Home » The Bin » Lester The Nightfly » I hate winter...
Re: I just this liberal would get a clue...... [message #95314 is a reply to message #95294] |
Fri, 01 February 2008 10:40 |
Deej [5]
Messages: 373 Registered: March 2008
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hehehe!!!.....Jamie, I figured you'd have something to say about this.
;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 15:05:52 PDT 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01980 seconds
|