- This topic has 5 voices and 105 replies.
-
Posts
-
Here are some select stories published recently:1. A pretty good editorial from the Washington Times about AP's coverage of the story: EDITORIAL: Biased reporting on Climategate2. One from Cape Cod: Climategate justifies fears of scientific manipulation3. US Legislation: Climate bill chaos: Your guide to the two newest proposals4. A piece from China: Self-serving calculations behind carbon tariff proposal
Your Chinese reference is quite baffling …!
I think it is quite straightforward. The Carbon Tariff proposals look like another way for developed countries to maintain their economic dominance through punishing the inefficient methods of the developing world. If I were Chinese or Indian I would fight them too. Of course, I am an American and find it Ironic that I agree with the Chinese on this one, that does not happen very often.
It's been a while since I posted anything here so I thought would throw a couple more articles up highlighting the intellectual bankruptcy of the whole IPCC and GW process and advocacy. Once again, my objection is not to the idea behind climate change but the fact that its proponents want the world to completely change the way it does business based on at best, shoddy science and predictions of a process that is poorly understood if at all.The IPCC meltdown continues: UN climate change panel based claims on student dissertation and magazine article and Climate chief was told of false glacier claims before Copenhagen . Once again, the British media are all over this with not a peep from the compliant tools in the American or German media.However, this is starting to make me wonder if there is as much to some of these claims as firts impressions would have me believe. Maybe the media of other countries are ignoring the stories from spite or out of other perhaps, legitimate grounds. I am not sure yet but the lack of reporting outside of England has my BS antenna starting to quiver a little.
Snafu
I agree, the problam is what they want us to do based on their bad science and questionable conclusions. It is not that their science is tainted by politics so much as they let it be tainted in the first place.More links, and these concern Climategate itself and Phil Jones, the mad professor at the middle of it all.Leaked climate change emails scientist 'hid' data flaws and Strange case of moving weather posts and a scientist under siege
Here is a nice little opinion pice from the Globe & Mail that points out how Climategate has kind of had a snowball effect on the proponents of GW. The great global warming collapse I especially like her caveat to the GW “scientists”
None of this is to say that global warming isn't real, or that human activity doesn't play a role, or that the IPCC is entirely wrong, or that measures to curb greenhouse-gas emissions aren't valid. But the strategy pursued by activists (including scientists who have crossed the line into advocacy) has turned out to be fatally flawed.
Apparently the GW supporters are finally starting to see that faith is not science, the left has been telling Christians that for years in the evolution vs creation debate. I am not taking a position in that debate here, just trying to make a point.
Still agree with you, especially about mistakes these climate change scientists made ( which is totally unacceptable for any serious scientific investigation) however I'm still waiting for their scientific demonstrations proving the contrary (opposite). If there is any.
Still agree with you, especially about mistakes these climate change scientists made ( which is totally unacceptable for any serious scientific investigation) however I'm still waiting for their scientific demonstrations proving the contrary (opposite). If there is any.
Me too.In the meantime I will continue to oppose any massive interventions based on what is at best poor science and at worst outright fraud on a massive scale.
Interesting continuation of and outcome of Climategate among other problems with GW theory recently: UN to review controversial climate panel I think it is kind of sad that it took possible fraud and bad publicityto make them look at it closer.
Welll, Al Gore says we are all a bunch of idiots for making such a big deal out of just a few mistakes and we are still going to kill the planet. We Can?t Wish Away Climate Change I guess if Al Gore ( who is pure as the driven snow) says it then we better listen because GW is real, he says it and so does his movie and there is no ulterior economic motive in his fear-mongering at all. He even has the Nobel Peace Prize to prove how great he is just like Obama.
Kinda dilemma about a short or long term view ! What kind of world would you leave to ones you care ?
Kinda dilemma about a short or long term view ! What kind of world would you leave to ones you care ?
That is a straw man argument. It is actually designed to stifle debate and not foster it. That is the problem with GW, its advocates don't want debate they want us to shut up and take the pill, as if their prescriptions are not political. It is kind of like the left saying their policies are “for the children” when they are anything but.
Here is a new one I have not heard before. Apparently global warming is to blame for flowers losing their scent. When can I start blaming it for the mole in my backyard is what i want to know?Even Clinton's got a good Climate Change joke. This is from the Annual Gridiron Dinner in Washington over the weekend:
Elsewhere in his remarks, he noted he was speaking on the night before the start of spring, ?otherwise known to Al Gore as proof of global warming.? Of the current vice president, he said: ?Vice President Biden, God bless his mouth.?
Good news from the (stars) UK … ::)”No evidence about manipulated climate change data” !!
The committee said much of the data that critics claimed Prof Jones had hidden, was in fact already publicly available.
There should be a reputable scientist on the panel [who is] sceptical about man-made global warming Graham Stringer MP
But isn't it curious that it took a media scandal to make them take a serious look at the data in the first place? It is also funny how the intial shaking of the tree has made other stuff fall out too. I am not saying that GW is not a possibility; my main complaint is that its supporters don't want their to be debate in the first place. If they really want us to take them seriously they should in fact be as pure as the driven snow and make everything publicly available. This is the most telling quote from the article:
But they said Prof Jones had aroused understandable suspicion by blocking requests for data
