Page 1 of 13 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 186

Thread: Global Warming Causing Deadly Snowstorms.

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    134

    Global Warming Causing Deadly Snowstorms.

    First,

    Irony of ironies -

    Snow fell as the House of Commons debated Global Warming yesterday - the first October fall in the metropolis since 1922. The Mother of Parliaments was discussing the Mother of All Bills for the last time, in a marathon six hour session.



    {...}



    The bill creates an enormous bureaucratic apparatus for monitoring and reporting, which was expanded at the last minute.



    {...}



    Recently the American media has begun to notice the odd incongruity of saturation media coverage here which insists that global warming is both man-made and urgent, and a British public which increasingly doubts either to be true.



    {...}



    Yet anyone looking for elected representatives to articulate these concerns will have been disappointed. Instead, representatives had a higher purpose...



    The Register, October 29, 2008


    And then,

    About 1,350 people were rescued in Lhunze County -- another 300 were trapped -- after nearly five feet (1.5 meters) of snow blanketed much of Tibet this week.

    The storm caused buildings to collapse, blocked roads and killed about 144,000 head of cattle....

    7 killed in Tibet's 'worst snowstorm'
    7 killed in Tibet's 'worst snowstorm' - CNN.com

    We all know the logic makes sense. Slowly increasing global temperatures cause a dramatic decrease in global temperatures! Just compare the early blizzard that just hit the two Dakotas here in the states with that of the 1920 North Dakota blizzard to see if there is a difference between now and then.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    In the nightmares of right wingers.
    Posts
    2,290
    Quote Originally Posted by ServantOfChrist View Post
    We all know the logic makes sense. Slowly increasing global temperatures cause a dramatic decrease in global temperatures! Just compare the early blizzard that just hit the two Dakotas here in the states with that of the 1920 North Dakota blizzard to see if there is a difference between now and then.
    Come back when you learn the difference between climate and weather.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    134
    Quote Originally Posted by chester View Post
    Come back when you learn the difference between climate and weather.
    What was the difference, in climate terms, between 1400AD and 1600AD?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Lancaster, UK
    Posts
    4,892
    Increased temperatures and increased aberrant weather patterns are not mutually exclusive. Please acquire a clue and then come back.
    “When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist” - Helder Camara
    “It is not the will of God for some to have everything and others to have nothing. This cannot be God” - Oscar Romero
    "It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder" - Einstein
    "We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him" - CS Lewis

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    3,525
    Quote Originally Posted by ServantOfChrist View Post
    We all know the logic makes sense. Slowly increasing global temperatures cause a dramatic decrease in global temperatures! Just compare the early blizzard that just hit the two Dakotas here in the states with that of the 1920 North Dakota blizzard to see if there is a difference between now and then.
    Global warming is predicted to cause extremely hot summers and extremely cold winters as it reduces the heat transfer capacity of the oceans. Thus, the extremely cold winter last winter was entirely within the model. Furthermore, the early blizzard is a known phenomena that occurs in the Mid West.

    Please try again.
    "You are, of course, free to make your own calls on how much rationality you want to impose upon yourself." - Kronus

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,854
    Quote Originally Posted by ServantOfChrist View Post
    What was the difference, in climate terms, between 1400AD and 1600AD?
    Are you an acolyte of McIntyre and McKitrick, perchance?
    " ... It's not as though he proved anything, he only refuted my evidence. ..." Archangel 04.01.09

    "Obama is not a brown-skinned anti-war socialist who gives away free healthcare. You're thinking of Jesus."

    “Probably the toughest time in anyone's life is when you have to murder a loved one because they're the devil.”

  7. #7
    Archangel Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Penfold View Post
    Are you an acolyte of McIntyre and McKitrick, perchance?
    Are you actually suggesting that McIntyre and McKitrick are the only voices which oppose the fraud of man made global warming? How about the actual scientists who reject the media promotion of this issue? Here's an excerpt:

    Climatologists Reject Media Claims of Global Warming Consensus

    "[I]n November 2004, German climatologist Hans von Storch, director of the GKSS Institute for Coastal Research (IfK) in Geesthacht, Germany, foresaw that claims of alarmist consensus would be made by nonscientists ..."
    Environment & Climate News > August 2005
    Environment
    Environment > Climate: Consensus
    Email a Friend
    Written By: Alan Caruba
    Published In: Environment & Climate News > August 2005
    Publication date: 08/01/2005
    Publisher: The Heartland Institute
    Leading climatologists spent the month of June fighting false proclamations from non-scientists claiming scientists have reached agreement that catastrophic global warming is occurring.


    Alarmists Claim Debate Over

    On June 1, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) claimed "the debate is over" and global warming alarmists' predictions had carried the day.

    The Natural Resources Defense Council on June 9 declared, "The world's leading scientists now agree that global warming is real and is happening right now. According to their forecasts, extreme changes in climate could produce a future in which erratic and chaotic weather, melting ice caps and rising sea levels usher in an era of drought, crop failure, famine, flood and mass extinctions."

    On June 13, USA Today declared, "The debate's over: Globe is Warming." In support of its claim, the newspaper cited the positions of some left-leaning religious groups, some corporations who will reap a financial windfall from a switch to alternative fuel sources, and some politicians.


    Scientists Disagree

    While each of the above claims from non-scientists received significant media coverage, leading climatologists spent the month of June rebutting such proclamations.

    Atmospheric physicist S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and former director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, sent a letter to the editor of USA Today directly refuting its claim. "Your editorial ... claim[s] the global warming debate is over. Not so," wrote Singer.

    Singer wrote, "Sea level will continue to rise by only seven inches per century as it has for thousands of years no matter what we do or what the EPA [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency] says. And temperatures in the next 100 years will likely rise by less than one degree F--not exactly a catastrophe."

    Added Singer in a subsequent letter to the Canadian media, "Thousands of scientists from many countries now fully understand that Kyoto and other efforts to control human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are ineffective and entirely unfounded scientifically.

    "Even if you ignore the enormous cost of Kyoto (estimated recently by Prof. George Taylor of Oregon State University--see http://www.sitewave.net/news/s49p628.htm--at one trillion U.S. dollars a year for full implementation in OECD countries), climate science research is rapidly moving AWAY from the hypothesis that the human release of greenhouse gases, specifically CO2, is in any way significantly contributing to global climate change."


    Sun Called Primary Cause

    "If we just look at the historical data, there is a scientific consensus that the global mean temperature has risen modestly during the twentieth century," said Myron Ebell, director of global warming and environmental policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. "The impacts have been small and probably beneficial in aggregate. This historical data puts the onus of demonstration on those who think this gradual warming trend will accelerate and lead to dire consequences."

    The controlling driver of global temperature fluctuations, according to Dr. Benny Peiser of England's John Moore's University, is solar ray activity. "Six eminent researchers from the Russian Academy of Science and the Israel Space Agency have just published a startling paper in one of the world's leading space science journals. The team of solar physicists claims to have come up with compelling evidence that changes in cosmic ray intensity and variations in solar activity have been driving much of the Earth's climate," Peiser was quoted as saying in the May 17 National Post.


    Moreover, reports Peiser, Jan Veizer, one of Canada's top earth scientists, published a comprehensive review of recent findings and concluded, "empirical observations on all time scales point to celestial phenomena as the principal driver of climate, with greenhouse gases acting only as potential amplifiers."

    Added Peiser, "In fact, the explicit and implicit rejection of the 'consensus' is not restricted to individual scientists. It also includes distinguished scientific organizations such as the Russian Academy of Science and the U.S. Association of State Climatologists, both of which are highly skeptical of the whole idea."
    Heartland Institute - Article

    And here's more:

    Renowned Scientist Defects From Belief in Global Warming – Caps Year of Vindication for Skeptics
    October 17, 2006

    October 17, 2006
    Washington DC - One of the most decorated French geophysicists has converted from a believer in manmade catastrophic global warming to a climate skeptic. This latest defector from the global warming camp caps a year in which numerous scientific studies have bolstered the claims of climate skeptics. Scientific studies that debunk the dire predictions of human-caused global warming have continued to accumulate and many believe the new science is shattering the media-promoted scientific “consensus” on climate alarmism.

    Claude Allegre, a former government official and an active member of France’s Socialist Party, wrote an editorial on September 21, 2006 in the French newspaper L'Express titled “The Snows of Kilimanjaro” (For English Translation, click here: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works ) detailing his newfound skepticism about manmade global warming. See: http://www.lexpress.fr/idees/tribune...asp?ida=451670 Allegre wrote that the “cause of climate change remains unknown” and pointed out that Kilimanjaro is not losing snow due to global warming, but to local land use and precipitation changes. Allegre also pointed out that studies show that Antarctic snowfall rate has been stable over the past 30 years and the continent is actually gaining ice.

    “Following the month of August experienced by the northern half of France, the prophets of doom of global warming will have a lot on their plate in order to make our fellow countrymen swallow their certitudes,” Allegre wrote. He also accused proponents of manmade catastrophic global warming of being motivated by money, noting that “the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!”

    Allegre, a member of both the French and U.S. Academy of Sciences, had previously expressed concern about manmade global warming. "By burning fossil fuels, man enhanced the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which has raised the global mean temperature by half a degree in the last century," Allegre wrote 20 years ago. In addition, Allegre was one of 1500 scientists who signed a November 18, 1992 letter titled “World Scientists' Warning to Humanity” in which the scientists warned that global warming’s “potential risks are very great.” See: Warning to Humanity

    Allegre has authored more than 100 scientific articles, written 11 books and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States.

    Allegre's conversion to a climate skeptic comes at a time when global warming alarmists have insisted that there is a “consensus” about manmade global warming. Proponents of global warming have ratcheted up the level of rhetoric on climate skeptics recently. An environmental magazine in September called for Nuremberg-style trials for global warming skeptics and CBS News “60 Minutes” correspondent Scott Pelley compared skeptics to “Holocaust deniers.” See: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works & Scott Pelley And Catherine Herrick On Global Warming Coverage - Public Eye In addition, former Vice President Al Gore has repeatedly referred to skeptics as "global warming deniers."

    This increase in rhetorical flourish comes at a time when new climate science research continues to unravel the global warming alarmists’ computer model predictions of future climatic doom and vindicate skeptics.

    60 Scientists Debunk Global Warming Fears

    Earlier this year, a group of prominent scientists came forward to question the so-called “consensus” that the Earth faces a “climate emergency.” On April 6, 2006, 60 scientists wrote a letter to the Canadian Prime Minister asserting that the science is deteriorating from underneath global warming alarmists.

    “Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future…Significant [scientific] advances have been made since the [Kyoto] protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary,” the 60 scientists wrote. See: Open Kyoto to debate

    “It was only 30 years ago that many of today's global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe. But the science continued to evolve, and still does, even though so many choose to ignore it when it does not fit with predetermined political agendas,” the 60 scientists concluded.
    .: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Press Room :.

    So in conclusion, as the alleged science of evolution is based solely on pre-determined assumptions, so is the myth of Global Warming.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,854
    Quote Originally Posted by Archangel View Post
    .........So in conclusion, as the alleged science of evolution is based solely on pre-determined assumptions, so is the myth of Global Warming.


    In short, you have nothing but faith, and seek to project it where it has no place.
    " ... It's not as though he proved anything, he only refuted my evidence. ..." Archangel 04.01.09

    "Obama is not a brown-skinned anti-war socialist who gives away free healthcare. You're thinking of Jesus."

    “Probably the toughest time in anyone's life is when you have to murder a loved one because they're the devil.”

  9. #9
    Archangel Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Penfold View Post
    In short, you have nothing but faith, and seek to project it where it has no place.
    Nothing but faith? Hey , I posted 2 links endorsed by more than 50 climatologists to support my beliefs and this is all you contribute to the debate? Another ignorant snipe? Is that all you have to support your faith in media reports which are promoting another algore conspiracy?
    Last edited by Archangel; 11-10-2008 at 06:21 PM. Reason: offensive

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,854
    That you cannot differentiate between ignorance and an unwillingness to be sucked into a battle of the facts against your cherrypicked denialism is no surprise.

    Mr Gore's commentary is not germane to serious debate. While he is far more credible than Ben Stein, he is no more a climatologist than you are.
    " ... It's not as though he proved anything, he only refuted my evidence. ..." Archangel 04.01.09

    "Obama is not a brown-skinned anti-war socialist who gives away free healthcare. You're thinking of Jesus."

    “Probably the toughest time in anyone's life is when you have to murder a loved one because they're the devil.”

  11. #11
    Archangel Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Penfold View Post
    That you cannot differentiate between ignorance and an unwillingness to be sucked into a battle of the facts against your cherrypicked denialism is no surprise.

    Mr Gore's commentary is not germane to serious debate. While he is far more credible than Ben Stein, he is no more a climatologist than you are.
    Show me where Ben Stein is quoted in these links or this debate at all. And disprove my evidence for once if you can rather than change the subject or derail the debate with snipes and off topic minutia.



    Are you actually suggesting that McIntyre and McKitrick are the only voices which oppose the fraud of man made global warming? How about the actual scientists who reject the media promotion of this issue? Here's an excerpt:

    Climatologists Reject Media Claims of Global Warming Consensus

    "[I]n November 2004, German climatologist Hans von Storch, director of the GKSS Institute for Coastal Research (IfK) in Geesthacht, Germany, foresaw that claims of alarmist consensus would be made by nonscientists ..."
    Environment & Climate News > August 2005
    Environment
    Environment > Climate: Consensus
    Email a Friend
    Written By: Alan Caruba
    Published In: Environment & Climate News > August 2005
    Publication date: 08/01/2005
    Publisher: The Heartland Institute
    Leading climatologists spent the month of June fighting false proclamations from non-scientists claiming scientists have reached agreement that catastrophic global warming is occurring.


    Alarmists Claim Debate Over

    On June 1, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) claimed "the debate is over" and global warming alarmists' predictions had carried the day.

    The Natural Resources Defense Council on June 9 declared, "The world's leading scientists now agree that global warming is real and is happening right now. According to their forecasts, extreme changes in climate could produce a future in which erratic and chaotic weather, melting ice caps and rising sea levels usher in an era of drought, crop failure, famine, flood and mass extinctions."

    On June 13, USA Today declared, "The debate's over: Globe is Warming." In support of its claim, the newspaper cited the positions of some left-leaning religious groups, some corporations who will reap a financial windfall from a switch to alternative fuel sources, and some politicians.


    Scientists Disagree

    While each of the above claims from non-scientists received significant media coverage, leading climatologists spent the month of June rebutting such proclamations.

    Atmospheric physicist S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and former director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, sent a letter to the editor of USA Today directly refuting its claim. "Your editorial ... claim[s] the global warming debate is over. Not so," wrote Singer.

    Singer wrote, "Sea level will continue to rise by only seven inches per century as it has for thousands of years no matter what we do or what the EPA [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency] says. And temperatures in the next 100 years will likely rise by less than one degree F--not exactly a catastrophe."

    Added Singer in a subsequent letter to the Canadian media, "Thousands of scientists from many countries now fully understand that Kyoto and other efforts to control human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are ineffective and entirely unfounded scientifically.

    "Even if you ignore the enormous cost of Kyoto (estimated recently by Prof. George Taylor of Oregon State University--see http://www.sitewave.net/news/s49p628.htm--at one trillion U.S. dollars a year for full implementation in OECD countries), climate science research is rapidly moving AWAY from the hypothesis that the human release of greenhouse gases, specifically CO2, is in any way significantly contributing to global climate change."


    Sun Called Primary Cause

    "If we just look at the historical data, there is a scientific consensus that the global mean temperature has risen modestly during the twentieth century," said Myron Ebell, director of global warming and environmental policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. "The impacts have been small and probably beneficial in aggregate. This historical data puts the onus of demonstration on those who think this gradual warming trend will accelerate and lead to dire consequences."

    The controlling driver of global temperature fluctuations, according to Dr. Benny Peiser of England's John Moore's University, is solar ray activity. "Six eminent researchers from the Russian Academy of Science and the Israel Space Agency have just published a startling paper in one of the world's leading space science journals. The team of solar physicists claims to have come up with compelling evidence that changes in cosmic ray intensity and variations in solar activity have been driving much of the Earth's climate," Peiser was quoted as saying in the May 17 National Post.


    Moreover, reports Peiser, Jan Veizer, one of Canada's top earth scientists, published a comprehensive review of recent findings and concluded, "empirical observations on all time scales point to celestial phenomena as the principal driver of climate, with greenhouse gases acting only as potential amplifiers."

    Added Peiser, "In fact, the explicit and implicit rejection of the 'consensus' is not restricted to individual scientists. It also includes distinguished scientific organizations such as the Russian Academy of Science and the U.S. Association of State Climatologists, both of which are highly skeptical of the whole idea."
    Heartland Institute - Article

    And here's more:

    Renowned Scientist Defects From Belief in Global Warming – Caps Year of Vindication for Skeptics
    October 17, 2006

    October 17, 2006
    Washington DC - One of the most decorated French geophysicists has converted from a believer in manmade catastrophic global warming to a climate skeptic. This latest defector from the global warming camp caps a year in which numerous scientific studies have bolstered the claims of climate skeptics. Scientific studies that debunk the dire predictions of human-caused global warming have continued to accumulate and many believe the new science is shattering the media-promoted scientific “consensus” on climate alarmism.

    Claude Allegre, a former government official and an active member of France’s Socialist Party, wrote an editorial on September 21, 2006 in the French newspaper L'Express titled “The Snows of Kilimanjaro” (For English Translation, click here: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works ) detailing his newfound skepticism about manmade global warming. See: http://www.lexpress.fr/idees/tribune...asp?ida=451670 Allegre wrote that the “cause of climate change remains unknown” and pointed out that Kilimanjaro is not losing snow due to global warming, but to local land use and precipitation changes. Allegre also pointed out that studies show that Antarctic snowfall rate has been stable over the past 30 years and the continent is actually gaining ice.

    “Following the month of August experienced by the northern half of France, the prophets of doom of global warming will have a lot on their plate in order to make our fellow countrymen swallow their certitudes,” Allegre wrote. He also accused proponents of manmade catastrophic global warming of being motivated by money, noting that “the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!”

    Allegre, a member of both the French and U.S. Academy of Sciences, had previously expressed concern about manmade global warming. "By burning fossil fuels, man enhanced the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which has raised the global mean temperature by half a degree in the last century," Allegre wrote 20 years ago. In addition, Allegre was one of 1500 scientists who signed a November 18, 1992 letter titled “World Scientists' Warning to Humanity” in which the scientists warned that global warming’s “potential risks are very great.” See: Warning to Humanity

    Allegre has authored more than 100 scientific articles, written 11 books and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States.

    Allegre's conversion to a climate skeptic comes at a time when global warming alarmists have insisted that there is a “consensus” about manmade global warming. Proponents of global warming have ratcheted up the level of rhetoric on climate skeptics recently. An environmental magazine in September called for Nuremberg-style trials for global warming skeptics and CBS News “60 Minutes” correspondent Scott Pelley compared skeptics to “Holocaust deniers.” See: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works & Scott Pelley And Catherine Herrick On Global Warming Coverage - Public Eye In addition, former Vice President Al Gore has repeatedly referred to skeptics as "global warming deniers."

    This increase in rhetorical flourish comes at a time when new climate science research continues to unravel the global warming alarmists’ computer model predictions of future climatic doom and vindicate skeptics.

    60 Scientists Debunk Global Warming Fears

    Earlier this year, a group of prominent scientists came forward to question the so-called “consensus” that the Earth faces a “climate emergency.” On April 6, 2006, 60 scientists wrote a letter to the Canadian Prime Minister asserting that the science is deteriorating from underneath global warming alarmists.

    “Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future…Significant [scientific] advances have been made since the [Kyoto] protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary,” the 60 scientists wrote. See: Open Kyoto to debate

    “It was only 30 years ago that many of today's global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe. But the science continued to evolve, and still does, even though so many choose to ignore it when it does not fit with predetermined political agendas,” the 60 scientists concluded.
    .: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Press Room :.

    So in conclusion, as the alleged science of evolution is based solely on pre-determined assumptions, so is the myth of Global Warming.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,300
    Well, there are certainly a lot of similarities between your approaches to global warming and evolution - two articles that were written before the most significant research into the theory was published (your articles are '05 and '06, the IPCC report was published '07), arguments from authority ('Important Scientist X says y') and almost no actual scientific argument or original content.

    You haven't persuaded anyone that evolution is false, either - and that was with God 'on your side'. I doubt there is much scripture on GW, the Flood notwithstanding.
    The truth may be out there, but lies are in your head.

  13. #13
    Archangel Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by iangb View Post
    Well, there are certainly a lot of similarities between your approaches to global warming and evolution - two articles that were written before the most significant research into the theory was published (your articles are '05 and '06, the IPCC report was published '07), arguments from authority ('Important Scientist X says y') and almost no actual scientific argument or original content.

    You haven't persuaded anyone that evolution is false, either - and that was with God 'on your side'. I doubt there is much scripture on GW, the Flood notwithstanding.
    You are so gullible and naive as to rely on a bought and paid for government mouth piece since you like its anagram and it sounds official. But the IPCC is promoting an agenda, not science. And you obviously aren't smart enough to tell the difference. Here's an excerpt from the link.

    Offering a serious counter balance to the IPCC-UNnonsenseand itsnefarious black-ops at IPCC the reader should consider the links to the right on this page especially the peer review articles rapidly compiling atthe Science & Public Policy Institute (SPPI). Especially take note of Professor Bob Carter's series of five videos which offer an excellent introduction to the areas of controversy. These five videos are posted on the SPPI site here.

    Atmospheric Climate Reporters bent on selling front page stories with hysteria driven headlines have been frustrated as they run into a wall of resolute, determined climate skeptics that want to learn the supportable truth on climate issues regardless of where it leads. The Reporters sense a change in climate politics as skeptics focus on peer reviewing the deluge of papers written by the IPCC cabal of diverse international governmental and grant supported agencies. Over $1-billion per year grants and subsidies support nearly any PhD research project as long as it contains man-caused global warming conclusions.

    Skeptics' dissent is filtered out of climate conclaves as well by black listing all identified skeptics from communications. No nonbelievers allowed.

    In response to all this nonsense, the skeptics have disciplined their peer reviews to be written in plain English understandable without advanced degrees, and are poking holes in all the IPCC climate-alarmist science status reports.

    The tide is changing. As a result of resolute skeptics, some Climate Reporters are beginning to hedge their article headlines from "Global Warming Disaster is Imminent & Man is the Cause" over to a simple "Climate Change" headlines. The term "Climate Change" finds no disagreement among scientists and of course avoids the presumptive political and sociologic implications of man-caused climate change so rabidly foisted upon the ignorant public by climate alarmists and their fellow-traveler worshipers.

    This shift in headliner catch phrasing by climate reporters is an obvious hedge against a persistent scientific climate truth that is not cooperating with the "man-caused" mantra. Induced climate hysteria apparently isn't selling too well as it runs into a wall of skeptics doing their homework and reporting to the public, all without government funding. What ever happened to the great sound-bites the alarmists fired from the hip? "The skeptics are all oil industry stooges bought and paid for by big oil."

    The climate reporters' purposeful shift is that years (or months) from now, when climate science is no longer front page, their relabeling will conceal their past editorials pushing mass climate hysteria and repainttheir Paparazzi-like reporting as though climatereporters represented the thread of unyieldingscientific truth all along and were, afterall, operating with high ethical standards.
    GlobalWarmingIndex - Global Warming Index, #Directory and Science Forum#by P&CR.Org - A#Skeptic's Corner #

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Lancaster, UK
    Posts
    4,892
    The SSPI is a Republican organisation part funded by Exxon Mobil.

    Bob Carter meanwhile is a paleontologist with no published work in the field of climatology.
    “When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist” - Helder Camara
    “It is not the will of God for some to have everything and others to have nothing. This cannot be God” - Oscar Romero
    "It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder" - Einstein
    "We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him" - CS Lewis

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Sydney, Oz
    Posts
    3,253
    ad hominems are the last recourse of someone who can't debate on the merits of the science itself
    He or she who supports a State organized in a military way – whether directly or indirectly – participates in sin. Each man takes part in the sin by contributing to the maintenance of the State by paying taxes.

    ~ Gandhi

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •