The Scientific Worm Turns? Global Warming.

[oldRoger]

I know there is a "Global Warming" thread in full cry, but if Lee will indulge me this:

It would seem that the scientific worms are beginning to turn or at least develop a rudimentary backbone.
The study of climate change is certainly legitimate; after all what climate has always done is change.
The "study" of anthropogenic carbon dioxide induced global warming, is not a scientific investigation of a natural phenomenon, because the conclusion is implicit in the title. So it's not science it's sophistry.

If I hand you a J Frame with the cylinder blown out and top strap gone it's a legitimate question to ask why, If I hand it to you and say it was caused by hot primers, go prove it, I am seeking confirmation of a conclusion already reached.

For a long time, much of the Scientific Community has put up with this crap, assigned to "prove" the theories of the likes of algore. However, change is in the air:

See this article, by the always worth reading, Kimberly Strassel: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html#printMode

Here is a quote:
"Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new religion." A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists' open letter.)"

Why have they been denying their pretensions to be scientists? Because the global warming true believers control the purse strings.
Remember D Eisenhower and the milatary – industrial complex? You need to read the entire speach in which he warns us against the involvement of government in the flows of money to the scientific, industrial, and milatary sectors of the economy This is intrinsically prone to principal-agent problem, moral hazard, and rent seeking.
Roger.

 

[red14]

Follow the money. It has always been that way. Al Gore is a prime example.

I wonder if he will give back his Pulitzer Prize (I doubt it)? The truth has never been an obstacle for Al.

 

[Dashriprock]

Very interesting article, thanks for the link.

I wonder if he will give back his Pulitzer Prize

Gore couldn't write his way out of a grocery list. It was a Nobel Prize, and he's laughing all the way to the bank.

 

[red14]

Thanks for the correction, and you caught my point. He wouldn't know the truth if it crawled up his leg and bit his ...... belly button.

 

[oldRoger]

I apologize to all for the spelling above, I tend to get lazy and let Microsoft do the checking. Sometimes it fails, as above (milatary? Good grief!)

There is a possibility that algore knows exactly what he is doing, he is after all becoming very wealthy. If Cap and Trade goes through he will become very, very, rich. Could he be in charge of the biggest scam ever?

 

[pharmer]

Socrates said politics is one side taking from their enemies and giving to their friends. Cap-&-Trade is exactly that. No matter who is in charge, the same folks pay. We have exactly the government the "Old-Dead-White-Guys-that we're supposed to be ashamed of" warned us against. Those who voted for "change" are about to get it. This bill even has "compensation for those 150% of poverty level for anticipated loss of purchasing power." If the House lets this turd out, we're in more serious trouble than imaginable. Joe

 

[NonFascio]

Anyone with an even rudimentary understanding of science knows science is science, and sophistry is sophistry. You'll find a lot of studies actually have names of the topic they are studying. A good example would be a study of Sophistry. Any scientist could explain that it doesn't necessarily mean it is practicing sophistry. Don't confuse scientist with journalist.

There's plenty of data, with references, available to all of you if you got off your fat asses and looked it up instead of endlessly bitching about it because it doesn't fit your political viewpoints.

Trying to relabel science as sophistry is sophist.

I know there is a "Global Warming" thread in full cry, but if Lee will indulge me this:

It would seem that the scientific worms are beginning to turn or at least develop a rudimentary backbone.
The study of climate change is certainly legitimate; after all what climate has always done is change.
The "study" of anthropogenic carbon dioxide induced global warming, is not a scientific investigation of a natural phenomenon, because the conclusion is implicit in the title. So it's not science it's sophistry.

If I hand you a J Frame with the cylinder blown out and top strap gone it's a legitimate question to ask why, If I hand it to you and say it was caused by hot primers, go prove it, I am seeking confirmation of a conclusion already reached.

For a long time, much of the Scientific Community has put up with this crap, assigned to "prove" the theories of the likes of algore. However, change is in the air:

See this article, by the always worth reading, Kimberly Strassel: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html#printMode

Here is a quote:
"Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new religion." A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists' open letter.)"

Why have they been denying their pretensions to be scientists? Because the global warming true believers control the purse strings.
Remember D Eisenhower and the milatary – industrial complex? You need to read the entire speach in which he warns us against the involvement of government in the flows of money to the scientific, industrial, and milatary sectors of the economy This is intrinsically prone to principal-agent problem, moral hazard, and rent seeking.
Roger.

 

[Forester]

There's plenty of data, with references, available to all of you if you got off your fat asses and looked it up instead of endlessly bitching about it because it doesn't fit your political viewpoints.

Right back at you. Are you willing to admit that there is plenty of data, with references, available to all that refutes the anthropogenic aspect of it? And that, in fact, we are in the middle of a significant cooling event at this time?

 

[Onomea]

My view is, and has long been, that anthropogenic global warming is a crock.

Thanks for posting the WSJ essay. Good read.

 

[badam0112]

Here is a link to the a web page for a local radio show. Below is one of the largest collections of articles and opinion pieces on the Internet, many written by respected scientists, climatologists, meteorologists and professors who dispute the apocalyptic "man-made" explanation of global warming.

http://schnittshow.newsradio610.com/globalwarming.html

 

[Vulcan Bob]

The truth dident seem to stop the house from passing the tax and grab bill!

 

[TRanger]

Climate change occurs in cycles. Thirty years ago, folks were wringing their hands over global cooling.

 

[MK]

Heck, we are supposed to be in a cooling cycle now. The peak
temps hit in 1998, and have been sliding back down.
You also have variances in ice on the poles, but it usually equals
out to about normal every year. IE: if the artic has less ice one year,
the Antarctic usually has more, and enough to balance it out as far as
the globe.
Then you have the ones that claim the ice caps are melting and the
ocean level will rise and swamp the coastlines. :/
Ugh.. Last time I checked, water expands as it freezes. Any ice in
the oceans that melts will lower, not raise the level of the oceans.
Only land ice that melts into water and flows to the sea would raise
the ocean levels.
Note the Tower of London. It was built at sea level in what, the 1100's
or so.. The sea level is still about the same there according to paintings
made when the Tower was built. The ocean has not risen much at all in
all those years, with the various cool/hot cycles.
Some of the hottest weather in the last 100 years was in the 1920's
and 1930's.
If CO2 is the main culprit for warming, why are we starting to cool again
since 1999, with the same levels or greater of CO2 in the atmosphere?
I've read various numbers about the cost of cap and tax as far as the
cost to energy users through the next 90 years, and the projected reduction
in global temps over that time.. We will be paying way more money vs no tax,
for less than one degree difference in projected temp change.
It might have been even less that 1/2 of a degree, but I forgot. It's a small
amount.
The gifted one himself has stated for cap and tax to work, energy costs
must skyrocket!
That's change I can do without for something that can't even be proved
as fact. IE: a slow cooling since 1999 does not sound like global warming is
a current problem to me.
Besides, Al Bore and his Gulfstream spew way more pollutants into the air
than anything I do. But he will be the one laughing to the bank due to all
this malarky, while I'll get hosed on energy costs.
They forsee electricity rates climbing 90% over the present rates after a few
years. And that's taking into account inflation.
I just hope this thing gets shot down in the Senate. But I'm not holding my
breath.

 

[JOERM]

Crisco butt

Fat Ass? Why thank you sir. That's a nice way to discuss a topic with your friends.

May I call you Crisco butt?

Here's a little story for you.

A little old guy is walking around in a supermarket calling out,
'Crisco, Crissssssscoooo!'

Soon an assistant manager approaches and says, 'Sir, the Crisco is in
aisle 3.'

The old guy replies, 'Oh, I'm not looking for the cooking stuff. I'm
calling my wife. She's in here somewhere.'

The clerk is astonished. 'Your wife's name is Crisco?'

The old guy answers, 'Oh no, no, no. I only call her that when we're out
in public.'

'I see,' said the clerk. 'What do you call her at home?'

'Lard ass.'

 

[DeathGrip]

Crisco butt

Now thats funny.

 

[CAJUNLAWYER]

Fat Ass? Why thank you sir. That's a nice way to discuss a topic with your friends.

Back off. The guy's been a member since June 2009 and has 19 posts. He has earned the right to call us fat asses......But Karma DO be a b!tch

 

[Spotteddog]

Also no location or info Caje.
Yup, it do be a bitch!

 

[oldRoger]

Hmmmmm: nonfascio .... I wonder if he/she realizes that fascism is and was a Left Wing movement???

I wish before flaming these persons would read the post and at least try to understand it.

Sorry to say that the "consensus" about global warming being anthropogenic never existed, except in algores fertile mind .