Home » The Bin » Lester The Nightfly » I hate winter...
Re: I just this liberal would get a clue...... [message #95329 is a reply to message #95314] |
Fri, 01 February 2008 13:57 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115 Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Deej wrote:
> Hehehe!!!.....Jamie, I figured you'd have something to say about this.
I could say more...
It's weird to see people getting wrapped up in the political side while
losing sight of the actual science, except to cherrypick. I suppose
that's why a lot of scientists don't speak up. Things are irrational in
politics.
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
> ;o)
>
> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:47a27501@linux...
>> It would be nice if he would get a clue, very true.
>>
>> Or at least some compelling evidence. The few alternate theories he cites
>> have been aired, discussed, and long been discarded by most experts in the
>> field. Why? Because the evidence does not support them. Those ideas have
>> already been "battled" and found inadequate, and he has nothing new.
>>
>> So he's left with a persecution complex, a victim mentality. And
>> apparently, a book deal.
>>
>> Put-on or not, the victim branding is working for him. This is shrewd
>> because there's a great market for people who want to be told what they
>> want to hear. This beats bothering with ALL THAT PESKY EVIDENCE. Who has
>> time to understand atmospheric chemistry, after all? Cherrypick a few
>> indignant sounding bits here and there, attack peer review, attack
>> experts, ignore most of the research, and that's good enough to sell the
>> lie.
>>
>> Anyway, there's been substantial commercial backing for obfuscation of
>> climate science. So he'll probably do pretty well in the denial industry.
>>
>> I don't see any scientific qualifications listed, so he may not have any.
>> This could be a detriment if he were trying to write for scientific
>> journals. But there are no such qualifications needed to write a denial
>> book other than the ability to write hyperbole and half truths. Which,
>> judging by that link, he does very well.
>>
>> Just once it would be nice to see a political writer (left, right or
>> sideways) who has a clue about science. But no, he's misusing the issue to
>> make political points and create scapegoats, much like he's accusing
>> others of doing. There's a word for that.
>>
>> BTW, not so long ago anthropogenic climate change proponents were the
>> contrarians. They were the outcasts, or the visionaries, depending on who
>> you asked. But as more and more evidence piled up, theirs became the
>> consensus. That's how science works. It's about the data.
>>
>> But that's not how politics works, obviously. Personally, I think we ought
>> to face facts as we find them and quit playing political games when it
>> comes to the planet. That goes for all parties on all sides in all
>> countries.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Deej wrote:
>>> http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/reviewofbooks_p rintable/4357/
>>>
>>> ;o)
>>>
>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:47a0168b@linux...
>>>> chuck duffy wrote:
>>>>> So does this evidence mean that .........
>>>> ....global dimming and greenhouse gas induced warming are two different
>>>> processes that for a time overlapped. Global dimming is not going to
>>>> magically save us from the current warming trend. We're on the right
>>>> track with worldwide plans to slow our contribution of greenhouse gases
>>>> ASAP.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> -Jamie
>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Chuck
>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>> rick wrote:
>>>>>>> this is a mac vs pc thing in disguise isn't it? ;o) thank god for
>>>>>>> global dimming...
>>>>>> Heh. Mac vs. PC is more benign.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here's a paper on the relationship between global dimming and
>>>>>> greenhouse
>>>>>> warming: http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/wild/2006GL028031.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From the summary:
>>>>>> "In the present study we investigated the role of solar dimming and
>>>>>> brightening in the context of recent global warming. Our analysis
>>>>>> showed
>>>>>> that the decadal changes of land mean surface temperature as well as
>>>>>> TMAX, TMIN, and DTR are in line with the proposed transition in
>>>>>> surface
>>>>>> solar radiation from dimming to brightening during the 1980s and with
>>>>>> the increasing greenhouse effect. This suggests that solar dimming,
>>>>>> possibly favoured by increasing air pollution, was effective in
>>>>>> masking
>>>>>> greenhouse warming up to the 1980s, but not thereafter, when the
>>>>>> dimming
>>>>>> disappeared and atmospheres started to clear up.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The temperature response since the mid-1980s may therefore be a more
>>>>>> genuine reflection of the greenhouse effect than during the decades
>>>>>> before, which were subject to solar dimming. Unlike to the decades
>>>>>> prior
>>>>>> to the 1980s, the recent rapid temperature rise therefore no longer
>>>>>> underrates the response of the climate system to greenhouse forcing
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> reflects the full magnitude of the greenhouse effect."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> More discussion here:
>>>>>> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/11/global -dimming-and-global-warming/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 10:51:55 -0700, Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> James McCloskey wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Yep, those scientist don't know what they are talking about,
>>>>>>>> If you're looking for the opinion of scientists, here's a start:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From the American Physical Society
>>>>>>>> http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm
>>>>>>>> "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases
>>>>>>>> include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other
>>>>>>>> gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of
>>>>>>>> industrial and agricultural processes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no
>>>>>>>> mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s
>>>>>>>> physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human
>>>>>>>> health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse
>>>>>>>> gases
>>>>>>>> beginning now."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From the National Academy of Sciences
>>>>>>>> http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
>>>>>>>> "Climate change is real:
>>>>>>>> There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as
>>>>>>>> complex
>>>>> as
>>>>>>>> the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that
>>>>>>>> significant global warming is occurring1. The evidence comes from
>>>>>>>> direct
>>>>>>>> measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean
>>>>>>>> temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global
>>>>>>>> sea
>>>>>>>> levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and
>>>>>>>> biological
>>>>>>>> systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can
>>>>> be
>>>>>>>> attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)2. This warming has
>>>>>>>> already
>>>>>>>> led to changes in the Earth's climate.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The existence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is vital to life
>>>>> on
>>>>>>>> Earth – in their absence average temperatures would be about 30
>>>>>>>> centigrade degrees lower than they are today. But human activities
>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>> now causing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases –
>>>>>>>> including
>>>>>>>> carbon dioxide, methane, tropospheric ozone, and nitrous oxide – to
>>>>>>>> rise
>>>>>>>> well above pre-industrial levels. Carbon dioxide levels have
>>>>>>>> increased
>>>>>>> >from 280 ppm in 1750 to over 375 ppm today – higher than any
>>>>>>>> previous
>>>>>>>> levels that can be reliably measured (i.e. in the last 420,000
>>>>>>>> years).
>>>>>>>> Increasing greenhouse gases are causing
>>>>>>>> temperatures to rise; the Earth’s surface warmed by approximately
>>>>>>>> 0.6
>>>>>>>> centigrade degrees over the twentieth century. The Intergovernmental
>>>>>>>> Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projected that the average global
>>>>>>>> surface
>>>>>>>> temperatures will continue to increase to between 1.4 centigrade
>>>>>>>> degrees
>>>>>>>> and 5.8 centigrade degrees above 1990 levels, by 2100."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From the American Geophysical Union
>>>>>>>> http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/positions/climate_change20 08.shtml
>>>>>>>> "Human Impacts on Climate:
>>>>>>>> The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming.
>>>>>>>> Many
>>>>>>>> components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the
>>>>>>>> atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain
>>>>>>>> glaciers,
>>>>>>>> the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of
>>>>>>>> seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not
>>>>>>>> natural
>>>>>>>> and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of
>>>>>>>> greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the
>>>>>>>> 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on
>>>>>>>> average
>>>>>>>> by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the
>>>>>>>> previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The
>>>>>>>> observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and
>>>>>>>> lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century.
>>>>>>>> Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows
>>>>>>>> warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many
>>>>>>>> physical and biological systems are linked with this regional
>>>>>>>> climate
>>>>>>>> change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and
>>>>>>>> summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on
>>>>>>>> Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> climate.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization
>>>>>>>> became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next
>>>>>>>> 50
>>>>>>>> years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an
>>>>>>>> additional
>>>>>>>> global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the
>>>>>>>> range
>>>>>>>> of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming
>>>>>>>> greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be
>>>>>>>> disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing
>>>>>>>> widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over
>>>>>>>> centuries—melting
>>>>>>>> much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of
>>>>>>>> several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net
>>>>>>>> annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent
>>>>>>>> within
>>>>>>>> this century. With such projections, there are many sources of
>>>>>>>> scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the
>>>>>>>> impact
>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate
>>>>>>>> projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic
>>>>>>>> disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model
>>>>>>>> projections.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on
>>>>>>>> Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike
>>>>>>>> ozone
>>>>>>>> depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society.
>>>>>>>> Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society.
>>>>>>>> Mitigation
>>>>>>>> strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations
>>>>>>>> across
>>>>>>>> science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU,
>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>> part of the scientific community, collectively have special
>>>>>>>> responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to
>>>>>>>> educate
>>>>>>>> the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate
>>>>>>>> clearly
>>>>>>>> and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape
>>>>>>>> future
>>>>>>>> climate."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From The Geological Society of America
>>>>>>>> http://www.geosociety.org/positions/position10.htm
>>>>>>>> "The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific
>>>>>>>> conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes
>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>> due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical
>>>>>>>> boundaries. Furthermore, the potential implications of global
>>>>>>>> climate
>>>>>>>> change and the time scale over which such changes will likely occur
>>>>>>>> require active, effective, long-term planning. GSA also supports
>>>>>>>> statements on the global climate change issue made by the joint
>>>>>>>> national
>>>>>>>> academies of science (June 2005), American Geophysical Union
>>>>>>>> (December,
>>>>>>>> 2003), and American Chemical Society (2004). GSA strongly encourages
>>>>>>>> that the following efforts be undertaken internationally: (1)
>>>>>>>> adequately
>>>>>>>> research climate change at all time scales, (2) develop thoughtful,
>>>>>>>> science-based policy appropriate for the multifaceted issues of
>>>>>>>> global
>>>>>>>> climate change, (3) organize global planning to recognize, prepare
>>>>>>>> for,
>>>>>>>> and adapt to the causes and consequences of global climate change,
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> (4) organize and develop comprehensive, long-term strategies for
>>>>>>>> sustainable energy, particularly focused on minimizing impacts on
>>>>>>>> global
>>>>>>>> climate."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From the American Meteorological Society
>>>>>>>> http://www.ametsoc.org/POLICY/2007climatechange.html
>>>>>>>> "Why is climate changing?
>>>>>>>> Climate has changed throughout geological history, for many natural
>>>>>>>> reasons such as changes in the sun’s energy received by Earth
>>>>>>>> arising
>>>>>>> >from slow orbital changes, or changes in the sun’s energy reaching
>>>>>>>> Earth’s surface due to volcanic eruptions. In recent decades, humans
>>>>>>>> have increasingly affected local, regional, and global climate by
>>>>>>>> altering the flows of radiative energy and water through the Earth
>>>>>>>> system (resulting in changes in temperature, winds, rainfall, etc.),
>>>>>>>> which comprises the atmosphere, land surface, vegetation, ocean,
>>>>>>>> land
>>>>>>>> ice, and sea ice. Indeed, strong observational evidence and results
>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>> modeling studies indicate that, at least over the last 50 years,
>>>>>>>> human
>>>>>>>> activities are a major contributor to climate change.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Direct human impact is through changes in the concentration of
>>>>>>>> certain
>>>>>>>> trace gases such as carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons, methane,
>>>>>>>> nitrous oxide, ozone, and water vapor, known collectively as
>>>>>>>> greenhouse
>>>>>>>> gases. Enhanced greenhouse gases have little effect on the incoming
>>>>>>>> energy of the sun, but they act as a blanket to reduce the outgoing
>>>>>>>> infrared radiation emitted by Earth and its atmosphere; the surface
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> atmosphere therefore warm so as to increase the outgoing energy
>>>>>>>> until
>>>>>>>> the outgoing and incoming flows of energy are equal. Carbon dioxide
>>>>>>>> accounts for about half of the human-induced greenhouse gas
>>>>>>>> contribution
>>>>>>>> to warming since the late 1800s, with increases in the other
>>>>>>>> greenhouse
>>>>>>>> gases accounting for the rest; changes in solar output may have
>>>>>>>> provided
>>>>>>>> an augmentation to warming in the first half of the 20th century.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Carbon dioxide concentration is rising mostly as a result of
>>>>>>>> fossil-fuel
>>>>>>>> burning and partly from clearing of vegetation; about 50% of the
>>>>>>>> enhanced emissions remain in the atmosphere, while the rest of the
>>>>>>>> Earth
>>>>>>>> system continues to absorb the remaining 50%. In the last 50 years
>>>>>>>> atmospheric CO2 concentration has been increasing at a rate much
>>>>>>>> faster
>>>>>>>> than any rates observed in the geological record of the past several
>>>>>>>> thousand years. Global annual-mean surface temperatures are rising
>>>>>>>> at
>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> rapid rate to values higher than at any time in the last 400 (and
>>>>>>>> probably in the last 1000) years. Once introduced in the atmosphere,
>>>>>>>> carbon dioxide remains for at least a few hundred years and implies
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> lengthy guarantee of sustained future warming. Further, increases in
>>>>>>>> greenhouse gases are nearly certain to produce continued increases
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> temperature. Such changes in temperature lead to changes in clouds,
>>>>>>>> pressure, winds, and rainfall in a complex sequence of further
>>>>>>>> effects."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Al Gore does,
>>>>>>>>> after all he invented the internet.
>>>>>>>> Here's what snopes has to say about that:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
>>>>>>>> "Despite the derisive references that continue even today, Al Gore
>>>>>>>> did
>>>>>>>> not claim he "invented" the Internet, nor did he say anything that
>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>> reasonably be interpreted that way. The "Al Gore said he 'invented'
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> Internet" put-downs were misleading, out-of-context distortions of
>>>>>>>> something he said during an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN's
>>>>>>>> "Late
>>>>>>>> Edition" program on 9 March 1999."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Besides, Al Gore is not the point, he's just one guy. Love him or
>>>>>>>> hate
>>>>>>>> him, the climate will do what it does with or without him. It's best
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> look to the actual science.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nothing like trying to shift the wealth
>>>>>>>>> of the world and making money doing it by selling global offsets
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>> taxing
>>>>>>>>> the shit out of stupid people with a lie!
>>>>>>>> That the climate is currently changing is not a lie, it's a
>>>>>>>> measurable
>>>>>>>> phenomenon we are currently experiencing on our planet.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A lot of evidence points to human contributions to the current
>>>>>>>> climate
>>>>>>>> change event. So again, this is not a lie.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your problem is with politics and economics, not with science.
>>>>>>>> Blaming
>>>>>>>> the science does not help your cause. You have political and
>>>>>>>> economic
>>>>>>>> objections to some of the proposed solutions, so by all means take
>>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>> on. If you don't like using a market mechanism to regulate carbon
>>>>>>>> emissions, which is just one idea that's been proposed, there are
>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>> options on the table.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do your best to move the solutions conversation in a direction
>>>>>>>> you're
>>>>>>>> more comfortable with. But simple blanket denial of actual evidence
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> peer reviewed science won't get you there.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Bush's, the Clinton's, and
>>>>>>>>> the Gore's are all Trilateralists, they have done a fine job of
>>>>>>>>> lowering
>>>>>>>>> the standard of living here in the USA! Long live the CFR, the
>>>>>>>>> world
>>>>> banks
>>>>>>>>> and man made Global warming.
>>>>>>>> You can believe what you like about all that, except that there is
>>>>>>>> actual evidence supporting human contributions to the current
>>>>>>>> climate
>>>>>>>> change event. Again, ignoring evidence won't get you very far.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> By the way, if you buy the man made global warming lie, I got some
>>>>>>>>> swamp
>>>>>>>>> land I'd like to sell you!
>>>>>>>> You're being sold swamp land already, possibly by the fossil fuels
>>>>>>>> industry, and by people who want to maintain power and income.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/index.html
>>>>>>>> "The Denial Machine investigates the roots of the campaign to negate
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> science and the threat of global warming. It tracks the activities
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> group of scientists, some of whom previously consulted for Big
>>>>>>>> Tobacco,
>>>>>>>> and who are now receiving donations from major coal and oil
>>>>>>>> companies."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.exxonsecrets.org/
>>>>>>>> "The database compiles Exxon Foundation and corporate funding to a
>>>>>>>> series of institutions who have worked to undermine solutions to
>>>>>>>> global
>>>>>>>> warming and climate change. It details the working relationships of
>>>>>>>> individuals associated with these organizations and their global
>>>>>>>> warming
>>>>>>>> quotes and deeds."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Rich Lamanna wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Must be global warming. Anyone seen this? If you've got an hour
>>>>>>>>>>> check
>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>> out. It may take a minute or two to load.
>>>>>>>>>> Yep, the swindle movie is old news, we even discussed it here.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As I mentioned at the time, it ignores the main body of
>>>>>>>>>> peer-reviewed
>>>>>>>>>> scientific evidence for the sake of sensationalism. It was done
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>> way
>>>>>>>>>> deliberately by the producers, with no attempt at an objective
>>>>>>>>>> look
>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>> the actual scientific evidence. Fair and balanced it ain't.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I do like the breathless announcer, fast cuts and dramatic music.
>>>>>>>>>> It's
>>>>>>>>>> always fun to see a one-sided polemic that ironically accuses
>>>>>>>>>> others
>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> being one-sided. I doubt anyone here is gullible enough to take it
>>>>> as an
>>>>>>>>>> objective authority.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But anyway, here's more (follow the links):
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> From:
>>>>>>>>>> http://climatedenial.org/2007/05/01/why-was-the-great-global -warming-swindle-so-persuasive/
>>>>>>>>>> "The fans of the film would argue that it has been effective
>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>> is true. But truth is not, of itself, persuasive. When we receive
>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>> information on a topic we have no idea whether it is true or not.
>>>>>>>>>> We
>>>>>>>>>> base our conclusions on how it was presented to us, whether it
>>>>>>>>>> concurs
>>>>>>>>>> with what we already know about that topic, how far we trust the
>>>>>>>>>> person
>>>>>>>>>> telling us, and how well that information fits inside our world
>>>>>>>>>> view.
>>>>> We
>>>>>>>>>> then seek to match our initial conclusions against the conclusions
>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> our peers. So, although we think we seek truth, the process by
>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>> reach opinions is equally capable of leading us in the wrong
>>>>>>>>>> direction.
>>>>>>>>>> It turns out that Swindle was a collection of rather crude
>>>>>>>>>> distortions
>>>>>>>>>> in an elegant package. We now know that the data was
>>>>>>>>>> misrepresented,
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> charts re-arranged, and the interviews edited in ways that were
>>>>>>>>>> designed
>>>>>>>>>> to mislead."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> From:
>>>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindl e
>>>>>>>>>> "Although the documentary was welcomed by global warming sceptics,
>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>> was criticised heavily by many scientific organisations and
>>>>>>>>>> individual
>>>>>>>>>> scientists (including two of the film's contributors[3][4]). The
>>>>>>>>>> film's
>>>>>>>>>> critics argued that it had misused data, relied on out-of-date
>>>>>>>>>> research,
>>>>>>>>>> employed misleading arguments, and misrepresented the position of
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> From: http://www.climateofdenial.net/?q=node/7
>>>>>>>>>> "The DVD version of ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ has been
>>>>>>>>>> available for purchase since late July 2007. The front of the
>>>>>>>>>> presentation case describes it as a “documentary”, which is
>>>>>>>>>> defined
>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>> the Oxford English Dictionary as “a film or television or radio
>>>>>>>>>> programme giving a factual account of something, using film,
>>>>>>>>>> photographs, and sound recordings of real events”. However, the
>>>>>>>>>> DVD
>>>>>>>>>> contains at least five major misrepresentations of the scientific
>>>>>>>>>> evidence and researchers’ views on climate change. This document
>>>>>>>>>> presents details of the five misrepresentations."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> From
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0313pure_propaganda_the.p hp
>>>>>>>>>> "What we now have is an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which
>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>> not even a gesture toward balance or explanation of why many of
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> extended inferences drawn in the film are not widely accepted by
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> scientific community. There are so many examples, it's hard to
>>>>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>>>>> where to begin, so I will cite only one: a speaker asserts, as is
>>>>>>>>>> true,
>>>>>>>>>> that carbon dioxide is only a small fraction of the atmospheric
>>>>>>>>>> mass.
>>>>>>>>>> The viewer is left to infer that means it couldn't really matter.
>>>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>>>> even a beginning meteorology student could tell you that the
>>>>>>>>>> relative
>>>>>>>>>> masses of gases are irrelevant to their effects on radiative
>>>>>>>>>> balance.
>>>>> A
>>>>>>>>>> director not intending to produce pure propaganda would have tried
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> eliminate that piece of disinformation.”
>>>>>>>>>> (http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/
>>>>>>>>>> papersonline/channel4response)"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Rich Lamanna wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Must be global warming. Anyone seen this? If you've got an hour
>>>>>>>>>>> check
>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>> out. It may take a minute or two to load.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://en.sevenload.com/videos/ha4PoKY/The-Great-Global-Warm ing-Swindle
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Rich
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "EK Sound" <ask_me@nospam.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:479e36ad$1@linux...
>>>>>>>>>>>> Woke up this morning and the temp with wind chill was -59C >:(
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Why did I move here again???
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> David.
>
|
|
|
|
|
I hate winter...
By: EK Sound on Mon, 28 January 2008 11:55
|
|
|
Re: I hate winter...
By: Deej [5] on Mon, 28 January 2008 13:27
|
|
|
Re: I hate winter...
By: Bill L on Mon, 28 January 2008 12:30
|
|
|
Re: I hate winter...
By: Deej [5] on Mon, 28 January 2008 14:02
|
|
|
Re: I hate winter...
|
|
|
Re: I hate winter...
By: Jamie K on Mon, 28 January 2008 14:38
|
|
|
Re: I hate winter...
By: Deej [5] on Mon, 28 January 2008 22:48
|
|
|
Re: I hate winter...
By: Deej [5] on Mon, 28 January 2008 22:50
|
|
|
Re: I hate winter...
By: Deej [5] on Mon, 28 January 2008 22:53
|
|
|
Re: I hate winter...
By: Neil on Mon, 28 January 2008 22:59
|
|
|
Re: I hate winter...
By: Deej [5] on Mon, 28 January 2008 21:56
|
|
|
Re: I hate winter...
By: Jamie K on Mon, 28 January 2008 23:49
|
|
|
Re: I hate winter...
|
|
|
Re: I hate winter...
By: Deej [5] on Mon, 28 January 2008 20:04
|
|
|
Re: I hate winter...
|
|
|
Re: I hate winter...
By: Jamie K on Mon, 28 January 2008 23:39
|
|
|
Re: I hate winter...
By: excelav on Tue, 29 January 2008 10:03
|
|
|
Re: I hate winter...
By: Jamie K on Tue, 29 January 2008 09:51
|
|
|
Re: I hate winter...
By: rick on Tue, 29 January 2008 10:36
|
|
|
Re: I hate winter...
|
|
|
Re: I hate winter...
By: Jamie K on Tue, 29 January 2008 11:16
|
|
|
Re: I hate winter...
|
|
|
Re: I hate winter...
By: Jamie K on Tue, 29 January 2008 22:03
|
|
|
I just this liberal would get a clue......
By: Deej [5] on Thu, 31 January 2008 15:26
|
|
|
Re: I just this liberal would get a clue......
By: dc[3] on Thu, 31 January 2008 17:35
|
|
|
Re: I just this liberal would get a clue......
By: Jamie K on Thu, 31 January 2008 17:10
|
|
|
Re: I just this liberal would get a clue......
By: Deej [5] on Fri, 01 February 2008 10:40
|
|
|
Re: I just this liberal would get a clue......
By: Jamie K on Fri, 01 February 2008 13:57
|
|
|
Re: I just this liberal would get a clue......
By: excelav on Fri, 01 February 2008 11:55
|
|
|
Re: I just this liberal would get a clue......
By: Jamie K on Fri, 01 February 2008 13:53
|
|
|
Re: I just this liberal would get a clue......
By: excelav on Fri, 01 February 2008 20:31
|
|
|
Re: I just this liberal would get a clue......
By: Jamie K on Fri, 01 February 2008 23:10
|
|
|
Re: I just this liberal would get a clue......
By: Kim on Thu, 31 January 2008 19:31
|
|
|
Re: I just this liberal would get a clue......
By: dc[3] on Thu, 31 January 2008 23:08
|
|
|
Re: I hate winter...
|
|
|
Re: I hate winter...
By: Jamie K on Wed, 30 January 2008 02:03
|
|
|
Re: I hate winter...
|
|
|
Re: I hate winter...
By: rick on Tue, 29 January 2008 10:38
|
|
|
Re: I hate winter...
By: Deej [5] on Tue, 29 January 2008 10:48
|
|
|
Re: I hate winter...
|
|
|
Re: I hate winter...
|
|
|
Re: I hate winter...
By: rick on Wed, 30 January 2008 01:41
|
|
|
Re: I hate winter...
By: Don Nafe on Tue, 29 January 2008 05:31
|
|
|
Re: I hate winter...
By: EK Sound on Tue, 29 January 2008 07:45
|
|
|
Re: I hate winter...
By: rick on Tue, 29 January 2008 10:41
|
|
|
Re: I hate winter...
By: Sarah on Tue, 29 January 2008 05:50
|
|
|
Re: I hate winter...
By: rick on Tue, 29 January 2008 10:42
|
|
|
Re: I hate winter...
By: Sarah on Wed, 30 January 2008 14:56
|
|
|
Re: I hate winter...
By: rick on Thu, 31 January 2008 02:28
|
|
|
Re: I hate winter...
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sun Sep 22 23:49:30 PDT 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.03060 seconds
|