't happening is beyond crazy.
I’m not here to argue whether its man made or not, as I haven’t made up my mind on that… .yet. The ones that don’t think that we have global warming must surely by the same ones that think the earth is flat.
Or, maybe it isn't as simple as "all for" or "all against," and there are many "middle grounds"? :roll
Hi J=mac - Yup it is me again
And once again I am asking if you have any evidence at all because I have yet to see anything that is not cherry picked, misquoted ,obfusticated or just plain made up from a denialist camp.
There has been no "debunking" there cannot be because the denialists basically do not know enough science to put together a decent argument let alone a scientific critique
Ok... so, the sun goes out tomorrow... how much CO2 do we have to produce to offset the sun?
The funny thing was that all the BIG DAMNING studies that came out from the 1997-2005 area have ALL been shown to be completely overblown... in example :
- Polar bears can swim
- Forests are regrowing
- crustaceans are compensating with thicker shells
- plants convert CO2->O2 more efficiently at about double our current atmospheric CO2 levels (also, reaches toxicity at about a thousand times atmosphere levels currently)
Also, if the "environmentalists" TRULY cared about the environment they would be FREAKING OUT at all the open air GMO food and animal testing that's going on... they would care about LEGITIMATE toxins that were are spewing into the atmosphere that cause REAL environmental damage that is verifiable, etc...
In other words, if environmentalists ACTUALLY CARED they would present a holistic argument, ways to deal with these sub-issues individually and gather lobby groups targeting each sub-issue.
Instead, we are focused on concepts like 'cap and trade' and 'carbon taxes' that are absolutely worthless, are distributed to private, for profit businesses and promise to go to 'offsets' like maybe someone will plant a tree in some third world country with the BILLIONS UPON BILLIONS that the "ever increasing" taxes would represent (everytime carbon taxes are presented it's always sold as an ever increasing tax on breathing).
The Title to this article is FALSE. If you read their own PDF article only 5% of the scientists were climatologists. The others were in other fields. The article Proves "Nothing"
>>>>>> 97% of active climatologists agree that human activity is causing global warming : Deltoid <<<<<<<<
Many of those Scientists were being asked for their opinion. There is nothing to indicate that any of them had reviewed the Data for Scientific analysis, methodology or other. Nothing is indicated what "all" of them did as far as research. If you add up those that might be related - you come up to about 40%. 40% of 3,146 = a little over 1,200 Scientists.
10,257 Scientists were asked to participate. Only 3,146 responded to the survey. The Petition you dissed has almost ten times as many Scientists who agree otherwise.
Your blowing Smoke!
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
seems that the debate on the
authenticity of global warming and the
role played by human activity is largely
nonexistent among those who understand
the nuances and scientific basis
of long-term
climate processes. The
challenge, rather, appears to be how
to effectively communicate this fact to
policy makers and to a public that continues
to mistakenly perceive debate
among scientists.
Also, if the "environmentalists" TRULY cared about the environment they would be FREAKING OUT at all the open air GMO food
A cult would suggest that has a small number of devotees.The man made global warming fairy tale is full blown religion with millions of devoted religious followers who hang on to every word that their reverend AL Gore and other enviro-nuts preaches. They recycle their trash, buy only recycled or recyclable products, They buy energy star appliances, refuse to buy bottled water, eat only organic products, spread the word how the world how the polar icecaps will melt and the world will be flooded, Demand cap and trade laws, demand carbon credits, don't want any drilling, support ethanol and a whole bunch of other things to show their enviroreligious devotion.
We all know where this debate is going.
Generations from now will curse us for not acting on this problem.
But GW Deniers ravaging this thread in 5... 4... 3...
They sound so horrible! It takes a really terrible human being to try to stop the Earth from being destroyed. Have they no shame?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?