Scam of the "Great Global Warming Swindle"
Roger Coppock
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656640542976216573
Roger Coppock
> >From Chris Merchant, School of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh
>
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656640542976216573
One of the faked graphs in "Great Global
Warming Swindle" is discussed 34 minutes
into the video.
Please see
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece
My favorite quote from the article above:
"The original Nasa data was very wiggly-lined and we wanted the
simplest line we could find," Mr Durkin [the director of this movie]
said.
I've graphed the original NASA data. Please see:
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Global%20Mean%20Temp.jpg
That's the wiggly-lined truth. It doesn't support many of the claims
made in this move, however.
You might also want to read:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2032575,00.html
This one isn't getting two oscars like "An Inconvenient Truth."
Have you seen that movie, Don?
Another movie you would benefit from is here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=522784499045867811
This move explains the political big picture.
Roger Poppycock
By Richard S. Lindzen
Newsweek International
April 16, 2007 issue - Judging from the media in recent months, the debate
over global warming is now over. There has been a net warming of the earth
over the last century and a half, and our greenhouse gas emissions are
contributing at some level. Both of these statements are almost certainly
true. What of it? Recently many people have said that the earth is facing a
crisis requiring urgent action. This statement has nothing to do with
science. There is no compelling evidence that the warming trend we've seen
will amount to anything close to catastrophe. What most commentators-and
many scientists-seem to miss is that the only thing we can say with
certainly about climate is that it changes. The earth is always warming or
cooling by as much as a few tenths of a degree a year; periods of constant
average temperatures are rare. Looking back on the earth's climate history,
it's apparent that there's no such thing as an optimal temperature-a climate
at which everything is just right. The current alarm rests on the false
assumption not only that we live in a perfect world, temperaturewise, but
also that our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more reliable
than the weatherman's forecast for next week.
A warmer climate could prove to be more beneficial than the one we have now.
Much of the alarm over climate change is based on ignorance of what is
normal for weather and climate. There is no evidence, for instance, that
extreme weather events are increasing in any systematic way, according to
scientists at the U.S. National Hurricane Center, the World Meteorological
Organization and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (which
released the second part of this year's report earlier this month). Indeed,
meteorological theory holds that, outside the tropics, weather in a warming
world should be less variable, which might be a good thing.
In many other respects, the ill effects of warming are overblown. Sea
levels, for example, have been increasing since the end of the last ice age.
When you look at recent centuries in perspective, ignoring short-term
fluctuations, the rate of sea-level rise has been relatively uniform (less
than a couple of millimeters a year). There's even some evidence that the
rate was higher in the first half of the twentieth century than in the
second half. Overall, the risk of sea-level rise from global warming is less
at almost any given location than that from other causes, such as tectonic
motions of the earth's surface.
Many of the most alarming studies rely on long-range predictions using
inherently untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot
accurately forecast the weather a week from now. Interpretations of these
studies rarely consider that the impact of carbon on temperature goes
down-not up-the more carbon accumulates in the atmosphere. Even if emissions
were the sole cause of the recent temperature rise-a dubious
proposition-future increases wouldn't be as steep as the climb in emissions.
Indeed, one overlooked mystery is why temperatures are not already higher.
Various models predict that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will raise
the world's average temperature by as little as 1.5 degrees Celsius or as
much as 4.5 degrees. The important thing about doubled CO2 (or any other
greenhouse gas) is its "forcing"-its contribution to warming. At present,
the greenhouse forcing is already about three-quarters of what one would get
from a doubling of CO2. But average temperatures rose only about 0.6 degrees
since the beginning of the industrial era, and the change hasn't been
uniform-warming has largely occurred during the periods from 1919 to 1940
and from 1976 to 1998, with cooling in between. Researchers have been unable
to explain this discrepancy.
Modelers claim to have simulated the warming and cooling that occurred
before 1976 by choosing among various guesses as to what effect poorly
observed volcanoes and unmeasured output from the sun have had. These
factors, they claim, don't explain the warming of about 0.4 degrees C
between 1976 and 1998. Climate modelers assume the cause must be
greenhouse-gas emissions because they have no other explanation. This is a
poor substitute for evidence, and simulation hardly constitutes explanation.
Ten years ago climate modelers also couldn't account for the warming that
occurred from about 1050 to 1300. They tried to expunge the medieval warm
period from the observational record-an effort that is now generally
discredited. The models have also severely underestimated short-term
variability El Niño and the Intraseasonal Oscillation. Such phenomena
illustrate the ability of the complex and turbulent climate system to vary
significantly with no external cause whatever, and to do so over many years,
even centuries.
Is there any point in pretending that CO2 increases will be catastrophic? Or
could they be modest and on balance beneficial? India has warmed during the
second half of the 20th century, and agricultural output has increased
greatly. Infectious diseases like malaria are a matter not so much of
temperature as poverty and public-health policies (like eliminating DDT).
Exposure to cold is generally found to be both more dangerous and less
comfortable.
Moreover, actions taken thus far to reduce emissions have already had
negative consequences without improving our ability to adapt to climate
change. An emphasis on ethanol, for instance, has led to angry protests
against corn-price increases in Mexico, and forest clearing and habitat
destruction in Southeast Asia. Carbon caps are likely to lead to increased
prices, as well as corruption associated with permit trading. (Enron was a
leading lobbyist for Kyoto because it had hoped to capitalize on emissions
trading.) The alleged solutions have more potential for catastrophe than the
putative problem. The conclusion of the late climate scientist Roger
Revelle-Al Gore's supposed mentor-is worth pondering: the evidence for
global warming thus far doesn't warrant any action unless it is justifiable
on grounds that have nothing to do with climate.
Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology. His research has always been funded exclusively by
the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies.
© 2007 Newsweek, Inc.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/
Crooked Corporations Backing Crooked Politicians
http://www.sloan.org/main.shtml
The Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, a philanthropic nonprofit institution,
was established in 1934 by Alfred Pritchard Sloan, Jr., then President
and Chief Executive Officer of the General Motors Corporation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_P._Sloan
During Alfred P. Sloan's leadership of GM, many public transport
systems of trams in the US were replaced by buses. This conversion was
orchestrated by General Motors, Firestone Tire corp., Standard Oil of
California, and the Mack Truck Co. in order to increase automobile
sales; see General Motors streetcar conspiracy for details. In the
1930s GM, long hostile to unionization, confronted its workforce,
newly organized and ready for labor rights, in an extended contest for
control. Sloan was averse to violence of the sort associated with
Henry Ford. He preferred the subtle use of spying and had built up the
best undercover apparatus the business community had ever seen up to
that time. When the workers organized a massive sitdown strike in
1936, Sloan found that espionage had little value in the face of such
open tactics.
Sloan maintained an office in 30 Rockefeller Plaza in Rockefeller
Center, now known as the GE Building.[1] He retired as GM chairman on
April 2, 1956 and died in 1966.
http://heritage.dupont.com/touchpoints/tp_1918/overview.shtml
DuPont's link with General Motors began with Pierre S. du Pont, who
bought GM stock in 1914. In 1915 Pierre was elected a GM director,
then board chairman, to help strengthen GM's management. After World
War I, GM executive and former DuPont treasurer John J. Raskob
persuaded DuPont's directors to invest $25 million in GM. Pierre
became GM's president in 1920. By then DuPont's GM holdings provided
half of DuPont's total earnings.
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=37n&q=Dupont+Petrochemicals&btnG=Search
Results 1 - 100 of about 355,000 for Dupont Petrochemicals.
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=Dupont+Petrochemicals+Exxon&btnG=Search
Results 1 - 100 of about 99,700 for Dupont Petrochemicals Exxon.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=17
ORGANIZATIONS
The Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy
Source: Annapolis Center website 3/04
The Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy
The Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy has received
$688,575 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Cato Institute
Source: Cato Institute website 4/04
Cato Institute : TASSC Fred Singer, TASSC Patrick J. Michaels, TASSC
Steve Milloy
Cato Institute has received $90,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
KOCH OIL Funding Cato Institute = $12,999,240
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Cato Institute = $2,057,500
White Star Oil Fortune (Earhart Foundation) Funding Cato Institute
= $217,600
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Cato Institute = $832,500
Tech Central Science Foundation or Tech Central Station
Source: Tech Central Bio Lindzen
Tech Central Science Foundation or Tech Central Station : TASSC
Patrick J. Michaels, TASSC Michael Fumento, TASSC Steven Milloy,
Tech Central Science Foundation or Tech Central Station has
received $95,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
KOCH OIL Funding Tech Central Science Foundation = $25,000
NOTE: Because TCS website runs paid commercial advertising, incomes
from this is NEVER reported as charitable gifts by either the donor or
receiver. The parent to TCS is DCI PR firm, whose incomes are likewise
not reported publically, nor do client corporations necessarily report
the payments to the public. A lot of EXXON ads run on TCS webpages,
perhaps a disguised form of giving as it's doubtful that EXXON needs
brand advertising to get people to fill up at the Tech Corner Station
-- if internet ads were proven effective there would be EXXON ads
everywhere on the net.
George C. Marshall Institute
Source: Marshall Institute Website (2006)
George C. Marshall Institute : TASSC Hugh Ellsaesser, TASSC Fred
Seitz, TASSC Bruce Ames, (member of the Cooler Heads Coalition,
associate of Competitive Enterprise Inst. Front Group for BIG OIL)
George C. Marshall Institute has received $630,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
KOCH OIL Funding George C. Marshall Institute = $30,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding George C. Marshall Institute =
$2,827,500
White Star Oil Fortune (Earhart Foundation) Funding George C.
Marshall Institute = $100,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding George C. Marshall Institute
= $350,000
Heartland Institute
Source: Heartland Institute - HeartlandGlobalWarming.org
Heartland Institute : TASSC Patrick J. Michaels (World Climate Report)
Heartland Institute has received $561,500 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
KOCH OIL Funding Heartland Institute = $77,578
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Heartland Institute = $335,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Heartland Institute = $40,000
=========================
Philip Morris
Date: Mar 1991 (est.)
Length: 6 pages
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2025528294-8299.html
3) Michael Gough, program manager for biological applications for the
Congressional Office of Technology Assessment -- Regarding the EPA's
lowering the confidence interval from 95 to 90 percent, Michael Gough
says, "You cannot run science with the government changing the rules
all the time. "
13) Dr. Fred Singer -- University of Virginia. Charged that the EPA-
supported theories of global warming and global ozone depletion are
not backed up by the scientific evidence. Has charged that several
major government studies that found information contrary to
"politically correct" issues (acid rain), was ignored. At a Consumer's
Research seminar in D.C. that dealt with official regulations
frequently have little basis in scientific fact, being instead driven
instead by political/social factors. "The tendency not only to misuse
science but to ignore it is very strong" in policy decisions
concerning global warming, ozone depletions, and acid rain. Has spoken
on issue of cost of other environmental problems. Singer was director
of the Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy, on leave from
Uva's department of environmental science.
26) Michael J. Bennett The Asbestos Racket: An Environment Parable
(Merrill Press) -- Bennett's meticulously researched saga of America's
plunge into the fantasy world of environmental junk science captures
the essence of the costly tragedy that befell the US during the great
asbestos scare. In formulating the nation's asbestos policy, the EPA,
aided and abetted by Congress, systematically ignored science. The
series of articles in the Detroit News on which much of the book is
based was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize. (EPA Watch, July 31, 1992)
(202) 488-7692
29) Dr. Patrick Michael, Uva Dept of Environmental Science,
Climatologist, global warming issues are not backed by science, on
Board of Advisors of American Policy Center\EPA Watch (804) 924-0549,
co-authored an article with David E. Stooksbury, also of Uva.
30) Dr. Bruce Ames, Biochemist, University of California at Berkeley
(friend of Michael Bennett)
36) Jim Tozzi, Director of Washington-based Multinational Business
Services Inc., has cited problems with EPA risk assessment policy, in
particular, risk assessment guidelines for non-cancer health effects
and criteria for inferring causation from epidemiologic data. Tozzi's
firm represents a number of companies interested in the risk
assessment issue.
38) Richard Lindzen, Robert Balling, William Nierenberg, Fred Seitz,
Patrick Michaels, Fred Singer, Sherwood Idso -- scientists opposed to
global warming issues, as cited by Peter Samuel.
40) Michael Fumento of Investor Business Daily who does write about
these issues.
44) Candace Crandall -- Executive Vice President of the Science and
Environmental Policy Project (SEPP). She has published extensively on
junk science issues in the past. Crandall was the Director of
Communications for the Center for Strategic and International Studies
before joining SEPP. The primary focus of SEPP is to document the use
of scientific data in the development of federal environmental policy.
SEPP is an independent, non-profit research group that relies on
private funding. It will co-sponsor a conference with George Mason
University in May on scientific integrity in the political process.
Crandall has arranged for a number of prominent scientists to be
participants, including Dr. Bernard Davis of Harvard University and
Sir William Mitchell of Oxford University. Crandall is Dr. Fred
Singer's wife.
=========================
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2025802450-2451.html
Philip Morris
Scientific Integrity in the Public Policy Process Semi-Final Program
930524 - 930525 the Madison Hotel 15th and M Streets, Nw Washington,
D.C.
Date: 19930525/D
Length: 2 pages
=========================
Roger Coppock
> There's No Such Thing As a 'Perfect' Temperature
My post was at 11:17, this sockpuppet posted
at 11:28. How could of this sockpuppet watch
a 40 minute movie in 11 minutes? (Fossil fool
flunkies are under orders not to watch or read
the science of global warming. If they are
caught doing so, they are fired.)
>From Chris Merchant, School of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656640542976216573
One of the faked graphs in "Great Global
Warming Swindle" is discussed 34 minutes
into the video. For more information
please see
George n___
its been colder then normal! any thng to get your money. April 13 .2007
nd here in Michigan it,s still cold and snow. Funny haven't heard one
mention of global warmig around here for awhile1The temps around here
have been colder then average.! where's your global warmng!
BULL____
Roger Coppock
I posted the URL of a 40 minute video at 11:17,
this moron posted at 11:49. Obviously, this
fuckhead has not seen the video he is commenting on.
He must be used to talking about things he knows
nothing about. (George look up the words, "climate"
and "weather.")
Crooked Corporations, Political Crooks
http://www.gujaratglobal.com/nextSub.php?id=2670&cattype=NEWS
Heat wave sweeping Gujarat: Vadodara records 43.5 degree C (110
Farenheit)
http://www.indianmuslims.info/news/2007/april/07/india_news/heat_wave_kills_two_in_orissa.html
Heat wave kills two in Orissa
Heat wave conditions have been prevailing over some parts of the state
with Jharsuguda town in western Orissa recording the maximum
temperature of 40.6 degrees Celsius (105 F) Friday. There was no let
up in the situation Saturday.
James
"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:1176488640.7...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 13, 11:17 am, "Roger Coppock" <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
>> >From Chris Merchant, School of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh
>>
>> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656640542976216573
>
> One of the faked graphs in "Great Global
> Warming Swindle" is discussed 34 minutes
> into the video.
>
> Please see
> http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece
>
> My favorite quote from the article above:
> "The original Nasa data was very wiggly-lined and we wanted the
> simplest line we could find," Mr Durkin [the director of this movie]
> said.
> I've graphed the original NASA data. Please see:
> http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Global%20Mean%20Temp.jpg
> That's the wiggly-lined truth. It doesn't support many of the claims
> made in this move, however.
So trust the scientists or trust you. LOL
Peter Muehlbauer
"Crooked Corporations, Political Crooks" <Crooked.Co...@Exxon-Turds.info> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1176491251.0...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 13, 11:49 am, gpnmk...@webtv.net (George n___) wrote:
> > Global warmng !!!! what a joke funny but in the midwest and east coast
> > its been colder then normal! any thng to get your money. April 13 .2007
> > nd here in Michigan it,s still cold and snow. Funny haven't heard one
> > mention of global warmig around here for awhile1The temps around here
> > have been colder then average.! where's your global warmng!
> > BULL____
>
> http://www.gujaratglobal.com/nextSub.php?id=2670&cattype=NEWS
> Heat wave sweeping Gujarat: Vadodara records 43.5 degree C (110
> Farenheit)
Liar.
news:evoh8m$jfb$1...@news1.nefonline.de
> http://www.indianmuslims.info/news/2007/april/07/india_news/heat_wave_kills_two_in_orissa.html
> Heat wave kills two in Orissa
> Heat wave conditions have been prevailing over some parts of the state
> with Jharsuguda town in western Orissa recording the maximum
> temperature of 40.6 degrees Celsius (105 F) Friday. There was no let
> up in the situation Saturday.
Heatwaves and sunshock always have killed people in the past.
Don't try to link 2 dead people to a global system.
Crooked Corporations ... you should be awarded Class R Assclown.
Gandalf Grey
Exxon Liars & Thieves
wrote:
> MIT PHD Rips
> There's No Such Thing As a 'Perfect' Temperature
>
> By Richard S. Lindzen
> Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts
Crooked Lindzen, Sloan Professor of Meteorology
Gandalf Grey
COPENHAGEN, Denmark, March 15 (UPI) -- A Danish scientist said the idea of a
"global temperature" and global warming is more political than scientific.
University of Copenhagen Professor Bjarne Andresen has analyzed the topic in
collaboration with Canadian Professors Christopher Essex from the University
of Western Ontario and Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph.
It is generally assumed the Earth's atmosphere and oceans have grown warmer
during the recent 50 years because of an upward trend in the so-called
global temperature, which is the result of complex calculations and
averaging of air temperature measurements taken around the world.
"It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as
complicated as the climate of Earth," said Andresen, an expert on
thermodynamics. "A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system.
Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather,
differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea
currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate".
He says the currently used method of determining the global temperature --
and any conclusion drawn from it -- is more political than scientific.
The argument is presented in the Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics.
Exxon Liars & Thieves
Gandalf Grey
March 13, 2007
From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype
By WILLIAM J. BROAD
Hollywood has a thing for Al Gore and his three-alarm film on global
warming, "An Inconvenient Truth," which won an Academy Award for best
documentary. So do many environmentalists, who praise him as a visionary,
and many scientists, who laud him for raising public awareness of climate
change.
But part of his scientific audience is uneasy. In talks, articles and blog
entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out
last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore's central points are
exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his
alarmism.
"I don't want to pick on Al Gore," Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor
of geology at Western Washington University, told hundreds of experts at the
annual meeting of the Geological Society of America. "But there are a lot of
inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that
with real data."
Mr. Gore, in an e-mail exchange about the critics, said his work made "the
most important and salient points" about climate change, if not "some
nuances and distinctions" scientists might want. "The degree of scientific
consensus on global warming has never been stronger," he said, adding, "I am
trying to communicate the essence of it in the lay language that I
understand."
Although Mr. Gore is not a scientist, he does rely heavily on the authority
of science in "An Inconvenient Truth," which is why scientists are sensitive
to its details and claims.
Criticisms of Mr. Gore have come not only from conservative groups and
prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file
scientists like Dr. Easterbook, who told his peers that he had no political
ax to grind. A few see natural variation as more central to global warming
than heat-trapping gases. Many appear to occupy a middle ground in the
climate debate, seeing human activity as a serious threat but challenging
what they call the extremism of both skeptics and zealots.
Kevin Vranes, a climatologist at the Center for Science and Technology
Policy Research at the University of Colorado, said he sensed a growing
backlash against exaggeration. While praising Mr. Gore for "getting the
message out," Dr. Vranes questioned whether his presentations were
"overselling our certainty about knowing the future."
Typically, the concern is not over the existence of climate change, or the
idea that the human production of heat-trapping gases is partly or largely
to blame for the globe's recent warming. The question is whether Mr. Gore
has gone beyond the scientific evidence.
"He's a very polarizing figure in the science community," said Roger A.
Pielke Jr., an environmental scientist who is a colleague of Dr. Vranes at
the University of Colorado center. "Very quickly, these discussions turn
from the issue to the person, and become a referendum on Mr. Gore."
"An Inconvenient Truth," directed by Davis Guggenheim, was released last May
and took in more than $46 million, making it one of the top-grossing
documentaries ever. The companion book by Mr. Gore quickly became a best
seller, reaching No. 1 on the New York Times list.
Mr. Gore depicted a future in which temperatures soar, ice sheets melt, seas
rise, hurricanes batter the coasts and people die en masse. "Unless we act
boldly," he wrote, "our world will undergo a string of terrible
catastrophes."
He clearly has supporters among leading scientists, who commend his
popularizations and call his science basically sound. In December, he spoke
in San Francisco to the American Geophysical Union and got a reception fit
for a rock star from thousands of attendees.
"He has credibility in this community," said Tim Killeen, the group's
president and director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, a
top group studying climate change. "There's no question he's read a lot and
is able to respond in a very effective way."
Some backers concede minor inaccuracies but see them as reasonable for a
politician. James E. Hansen, an environmental scientist, director of NASA's
Goddard Institute for Space Studies and a top adviser to Mr. Gore, said, "Al
does an exceptionally good job of seeing the forest for the trees," adding
that Mr. Gore often did so "better than scientists."
Still, Dr. Hansen said, the former vice president's work may hold
"imperfections" and "technical flaws." He pointed to hurricanes, an icon for
Mr. Gore, who highlights the devastation of Hurricane Katrina and cites
research suggesting that global warming will cause both storm frequency and
deadliness to rise. Yet this past Atlantic season produced fewer hurricanes
than forecasters predicted (five versus nine), and none that hit the United
States.
"We need to be more careful in describing the hurricane story than he is,"
Dr. Hansen said of Mr. Gore. "On the other hand," Dr. Hansen said, "he has
the bottom line right: most storms, at least those driven by the latent heat
of vaporization, will tend to be stronger, or have the potential to be
stronger, in a warmer climate."
In his e-mail message, Mr. Gore defended his work as fundamentally accurate.
"Of course," he said, "there will always be questions around the edges of
the science, and we have to rely upon the scientific community to continue
to ask and to challenge and to answer those questions."
He said "not every single adviser" agreed with him on every point, "but we
do agree on the fundamentals" - that warming is real and caused by humans.
Mr. Gore added that he perceived no general backlash among scientists
against his work. "I have received a great deal of positive feedback," he
said. "I have also received comments about items that should be changed, and
I have updated the book and slideshow to reflect these comments." He gave no
specifics on which points he had revised.
He said that after 30 years of trying to communicate the dangers of global
warming, "I think that I'm finally getting a little better at it."
While reviewers tended to praise the book and movie, vocal skeptics of
global warming protested almost immediately. Richard S. Lindzen, a
climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a member of
the National Academy of Sciences, who has long expressed skepticism about
dire climate predictions, accused Mr. Gore in The Wall Street Journal of
"shrill alarmism."
Some of Mr. Gore's centrist detractors point to a report last month by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations body that
studies global warming. The panel went further than ever before in saying
that humans were the main cause of the globe's warming since 1950, part of
Mr. Gore's message that few scientists dispute. But it also portrayed
climate change as a slow-motion process.
It estimated that the world's seas in this century would rise a maximum of
23 inches - down from earlier estimates. Mr. Gore, citing no particular time
frame, envisions rises of up to 20 feet and depicts parts of New York,
Florida and other heavily populated areas as sinking beneath the waves,
implying, at least visually, that inundation is imminent.
Bjorn Lomborg, a statistician and political scientist in Denmark long
skeptical of catastrophic global warming, said in a syndicated article that
the panel, unlike Mr. Gore, had refrained from scaremongering. "Climate
change is a real and serious problem" that calls for careful analysis and
sound policy, Dr. Lomborg said. "The cacophony of screaming," he added,
"does not help."
So too, a report last June by the National Academies seemed to contradict
Mr. Gore's portrayal of recent temperatures as the highest in the past
millennium. Instead, the report said, current highs appeared unrivaled since
only 1600, the tail end of a temperature rise known as the medieval warm
period.
Roy Spencer, a climatologist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, said
on a blog that Mr. Gore's film did "indeed do a pretty good job of
presenting the most dire scenarios." But the June report, he added, shows
"that all we really know is that we are warmer now than we were during the
last 400 years."
Other critics have zeroed in on Mr. Gore's claim that the energy industry
ran a "disinformation campaign" that produced false discord on global
warming. The truth, he said, was that virtually all unbiased scientists
agreed that humans were the main culprits. But Benny J. Peiser, a social
anthropologist in Britain who runs the Cambridge-Conference Network, or
CCNet, an Internet newsletter on climate change and natural disasters,
challenged the claim of scientific consensus with examples of pointed
disagreement.
"Hardly a week goes by," Dr. Peiser said, "without a new research paper that
questions part or even some basics of climate change theory," including some
reports that offer alternatives to human activity for global warming.
Geologists have documented age upon age of climate swings, and some charge
Mr. Gore with ignoring such rhythms.
"Nowhere does Mr. Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he
describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our
planet," Robert M. Carter, a marine geologist at James Cook University in
Australia, said in a September blog. "Nor does he present any evidence that
climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical
pattern of constant change."
In October, Dr. Easterbrook made similar points at the geological society
meeting in Philadelphia. He hotly disputed Mr. Gore's claim that "our
civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar
to this" threatened change.
Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that
showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large
swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up
to "20 times greater than the warming in the past century."
Getting personal, he mocked Mr. Gore's assertion that scientists agreed on
global warming except those industry had corrupted. "I've never been paid a
nickel by an oil company," Dr. Easterbrook told the group. "And I'm not a
Republican."
Biologists, too, have gotten into the act. In January, Paul Reiter, an
active skeptic of global warming's effects and director of the insects and
infectious diseases unit of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, faulted Mr. Gore
for his portrayal of global warming as spreading malaria.
"For 12 years, my colleagues and I have protested against the
unsubstantiated claims," Dr. Reiter wrote in The International Herald
Tribune. "We have done the studies and challenged the alarmists, but they
continue to ignore the facts."
Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at
Princeton who advised Mr. Gore on the book and movie, said that reasonable
scientists disagreed on the malaria issue and other points that the critics
had raised. In general, he said, Mr. Gore had distinguished himself for
integrity.
"On balance, he did quite well - a credible and entertaining job on a
difficult subject," Dr. Oppenheimer said. "For that, he deserves a lot of
credit. If you rake him over the coals, you're going to find people who
disagree. But in terms of the big picture, he got it right."
Joe Fischer
>>From Chris Merchant, School of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh
>
>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656640542976216573
You should be ashamed, calling Global Warming
a "Swindle", when it is outright robbery, with u no hoo
as the leader.
Joe Fischer
Joe Fischer
It sounds like the spring of 1963, in Lorain Ohio,
there was 4 inches of ice on the sidewalks until May.
And the whole decade of the 1960s was about
6 degrees F _colder_ than any other previous decade
in the states south of the Great Lakes.
Joe Fischer
Peter Principle
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin
First off, moron, that article is a month old and has already been discussed
in these forums many times. Way to keep up!
Second, moron, do you ever bother to actually READ the articles you steal,
then republish in their entirety? For example, moron, did you read THIS
PART:
------
Typically, the concern is not over the existence of climate change, or the
idea that the human production of heat-trapping gases is partly or largely
to blame for the globe's recent warming.
...
He clearly has supporters among leading scientists, who commend his
popularizations and call his science basically sound. In December, he spoke
in San Francisco to the American Geophysical Union and got a reception fit
for a rock star from thousands of attendees.
"He has credibility in this community," said Tim Killeen, the group's
president and director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, a
top group studying climate change. "There's no question he's read a lot and
is able to respond in a very effective way."
Some backers concede minor inaccuracies but see them as reasonable for a
politician. James E. Hansen, an environmental scientist, director of NASA's
Goddard Institute for Space Studies and a top adviser to Mr. Gore, said, "Al
does an exceptionally good job of seeing the forest for the trees," adding
that Mr. Gore often did so "better than scientists."
------
And finally, you stupid asshole, did you bother to read the END of the
story? Witness, stupid asshole:
------
"On balance, he did quite well - a credible and entertaining job on a
difficult subject," Dr. Oppenheimer said. "For that, he deserves a lot of
credit. If you rake him over the coals, you're going to find people who
disagree. But in terms of the big picture, he got it right."
------
Now, stupid asshole, you were saying...
--
Welcome to reality. Enjoy your visit. Slow thinkers keep right.
------
Why are so many not smart enough to know they're not smart enough?
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
© 1999 by the American Psychological Association
December 1999 Vol. 77, No. 6, 1121-1134
Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own
Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments
Justin Kruger and David Dunning
Department of Psychology
Cornell University
ABSTRACT:
...the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile
on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test
performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the
12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd.
Gandalf Grey
March 13, 2007
Typically, the concern is not over the existence of climate change, or the
idea that the human production of heat-trapping gases is partly or largely
to blame for the globe's recent warming. The question is whether Mr. Gore
has gone beyond the scientific evidence.
"He's a very polarizing figure in the science community," said Roger A.
Pielke Jr., an environmental scientist who is a colleague of Dr. Vranes at
the University of Colorado center. "Very quickly, these discussions turn
from the issue to the person, and become a referendum on Mr. Gore."
"An Inconvenient Truth," directed by Davis Guggenheim, was released last May
and took in more than $46 million, making it one of the top-grossing
documentaries ever. The companion book by Mr. Gore quickly became a best
seller, reaching No. 1 on the New York Times list.
Mr. Gore depicted a future in which temperatures soar, ice sheets melt, seas
rise, hurricanes batter the coasts and people die en masse. "Unless we act
boldly," he wrote, "our world will undergo a string of terrible
catastrophes."
He clearly has supporters among leading scientists, who commend his
popularizations and call his science basically sound. In December, he spoke
in San Francisco to the American Geophysical Union and got a reception fit
for a rock star from thousands of attendees.
"He has credibility in this community," said Tim Killeen, the group's
president and director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, a
top group studying climate change. "There's no question he's read a lot and
is able to respond in a very effective way."
Some backers concede minor inaccuracies but see them as reasonable for a
politician. James E. Hansen, an environmental scientist, director of NASA's
Goddard Institute for Space Studies and a top adviser to Mr. Gore, said, "Al
does an exceptionally good job of seeing the forest for the trees," adding
that Mr. Gore often did so "better than scientists."
Still, Dr. Hansen said, the former vice president's work may hold
"On balance, he did quite well - a credible and entertaining job on a
djw
Calling people a-holes does nothing to deflect the reality that
AlGore's a rich, fat, hypocrite. He's been raping the environment
with multiple mansions, indoor heated pools, big screen TVs in every
room, big cars, limo and plane rides, nickel mines and all of it
completely unnecessary whether you're an environmentalist or not.
He's obviously given zero thought to his personal consumption until
his recent embarrassment.
I don't call that a deep thinker regardless of what the sycophantic NY
Times reports.
Now that he's even more filthy rich from marketing gw to gullible
liberal lemmings it's only going to get worse.
Peter Principle
<snip of idiot.fart lagniappe>
FYI, stupid asshole personal attack slanderous red herrings have absolutely
NOTHING to do with the serious problem of global warming, you stupid
asshole...
Now, do you have anything OTHER than stupid asshole rightard knee jerk
attacks on all things Clinton or Gore you'd like to share *on the subject*
or are you every bit the ignorant stupid asshole you appear?
Sheesh, what a maroon...
Joe Fischer
>He's obviously given zero thought to his personal consumption until
>his recent embarrassment.
>
>I don't call that a deep thinker regardless of what the sycophantic NY
>Times reports.
>
>Now that he's even more filthy rich from marketing gw to gullible
>liberal lemmings it's only going to get worse.
Maybe not, Global Warming is a non-issue, and
the average person laughs when it is mentioned, so as
the local climates change, or not, it will be even less of
a non-issue.
The whole issue is clearly illustrated with one
article in alt.global-warming where a socialist democrat
posted a 300 line story about a man who spent years
watching a glacier retreat at 6 meters per year, and
I have grass that grows faster than that.
Sea level has been rising for at least 2000 years
when the English channel could be waded, and likely
for the last 10,000 years when there was a land bridge
between Asia and Alaska, so sea level can be expected
to keep rising, nothing new there, so what is the big deal
that big (fat) Al is talking about, a non-issue, just the same
drag one word at a time for effect, and nothing new happens,
with people wasting their time watching glaciers melting
at 6 meters per year.
Joe Fischer
Saddam's Noose, Exxon's Neck, Same Reason
djw
<petes...@CUTITOUTgmail.com> wrote:
Well this is rich. Can you explain why Al Gore is not a big, fat,
hypocrite instead of ad hominem attacks on me?
I gave exact reaons why he is one. Arent' you at least going to lob a
"carbon offset" argument my way, half-hearted and sheepish as I'm sure
it would be.
>Sheesh, what a maroon...
This makes sense. I think after flaming profanely you can go ahead
use that crass word, moron.
Peter Principle
Can you explain what your stupid asshole personal vendetta against all
things Clinton or Gore has to do with the serious problem of global warming,
moron?
<tap, tap, tap>
Jaybus, are there nothing but dolts on the right?
Peter Principle
> Maybe not, Global Warming is a non-issue, and
> the average person laughs when it is mentioned, so as
> the local climates change, or not, it will be even less of
> a non-issue.
Jaybus Freaking Crisco...
Yes, obviously these global warming deniers are a bunch of strategical-type
geniuses...
Roger Coppock
[ . . . ]
> It sounds like the spring of 1963, in Lorain Ohio,
> there was 4 inches of ice on the sidewalks until May.
>
> And the whole decade of the 1960s was about
> 6 degrees F _colder_ than any other previous decade
> in the states south of the Great Lakes.
>
> Joe Fischer
Psst . . . Lorain Ohio isn't the globe, and
the Spring of 63 isn't a climate trend.
Joe Fischer
<petes...@CUTITOUTgmail.com> wrote:
>Joe Fischer wrote:
>> Maybe not, Global Warming is a non-issue, and
>> the average person laughs when it is mentioned, so as
>> the local climates change, or not, it will be even less of
>> a non-issue.
>
>Jaybus Freaking Crisco...
>
>Yes, obviously these global warming deniers are a bunch of strategical-type
>geniuses...
I am not a stocking.
http://newsbusters.org/node/11732
JoeFischer
clocktro...@gmail.com
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 22:44:41 -0500, "Peter Principle"
>
Joe Fischer
I forgot, the debate is over.
http://www.penraker.com/archives/007684.html
Joe Fischer
Flush the Exxon Turds
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 22:44:41 -0500, "Peter Principle"
>
> >Joe Fischer wrote:
> >> Maybe not, Global Warming is a non-issue, and
> >> the average person laughs when it is mentioned, so as
> >> the local climates change, or not, it will be even less of
> >> a non-issue.
>
> >Jaybus Freaking Crisco...
>
> >Yes, obviously these global warming deniers are a bunch of strategical-type
> >geniuses...
>
> I am not a stocking.
>
> JoeFischer
Excrement-covered Joe Fischer, no self-respect, ignore.
djw
<petes...@CUTITOUTgmail.com> wrote:
It's extremely relevant. Like it or not Al Gore, like the fat-assed
publicity pig he is has positioned himself smack dab in the middle of
your passionate global warming debate. Sure you really care about it
but your champion, Gore is a complete hypocrite for reasons we both
know well.
Aren't you a little concerned about the damage he's doing to the
cause? When THE major proponent for action to counter global warming
talks with a straight face about all of us changing our habits and
he's unable to change his habits to even match the average person who
DOESN'T EVEN think there is a human induced global warming trend.
Case in point:
I drive a Subaru Forester (a very small SUV), live in ONE small 2700
sq foot house, no swimming pool (we go to a local club) drive under 10
miles to work, have two 24 inch TVs (one in the family room, one in
the basement workout room), and faithfully put out our recyclables in
the bin for pick-up each week, et cet.. We've never flown to a
vacation location and typically go to local national parks.
I have a very small carbon footprint compared to many people who go on
tv, write books and produce movies peddling this impending disaster
nonsense.
Frankly, I don't want to hear Al Gore or Ariana Huffington or R.
Kennedy Jr. lecture me about my already tiny co2 impact which is
comically dwarfed by their own and they aren't really serious about
giving up their opulelent lifestyles because THEY DON'T REALLY BELIEVE
IT.
Not like you do. To them it's merely a political weapon.
So my point is if you really believe in global warming then having
people like Al Gore and the Kerrys leap into the limelight is a major
miscalculation. If you greenies attacked these hypocrites you might
have a little more credibility with the folks you would like to
convince there is a real crisis. Namely the American people.
><tap, tap, tap>
>
>Jaybus, are there nothing but dolts on the right?
You only wish.
Charlie Chan
> Calling people a-holes does nothing to deflect the reality that
> AlGore's a rich, fat, hypocrite.
>
he could make money in taxes off the backs of hard working, SUV driving red
state Americans. Socialist scientists are making $millions in lucrative
grants while the coal, oil and gas companies are being bankrupted to the point
where Bush had to give them $500 billion in tax breaks in 2006 just to keep
them afloat.
Flush the Exxon Turds
> So my point is if you really believe in global warming then having
> people like Al Gore and the Kerrys leap into the limelight is a major
> miscalculation. If you greenies attacked these hypocrites you might
> have a little more credibility with the folks you would like to
> convince there is a real crisis. Namely the American people.
Al Gore or Kerry are adult Americans not under the control of other
Americans. One cannot stop them from joining in on advocating for
Global warming actions any more than one can stop Newt Gingrich or
Jerry Falwell from opening their fat yaps.
Fairy Queen
us to stop heating our homes, driving our SUVs and begin eating our pets
because cow farts are the cause of it all!
It's about time that some common sense was injected into this left wing
communist lieberal dominated debate.
When are the commies going to admit that Al Gore is wrong and Richard S.
Lindzen is right? I don't know about you, but I'd rather trust an expert like
Lindzen than some lieberal politician. You don't need a GED to know that and
nor do I! Book learnin is over rated anyway, a bunch of egg heads wearing
white coats who think they're smart. I get enough of that on CSI Maimi.
djw
<Excrement.Cov...@Exxon-Turds.info> wrote:
I never suggested you control them or stop them. You know what I said
which is why you cut most of it out.
Why can't you admit the main champions of your cause (Gore, Arianna
Huffington, Robert Kennedy Jr., the Kerrys) are rich fat hypocrites
with heated swimming pools and chartered jet rides and mansions in
multiple locales?
Why do you constantly attack me? I'm not damaging the environment
like your heroes.
By celebrating them and further filling their coffers with your
liberal dollars buying their pop-media tripe you simply damage your
own cause.
Come on, say it. Al Gore is a big, fat, hypocrite.
If you're not willing to say that then I would never take you
seriously on the global warming issue.
Flush the Exxon Turds
> On 14 Apr 2007 13:07:08 -0700, "Flush the Exxon Turds"
>
> >On Apr 14, 10:19 am, djw <wells.fam...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
> >> So my point is if you really believe in global warming then having
> >> people like Al Gore and the Kerrys leap into the limelight is a major
> >> miscalculation. If you greenies attacked these hypocrites you might
> >> have a little more credibility with the folks you would like to
> >> convince there is a real crisis. Namely the American people.
>
> >Al Gore or Kerry are adult Americans not under the control of other
> >Americans. One cannot stop them from joining in on advocating for
> >Global warming actions any more than one can stop Newt Gingrich or
> >Jerry Falwell from opening their fat yaps.
>
> I never suggested you control them or stop them. You know what I said
> which is why you cut most of it out.
I cut the OTHER CRAP to focus just one one turd of many out of your
assface.
> Why can't you admit the main champions of your cause (Gore, Arianna
> Huffington, Robert Kennedy Jr., the Kerrys) are rich fat hypocrites
> with heated swimming pools and chartered jet rides and mansions in
> multiple locales?
I admit that Gore, Arianna Huffington (formerly married to a prominent
REPUBLICAN), Robert Kennedy Jr., the Kerrys) are rich fat hypocrites.
That admission never changes physical law which exist before human
beings existed and will exist after human beings are extinct. The
temporary humans are not the subject: the subject is the physical laws
affecting light, heat, gases, chemistry and physics regardless of
party alignment.
You want to change the subject to personalities so that you don't have
to confront your excrement-covered behaviors, and can point to other's
excrement-covered behaviors. You haven't succeeded in changing the
subject away from your excrement-covered self.
> Why do you constantly attack me? I'm not damaging the environment
> like your heroes.
You are definitely damaging the usenet environment by not learning
from your betters and not applying what you learn. You are spewing
ignorant tripe and political spin in order to keep polluting as long
as you can in every possible way that you can, including excrement-
covered intellectual pollution.
> By celebrating them and further filling their coffers with your
> liberal dollars buying their pop-media tripe you simply damage your
> own cause.
>
> Come on, say it. Al Gore is a big, fat, hypocrite.
Al Gore is a big, fat, hypocrite. He's one of 6,000,000,000 people who
have a current stake in the matter, and entitled to his honest
opinions. Or in binary, 1 of
101100101101000001011110000000000 people.
That doesn't make him my hero -- it makes him an America, one among
300,000,000 co-equals. He also is big and fat, with a waistline very
similar to Jerry Falwells.
> If you're not willing to say that then I would never take you
> seriously on the global warming issue.
Now. I said it and now YOU MUST TAKE ME SERIOUSLY. The laws of physics
to not change for republicans or democrats. You are at least 5 years
learning behind the pack and have a tremendous amount of catching up
to do, and in five years the pack will have advanced their learning
also, so you will still be behind. You have no time to waste in
political bickering.
You are excrement-covered and there is no certainty you will ever get
clean again.
rbbo...@netzero.com
If you think the English Channel could be waded 2000 years ago, please
read Julius Caesar's account of his crossing at about that time.
--Russ
Samurai Dreams
> Jaybus Freaking Crisco...
>
> Yes, obviously these global warming deniers are a bunch of strategical-type
> geniuses...
>
own theirs.
Cal
> Can you explain what your stupid asshole personal vendetta against all
> things Clinton or Gore has to do with the serious problem of global warming,
> moron?
>
AWOL chicken hawk Führer Bush in an election.
That's all the proof these drooling retards need that global warming is a big
hoax, a conspiracy to steal their pick up trucks.
djw
<Excrement.Cov...@Exxon-Turds.info> wrote:
>On Apr 14, 1:35 pm, djw <wells.fam...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>> On 14 Apr 2007 13:07:08 -0700, "Flush the Exxon Turds"
>>
>> <Excrement.Covered.Exxon...@Exxon-Turds.info> wrote:
>> >On Apr 14, 10:19 am, djw <wells.fam...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> So my point is if you really believe in global warming then having
>> >> people like Al Gore and the Kerrys leap into the limelight is a major
>> >> miscalculation. If you greenies attacked these hypocrites you might
>> >> have a little more credibility with the folks you would like to
>> >> convince there is a real crisis. Namely the American people.
>>
>> >Al Gore or Kerry are adult Americans not under the control of other
>> >Americans. One cannot stop them from joining in on advocating for
>> >Global warming actions any more than one can stop Newt Gingrich or
>> >Jerry Falwell from opening their fat yaps.
>>
>> I never suggested you control them or stop them. You know what I said
>> which is why you cut most of it out.
>
>I cut the OTHER CRAP to focus just one one turd of many out of your
>assface.
>
>> Why can't you admit the main champions of your cause (Gore, Arianna
>> Huffington, Robert Kennedy Jr., the Kerrys) are rich fat hypocrites
>> with heated swimming pools and chartered jet rides and mansions in
>> multiple locales?
>
>I admit that Gore, Arianna Huffington (formerly married to a prominent
>REPUBLICAN), Robert Kennedy Jr., the Kerrys) are rich fat hypocrites.
>
'Bout time.
>That admission never changes physical law which exist before human
>beings existed and will exist after human beings are extinct. The
>temporary humans are not the subject: the subject is the physical laws
>affecting light, heat, gases, chemistry and physics regardless of
>party alignment.
>
No it doesn't change physical laws. I don't see where I typed that
anywhere either. Are you confusing me with someone else?
>You want to change the subject to personalities so that you don't have
>to confront your excrement-covered behaviors, and can point to other's
>excrement-covered behaviors. You haven't succeeded in changing the
>subject away from your excrement-covered self.
>
Once again you go back to attacking me personally. How am I more
excrement-covered in my behavior than you?
Do you own a car? Do you heat a reasonable sized home or air
condition it? Do you like to swim somewhere other than the beach
sometimes? Do you watch TV?
>> Why do you constantly attack me? I'm not damaging the environment
>> like your heroes.
>
>You are definitely damaging the usenet environment
Says the foul-mouthed flame throwing idiotic troll
> by not learning
>from your betters and not applying what you learn.
You're a jerk. You do more damage to your cause than help because of
that. I don't trust an internet asshole that flames everyone in sight
who doesn't bow down and genuflect at his obvious and juvenile
attempts to gain the high ground with unrelated and/or misapplied
techno-flash.
But I do and have readily admitted that some trained and qualified
climate scientists believe that there is a warming trend within the
current interglacial warming period which is in turn within the larger
40 million year ice age in which we find ourselves and that some of
those scientists think that there may be a human-caused component to
that warming.
If the warming is human caused then no one has explained why the
majority of warming in the 20th century happened prior to 1945 when no
scientists think there was enough human produced co2 to impact the
environment.
So it's poorly understood and yet other qualified and trained climate
scientists think other factors could be having a larger impact on
warming than human activity such as solar activity or cosmic rays.
That's the state of the debate. Sorry about your luck.
>You are spewing
>ignorant tripe and political spin in order to keep polluting as long
>as you can in every possible way that you can, including excrement-
>covered intellectual pollution.
>
You have no evidence to accuse me of anything. Very unscientific of
you.
Why do you want this gw thing to be true so bad? Do you have a
problem with American capitalism by any chance?
>
>> By celebrating them and further filling their coffers with your
>> liberal dollars buying their pop-media tripe you simply damage your
>> own cause.
>>
>> Come on, say it. Al Gore is a big, fat, hypocrite.
>
>Al Gore is a big, fat, hypocrite. He's one of 6,000,000,000 people who
>have a current stake in the matter, and entitled to his honest
>opinions. Or in binary, 1 of
>101100101101000001011110000000000 people.
>
Oh golly gee you must be so smart to express fractions in binary. I
must now believe everything you ever say.
>That doesn't make him my hero -- it makes him an America,
If I'm excrement-covered then he's at the bottom of a pile of
excrement and you're trying to dig him out with a microscopic thimble.
>one among
>300,000,000 co-equals. He also is big and fat, with a waistline very
>similar to Jerry Falwells.
>
You seem perfectly comfortable injecting irrelevant points into this
argument despite your accusations of me doing it. You could just as
easily compared Al Gore's waist to Hillary Clinton's big ass.
So you hate christians. Who gives a fuck and what does it have to do
with gw?
Answer nothing. But it does reflect that you simply hate
conservatives and want them out of power permanently.
>> If you're not willing to say that then I would never take you
>> seriously on the global warming issue.
>
>Now. I said it and now YOU MUST TAKE ME SERIOUSLY.
That's not ever going to happen.
>The laws of physics
>to not change for republicans or democrats. You are at least 5 years
>learning behind the pack and have a tremendous amount of catching up
>to do, and in five years the pack will have advanced their learning
>also, so you will still be behind. You have no time to waste in
>political bickering.
>
Uh..I'll continue taking my recyclables out every week. When's the
last time you think Ariana Huffington personally took out her
recyclables? LOL!
>You are excrement-covered and there is no certainty you will ever get
>clean again.
Not true. If I get rich I can buy carbon offsets and make it all
better.
Flush the Exxon Turds
> >> I never suggested you control them or stop them. You know what I said
> >> which is why you cut most of it out.
>
> >I cut the OTHER CRAP to focus just one one turd of many out of your
> >assface.
> >That admission never changes physical law which exist before human
> >beings existed and will exist after human beings are extinct. The
> >temporary humans are not the subject: the subject is the physical laws
> >affecting light, heat, gases, chemistry and physics regardless of
> >party alignment.
>
> No it doesn't change physical laws. I don't see where I typed that
> anywhere either. Are you confusing me with someone else?
>
> >You want to change the subject to personalities so that you don't have
> >to confront your excrement-covered behaviors, and can point to other's
> >excrement-covered behaviors. You haven't succeeded in changing the
> >subject away from your excrement-covered self.
>
> Once again you go back to attacking me personally. How am I more
> excrement-covered in my behavior than you?
> >> Why do you constantly attack me? I'm not damaging the environment
> >> like your heroes.
>
> >You are definitely damaging the usenet environment
>
> Says the foul-mouthed flame throwing idiotic troll
>
> If the warming is human caused then no one has explained why the
> majority of warming in the 20th century happened prior to 1945 when no
> scientists think there was enough human produced co2 to impact the
> environment.
majority of warming in the 20th century happened prior to 1945 =
republican talking point.
> So it's poorly understood and yet other qualified and trained climate
> scientists think other factors could be having a larger impact on
> warming than human activity such as solar activity or cosmic rays.
solar activity or cosmic rays = republican talking point.
> That's the state of the debate. Sorry about your luck.
>
> >You are spewing
> >ignorant tripe and political spin in order to keep polluting as long
> >as you can in every possible way that you can, including excrement-
> >covered intellectual pollution.
>
> You have no evidence to accuse me of anything. Very unscientific of
> you.
>
> Why do you want this gw thing to be true so bad? Do you have a
> problem with American capitalism by any chance?
problem with American capitalism = republican talking point.
> >> Come on, say it. Al Gore is a big, fat, hypocrite.
>
> >Al Gore is a big, fat, hypocrite. He's one of 6,000,000,000 people who
> >have a current stake in the matter, and entitled to his honest
> >opinions. Or in binary, 1 of
> >101100101101000001011110000000000 people.
> >one among
> >300,000,000 co-equals. He also is big and fat, with a waistline very
> >similar to Jerry Falwells.
>
> You seem perfectly comfortable injecting irrelevant points into this
> argument despite your accusations of me doing it. You could just as
> easily compared Al Gore's waist to Hillary Clinton's big ass.
>
> So you hate christians. Who gives a fuck and what does it have to do
> with gw?
Jerry Falwells waistline taboo but Al Gore's/Hillary Clinton's big ass
ok = republican talking point.
> Answer nothing. But it does reflect that you simply hate
> conservatives and want them out of power permanently.
hate conservatives = republican talking point.
> Uh..I'll continue taking my recyclables out every week. When's the
> last time you think Ariana Huffington personally took out her
> recyclables? LOL!
Ariana Huffington = republican talking point.
> Not true. If I get rich I can buy carbon offsets and make it all
> better.
carbon offsets = republican talking point.
Peter Principle
No, you're a fucking moron. FYI, moron, your above diatribe is self
contradictory.
IOW, moron, in language your stupid ass has at least a slight chance of
being able to understand and putting aside the many grammatical and
syntactic errors that would embarrass a 4th grader, IT MAKES NO FUCKING
SENSE WHATSOEVER, YOU STUPID ASSHOLE.
Jaybus Freaking Crisco...
Peter Principle
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 22:42:49 -0500, "Peter Principle"
> <petes...@CUTITOUTgmail.com> wrote:
>
>> djw wrote:
>>> On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 19:20:20 -0500, "Peter Principle"
>>> <petes...@CUTITOUTgmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> djw wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 17:23:58 -0500, "Peter Principle"
>>>>> <petes...@CUTITOUTgmail.com> wrote:
>>> Well this is rich. Can you explain why Al Gore is not a big, fat,
>>> hypocrite instead of ad hominem attacks on me?
>>
>> Can you explain what your stupid asshole personal vendetta against
>> all things Clinton or Gore has to do with the serious problem of
>> global warming, moron?
>>
> It's extremely relevant. Like it or not Al Gore, like the fat-assed
> publicity pig he is has positioned himself smack dab in the middle of
> your passionate global warming debate.
You, sir, are truly an incredible imbecile. FYI, imbecile, Gore has exactly
NOTHING to do with the massively peer reviewed science that so clearly
demonstrates the reality of global warming to those of us in possession of
thumbs. Nothing whatsoever, you stupid asshole. Nothing, nada, zip, zero,
bupkis, niente, zot, zed, nix...
FYI, you incredible stupid asshole, like the MAJORITY of those who can see
the facts for themselves, I have NEVER seen Gore's film, read Gore's book,
nor, you stupid asshole seen his PowerPoint presentation. IOW, you stupid
asshole, Gore has exactly NOTHING to do with the science, at least to those
of us in the triple digit club.
djw
<petes...@CUTITOUTgmail.com> wrote:
>djw wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 22:42:49 -0500, "Peter Principle"
>> <petes...@CUTITOUTgmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> djw wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 19:20:20 -0500, "Peter Principle"
>>>> <petes...@CUTITOUTgmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> djw wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 17:23:58 -0500, "Peter Principle"
>>>>>> <petes...@CUTITOUTgmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Well this is rich. Can you explain why Al Gore is not a big, fat,
>>>> hypocrite instead of ad hominem attacks on me?
>>>
>>> Can you explain what your stupid asshole personal vendetta against
>>> all things Clinton or Gore has to do with the serious problem of
>>> global warming, moron?
>>>
>> It's extremely relevant. Like it or not Al Gore, like the fat-assed
>> publicity pig he is has positioned himself smack dab in the middle of
>> your passionate global warming debate.
>
>You, sir, are truly an incredible imbecile. FYI, imbecile, Gore has exactly
>NOTHING to do with the massively peer reviewed science that so clearly
>demonstrates the reality of global warming to those of us in possession of
>thumbs. Nothing whatsoever, you stupid asshole. Nothing, nada, zip, zero,
>bupkis, niente, zot, zed, nix...
>
Bullshit. You merely wish it to be completely settled. A significant
number of respected scientists in the field aren't nearly as sure as
you are that global warming is human induced. And some aren't certain
that if there's warming it's anything more than a temporary trend
possibly due to solar activity.
Sadly you think screaming asshole at everyone who cites that will make
it go away.
>FYI, you incredible stupid asshole, like the MAJORITY of those who can see
>the facts for themselves, I have NEVER seen Gore's film, read Gore's book,
>nor, you stupid asshole seen his PowerPoint presentation. IOW, you stupid
>asshole, Gore has exactly NOTHING to do with the science, at least to those
>of us in the triple digit club.
As usual your infantile foul-mouthed blathering only makes you less
and less credible.
Learn to communicate like a grown-up and someone might pay attention
to you.
Big Glob
<petes...@CUTITOUTgmail.com> wrote:
> Gore has exactly NOTHING to do with the science, at least to those
>of us in the triple digit club.
Interdigitation isn't much fun with only 3.
Exxon Tillerman to Prison for Life.
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Business/638099.html
By PETER MOREIRA Business Columnist
The energy debate in Nova Scotia uncomfortably brings to mind Alfred
Hitchcock's "bomb theory" in creating suspense.
The great English film director said that the way to create suspense
is to let the audience know there is a bomb under the characters'
seats, but not let the characters themselves know.
The idea is that while the characters go about life's trivia -
discussing baseball or riding on a bus - the audience squirms with the
knowledge that they're about to blow up.
So OK, it would be a bit hysterical to say we Nova Scotians are
sitting on an economic time bomb we don't know about. But some day
soon the whole issue of carbon dioxide emissions is going to blow up,
and the economic fallout could be severe.
When will it happen? Dunno.
How severe will the effects be? Dunno that either.
In fact, one of the problems with writing about energy and the
environment is there are too many unknowns - political, environmental,
economic, scientific. But it is pretty safe to say that Nova Scotia is
not ready for an economic worst-case scenario.
Before we go any further, let me say categorically that this is not an
argument against imposing economic penalties for carbon dioxide
emissions. It's obvious we need them. It's obvious that they're coming
one day.
And it is also clear that a system of cap emissions will only be
effective if it inflicts enough pain on some producers and end-users
to make them change the way they do things.
The Harper government has yet to come up with an emission cap system,
but with the other four major parties committed to one, it's a
certainty it's on the way.
My bet is we will soon end up with the type of "cap and trade" system.
Let's suppose two Canadian power companies produce 1,000 megawatts of
power a year. Toxic Atmosphere Inc. produces power by burning coal,
and therefore produces 10 megatons of greenhouse gases.
Environmental Angels Corp. owns mainly hydroelectric power plants,
producing three megatons of greenhouse gases.
Let's say the federal government decrees that it will tax a 1,000-
megawatt producer $1 million annually for each megaton of greenhouse
gases it produces over eight megatons. And the producer gets a credit
for each megaton less than eight that it produces.
So Toxic Atmosphere is whacked with a $2-million annual tax, right?
Well it would, except Environmental Angels can sell it two megatons of
credits - let's say for a negotiated $1.5 million.
That means that Toxic Atmosphere's customers are going to have to pay
more each year to pay for these emission credits, and Environmental
Angels will either be able to hand the benefits on to its customers,
or invest in new technology that will lower its emissions further.
I've made up all these numbers, but there are hard numbers to show
that right now Nova Scotia (and New Brunswick and P.E.I.) are a hell
of a lot closer to Toxic Atmosphere Inc. than Environmental Angels.
According to CIBC World Markets, Nova Scotia now produces 60 per cent
of its power from coal, the type of fuel that produces the most
greenhouse gases. Only Alberta (74 per cent) and Saskatchewan (63 per
cent) exceed that figure.
Nova Scotia produces a further 30 per cent of its power by burning
petroleum, the second dirtiest fuel.
CIBC believes the provinces most vulnerable to economic penalties in
an emission cap system are, in order, P.E.I., Saskatchewan, Alberta,
Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Because they receive 88 per cent or
more of their power from hydroelectricity, the best off would be
Quebec, Manitoba, British Columbia and Newfoundland.
Right now, Nova Scotia is respond-ing to the threat mainly by
developing wind farms and researching tidal power. In six years, wind
power and other renewable energy should account for 10 per cent of our
power.
Coal will still be the backbone of our system, and we could get
hammered under effective emission caps.
Nova Scotia Power Corp. would no doubt be the bad guy once fingers
start pointing, but the bottom line is that the higher costs would be
passed on to its customers - you and me.
The provincial government has already begun to lobby Ottawa, asking
for some type of subsidy as the coal- and oil-dependent provinces
diversify to greener energy sources.
Other than Alberta, which can afford the pain, the provinces that will
suffer most are those with minimal federal clout, so it's difficult to
be optimistic about federal subsidies.
So what should we do, given that we know there is this bomb under our
seats. The first step would be for the electricity utilities in Nova
Scotia, New Brunswick and P.E.I. to merge their transmission systems.
This would make their renewable energy more reliable (maybe the wind
is blowing in Cape Breton, but not Northern New Brunswick) and provide
green producers a bigger market. But it would require co-operation
among the Maritime governments, something they are dreadful at doing.
The other theoretical advantage of a regional grid is that
Newfoundland and Labrador - that Saudi Arabia of hydroelectric power -
could eventually run a cable under the Gulf of St. Lawrence and tap
into that grid for the three Maritime provinces.
Then we consumers could pay utilities that are benefiting from
emission cap trading, rather than those who are suffering. That could
help defuse the bomb.
Peter Principle
OK, moron, let's see you produce a citation to ANY peer reviewed science
that so much as mentions Gore in any way, shape or form. Begin, moron...
> Sadly you think screaming asshole at everyone who cites that will make
> it go away.
Sadly, you think farting asinine lies and easily debunked FUD somehow makes
you appear something other than stupid...
>> FYI, you incredible stupid asshole, like the MAJORITY of those who
>> can see the facts for themselves, I have NEVER seen Gore's film,
>> read Gore's book, nor, you stupid asshole seen his PowerPoint
>> presentation. IOW, you stupid asshole, Gore has exactly NOTHING to
>> do with the science, at least to those of us in the triple digit
>> club.
>
> As usual your infantile foul-mouthed blathering only makes you less
> and less credible.
As usual, you can't back up your silly-ass claims with anything other than
more bullshit. And you think this somehow makes you look LESS stupid?
<boggle>
> Learn to communicate like a grown-up and someone might pay attention
> to you.
Learn to stand behind your own words, foam duck. You're claimed Gore is
somehow central to the scientific debate, such as it is, surrounding the
reality of global warming. Now, can your stupid ass provide a citation to
ANY peer reviewed science that so much as mentions Gore or are you every bit
the lying fool you appear to be?
Well, sparky?
<tap, tap, tap>
Peter Principle
Boy, howdy, is that ever clever...
Who said anything about fingers? You always leap to the secondary
definition, do you, even when it is obviously not germane?
NEWSFLASH: You don't get to define terms as you wish...
djw
<petes...@CUTITOUTgmail.com> wrote:
What on earth are you blathering about now? I didn't mention Al Gore
in that paragraph. I already forced you to agree he's a fat
hypocrite.
I don't have to produce peer-reviewed journals or some such bullshit
for my last statement.
You're merely blowing smoke as usual pretending as though I've made
some fatal flaw in my argument.
You are nothing but bluster and childish insults.
>> Sadly you think screaming asshole at everyone who cites that will make
>> it go away.
>
>Sadly, you think farting asinine lies and easily debunked FUD somehow makes
>you appear something other than stupid...
>
>>> FYI, you incredible stupid asshole, like the MAJORITY of those who
>>> can see the facts for themselves, I have NEVER seen Gore's film,
>>> read Gore's book, nor, you stupid asshole seen his PowerPoint
>>> presentation. IOW, you stupid asshole, Gore has exactly NOTHING to
>>> do with the science, at least to those of us in the triple digit
>>> club.
>>
>> As usual your infantile foul-mouthed blathering only makes you less
>> and less credible.
>
>As usual, you can't back up your silly-ass claims with anything other than
>more bullshit. And you think this somehow makes you look LESS stupid?
>
What claims? This is barely a conversation and not a civil one. You
get the quality which you give which is very low.
I waste very little time on the likes of you except to hurl back at
you what you give because you deserve no more.
><boggle>
>
>> Learn to communicate like a grown-up and someone might pay attention
>> to you.
>
>Learn to stand behind your own words, foam duck. You're claimed Gore is
>somehow central to the scientific debate, such as it is,
He is. What back up do you need moron? He's your man in the
political arena. You're just a dumbshit.
>surrounding the
>reality of global warming. Now, can your stupid ass provide a citation to
>ANY peer reviewed science that so much as mentions Gore or are you every bit
>the lying fool you appear to be?
>
Why would I need to do that? Oh, right. Once again that's how you
try to win arguments by blathering vaguely about things scientific and
trying to bark down your laymen opponent.
The jigs up PP. We all know you're just a dork and a troll and an
authority on nothing.
>Well, sparky?
>
><tap, tap, tap>
What next troll boy? The classic <BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA>?
Bush Lost Iraq War
Ray Lopez is Choosing You to be a victim of Mass Murder.
Like Cho Seung-Hui, Ray Lopez is a sociopath utterly without pity for
his randomly chosen victims -- it's just a violent video game for him,
where he tries for the "most points" using weather of mass
destruction. 20,000 dead in France from Heat Wave, 3,000 wacked in New
Orleans, just points to keep score.
The longer you stay unaware that your death is his goal, the more his
words can infect you like poison to delay your self-defense plan.
Global Warming briefings were being given to tobacco company
executives two decades ago, while they were in the midst of carrying
out serial murders of 400,000 Americans per year with delay tactics of
hired science-falsifiers. They loaned part of their propaganda
apparatus to the OILY INC liars to delay actions on Global Warming, as
the court records show as early as 1988.
It wasn't until 1998 that the evidence came to light in courts of law,
but nine years later the same people are still doing the same frauds.
Since 1988 to 1998, 4 million Americans were killed by frauds that
said that the science on tobacco was unsettled. These are willful
deliberate premeditated murders, using people like Ray Lopez to spread
their message.
Since 1998 another 3.6 million have been murdered by falsified science
"debate" keeping the settled science from being taken seriously by
thew victims of opportunity whom have been knowingly addicted by
corporate serial murderers, and their henchmen like Ray Lopez.
The A.S.S. Coalition (TASSC) & Global Warming
http://TobaccoDocuments.org Court Records
http://tobaccodocuments.org/landman/158433.html
Abstract
To circumvent its lack of credibility with the public, policy makers
and the media, Philip Morris (PM) uses the strategy of creating front
groups. Forming an artificial third party and then assigning it an
"umbrella cause" (one which happens to mesh perfectly with the tobacco
industry's) gives PM and the industry the opportunity to create a
wholly separate, and far more credible, mouthpiece advance its
policies and political desires. In PM's front group "Associates for
Research in Substance Enjoyment," (ARISE) "scientists" lumped tobacco
use together with innocuous substances like tea and chocolate, put out
worldwide press releases saying substance use was good for you and
declared public health advocates to be puritanical, neo-prohibitionist
party poopers. After the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
declared secondhand smoke as a Class A Human Carcinogen, PM needed a
powerful group to rise up help discredit EPA's findings. Thus PM
formed "The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition," or TASSC.
Recognizing that the chemical, paper, metal, petroleum and other
environmentally-dubious industries would also be thrilled to have a
group of "committed experts" who would publicly say that scientific
warnings against their activities were not credible, PM invited these
industries to join TASSC. With the needs clear and a host of willing
help-mates waiting in the wings, PM created TASSC through a public
relations firm called APCO Associates, which helped PM distance itself
from the group. After a 2-month, $50,000 feasibility study done hand
in hand with PM's law firm of Covington and Burling, APCO began
forming TASSC. APCO did an admirable job of recruiting members for
TASSC, too. The "supporters list" (found in another document) includes
businesses from the "Family Loompya Seafood Market" and "Pinckneyville
Lighting" to sawmills, mining and chemical companies, including W.R.
Grace, Co., Amoco, and Dow Chemical. Today's document reveals the
goals of TASSC, and also APCO's enthusiasm for creating a similar
group in Europe based on its success in America and elsewhere. Title:
Thoughts on TASSC Europe Type of Document: Memo From: Tom Hockaday of
APCO Associates To: Matt Winokur, Director, Worldwide Regulatory
Affairs for Philip Morris Date: 19940324 Site: Philip Morris Tobacco
Company http://www.pmdocs.com/ Bates No. 2025492898/2905 Page Count: 8
URL: http://www.pmdocs.com/getallimg.asp?DOCID=2025492898/2905
03/28/94 15:25 '8`202 466 6004 APCO ASSOCIATES 0004 -3 - As a starting
point, we can identify key issues requiring sound scientific research
and scientists that may have an interest in them. Some issues our
European colleagues suggest include: . Global warming · Nuclear waste
disposal · Diseases and pests in agricultural products for
transborder trade · Biotechnology . Eco-labeling for EC products
===============
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2024233595-3602.html
Thoughts on Tassc Europe
Date: 25 Mar 1994
-3- As a starting point, we can identify key issues requiring sound
scientific research and scientists that may have an interest in them.
Some issues our European colleagues suggest include: . Global
warming . Nuclear waste disposal . Diseases and pests in agricultural
products for transborder trade . Biotechnology . Eco-labeling for EC
products . Food processing and packaging
-5- decisions. The supporters of the Appeal are a loose-knit group.
The effort to expand the support of the Appeal is handled through Dr.
M. Saloman of the International Center for Scientific Ecology (Paris).
In discussions with a number of our scientific supporters and with Dr.
Fred Singer (a member of the Board of the International Center for
Scientific Ecology), there is belief that this initial support could
be organized into a more "formal movement" internationally. The
benefits of attempting to use this group as a basis of extending TASSC
include: Several of TASSC's scientists have signed the Appeal,
providing the opportunity to approach the supporters with a "peer to
peer" approach, i.e. , a "Dear Colleague" letter.
===============
http://tobaccodocuments.org/nysa_ti_m2/TI15842109.html
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 28, 1993 THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER A truth squad
for monitoring shaky science
Date: 28 Dec 1993
TASSC should work to make fiascos like the Alar scare as familiar to
students as rain forests or global warming.
===============
http://tobaccodocuments.org/mayo_clinic/82000099.html
TASSC The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition
"It is neither reasonable nor prudent for major political decisions to
be based on presumptions which, in the current state of knowledge, are
still only hypotheses, although they must certainly be examined and
even taken into account. The more or less apocalyptic scenarios evoked
in the preparatory, work for the Rio conference are not the kind of
certitudes which can be used as a basis for political decisions likely
to entail major upheavals and heavy expenditure on a global scale."
~Michael Salomon, Editorial Director, Projections Quarterly, Autumn-
Winter 1992
===============
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2028363773-3791.html
Scientists for Sound Public Policy Assessment Project and Symposium
Date: 1994 (est.)
Length: 19 pages
EXPLANATIONS · The political decision-makers are vulnerable to
activists' emotional appeals and press campaigns · The opinion climate
tends to favour overly simplified solutions The precautionary
principle is now the accepted guideline. Even if a hypothesis is not
100 per cent scientifically proven, action should be taken, e.g.
global warming Europe's industry is often on the defensive. Action is
typically taken when it is too late. And industrial resistence is
perceived as protection of commercial self-interests.
Burson-Marsteller
===============
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2025493202-3207.html
Date: 26 Apr 1994 (est.)
Length: 6 pages
Many industries trying to establish groups to "communicate science"
and "to lobby" EUFIC (food industry) SAGB (biotechnology) Heidelberg
Appeal (global warming)
===============
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2024102283-2287.html
Date: 1992 (est.)
Length: 5 pages
SEITZ SYMPOSIUM
*Late lst quarter/early 2nd quarter
*Procedural Options for Addressing the Scientific Issue Highlighted in
Global Warming and Ozone Hole Controversies, Dr. Frederick Seitz of
the George C. Marshall Institute
*40-60 regulators--Ensure credible science
*TASSC
===============
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2046451070-1139.html
Science, Economics, and Environmental Policy: A Critical Examination
Date: 11 Aug 1994
Length: 70 pages
===============
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2025802450-2451.html
Scientific Integrity in the Public Policy Process Semi-Final Program
930524 - 930525 the Madison Hotel 15th and M Streets, Nw Washington,
D.C.
Date: 19930525/D
Length: 2 pages
CONFERENCE OVERVIEW: From global warming and ozone depletion to
biotechnology and food additives
Dr.. S. Fred Singer (Moderator) University of Virginia; president, The
Science & Environmental Policy Project
Dr. S. Fred Singer, president The Science & Environmental Policy
Project. 9:15
===============
Environmental Tobacco Smoke
Date: 09 Dec 1996
Length: 13 pages
http://tobaccodocuments.org/batco/800298146-8158.html
Press Release of The Science & Environmental Policy Project "TOP FIVE
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY 'MYTHS' OF 1995 TO BE RELEASED BY SCIENCE AND
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY PROJECT: List Challenges Costly Policies Not
Supported By Sound Scientific Data," January 10, 1996
===============
Philip Morris
Date: 31 Mar 1993
Length: 1 page
2025802449
Jump To Images
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2025802449.html
===============
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2021178213-8216.html
Philip Morris
Possible Individuals to Be Approached for Opinion Editorials
Date: 02 Mar 1993
Length: 4 pages
Candace Crandall -- Executive Vice President of the Science and
Environmental Policy Project (SEPP).
She has published extensively on junk science issues in the past.
Crandall' was the Director of Communications for the Center for
Strategic and International' Studies before joining, SEPP. The primary
focus of SEPP is too document the use of scientific data in the
development of federal environmental policy. SEPP is an independent,
non-profi research group that relies on private funding.
It will co-sponsor a conference with George Mason University in May on
scientific integrity in the political process, Crandall has arranged
for a number of prominent scientists to be participants, including Dr.
Bernard Davis of Harvard University and1 Sir William Mitchell of'
Oxford University.
Crandall is Dr: Fred Singer's wife.
===============
Issue Report Alexis Whither Environmental Regulation
Date: 01 Jul 1993
Length: 6 pages
http://tobaccodocuments.org/nysa_ti_s2/TI31741185.html
Dr. S. Fred Singer is Professor of Environmental Sciences at the
University of Virginia and directs the Washington- based Science &
Environmental Policy Project. He is currently working on a study on
environmental regulation for the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution.
===============
Philip Morris
Anthology of 950000's Environmental Myths
Date: 11 Feb 1996
Length: 3 pages
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2048280356-0358.html
Copyright 1996 News World Communications, Inc. The Washington Times
February 11, 1996, Sunday, Final Edition SECTION: Part B; COMMENTARY;
Pg. B3 LENGTH: 1377 words HEADLINE: Anthology of 1995's environmental
myths BYLINE: S. Fred Singer
BODY: The primary mission of the Science & Environmental Policy
Project has been to study and analyze how science is used - or
missused - in the setting of federal environmental policies, and then
expose the most egregious examples of environmental malfeasance. There
are so many: Superfund, asbestos, Alar, acid rain, to mention just a
few - all of them costing mega-billions and backed by insubstantial
science. When we decided to list the greatest environmental myths of
1995, our board _ of experts finally settled on the following five
topics that demonstrate distortion or misuse of science in shaping
policies. We present them here to educate policy-makers and the public
in the hope that the publicity will lead to more cost-effective
policies and a healthier environment. (1) Global warming and the
Climate Treaty: During 1995, scare stories about a future catastrophic
greenhouse warming gained much momentum, while at the same time the
evidence for such warming became weaker and weaker. At the first
"Conference of the Parties" to the Global Climate Treaty in Berlin in
April, the science was ignored while the assembled "statesmen" went
ahead to establish a permanent secretariat and plan further mega-
meetings. In September, at the initiative of Al Gore, a Washington
conference promoted a new fear tied to global warming: a spread of
tropical diseases putting 3 billion people at risk. Finally, in
November (in Madrid) and December (in Rome), the U.N.-sponsored
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the scientific arm
of the Treaty, managed to approve two pre-drafted summary reports.
These can charitably be described as being "economical with the
truth."...
===============
Philip Morris
Is the Concept of Linear Relationship Between Dose and Effect Still A
Valid Model for Assessing Risk Related to Low Doses of Carcinogens? A
Restricted International Scientific Seminar 930510 - Paris (France)
Date: 10 May 1993
Length: 5 pages
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2028385383-5387.html
International Center for a Scientific Ecology Is the concept of linear
relationship between dose and effoct still a valid model for assessing
risk related to low doses of ets? A restricted international
scienfific Seminar May 10, 1993 - Paris (France)
The seminar is organised by the International Centre for a Scientific
Ecology (see Introduction to the Centre in the appendix). The
scientific work is organised by Dr Michel Salomon, the coordinator of
the Heidelberg Appeal.
Prof. S. Fred Singer, Doctor of Physical Science; President of the
Science & Environmental Policy Project; former Director, US Weather
Satellite Program; Dean of the School of Environmental Sciences,
University of Miami; Deputy Assistant Administrator of US
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); American. nationality;
Dr. Michel Salomon, coordinator of the Heidelberg Appeal; former
science journalist; magazine editor; French nationality.
===============
Philip Morris
Dr. S. Fred Singer, Director the Science and Environmental Policy
Project
Date: 08 Mar 1993 (est.)
Length: 1 page
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2021178209.html
===============
Brown & Williamson
Public Affairs Strategies.
Date: 1900
Length: 4 pages
http://tobaccodocuments.org/bw/1059809.html
(#8) SCIENCE & ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY PROJECT From a strategic
standpoint, we believed the most effective way to publicize the report
would be through a credibl]e highly respected "third party".
So we brought the report to the attention of the 'Science &
Environmental Policy Project", SEPP, as it is known, is a Fairfax,
Va., think-tank that studies and analyzes how science is used in
federal policy-making and encourages the use of sound science. After
reading the CRS report, SEPP was equally concerned the EPA's
conclusions and agreed more visibility was in or@er.
{#9) SEPP NEWS RELEASE With B&W's assistance, SEEP launched a media
relations campaign in January calling attention to the "Top Five
Environmental Myths of 1995." While such issues as "global warming"
and radon were on the list, the focus was on ETS.
(#10) WASHINGTON TIMES "OP ED" In addition to news releases, SEPP
wrote "Op ed" pieces and conducted interviews on radio and television.
SEPP is continuing the "environmental myths" campaign, extending
discussion of the subject to speeches by Dr. Fred Singer, SEPP's
executive director. It's one strategy to help balance the debate.
===============
Mayo Clinic
Length: 37 pages
http://tobaccodocuments.org/mayo_clinic/85002238.html
THE INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR A SCIENTIFIC ECOLOGY The Center has been
created at the beginning of 1993 under the French law for nomprolit
organizations.
The Board of the Center includes in particular:
- Mr Pierre Joly. President of the Association Francaise pour la
Recherche Therapeutique : former President of the International
Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association ;
- Mr Constant Burg. honorary member of the State Council ; honorary
managing director of INSERM : President of the lnstitut Curie:
- Mr Gilbert Rutman. chief mining engineer: President of the Conseil
Natioflal des Ingenieurs et des Scientifiques de France:
- Prof. S. Fred Singer. Doctor of Physical Science : President of the
Science & Environmental Policy Project : former Director US Weather
Satellite Program : Dean of the School of Environmental Sciences.
University of Miami : Deputy Assistant Administrator of US
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) :
- Mr Gary Nash. Secretary General of the International Council on
Metals and the Environment (ICME) : former Director General in the
Canada Department of Energy. Mines und Resources :
- Dr. Michel Salomon, coordinator of the Heidelberg Appeal ; former
science journalist : magazine editor.
===============
Philip Morris
Top Five Environmental Policy "Myths" of 950000 to Be Released by
Science and Environmental Policy Project
Date: 1995 (est.)
Length: 1 page
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2065122118.html
===============
Philip Morris
the Delaney Clause - Linchpin of the Environmental Policy Edifice
Date: 10 May 1993
Length: 4 pages
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2501171259-1262.html
The Delaney Clause-Linchpin of the Environmental Policy Edifice Prof.
S. Fred Singer
S. Fred Singer Director, Science & Environmental Policy Project
Arlington, Virginia
===============
Philip Morris
Junk Science at the Epa
Date: 08 Mar 1993 (est.)
Length: 3 pages
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2021178206-8208.html
S. Fred Singer Visiting fellovv at the Hoover Institution at Stanford
University and President of the Washington. D C.-baed Science &
Environrnental Policy Project
===============
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2065122122.html
Philip Morris
Sepp - Environmental Myths of 950000 - Smt Participant Broadcast
Details
Date: 1995 (est.)
Length: 1 page
===============
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2065122119-2121.html
Philip Morris
Top Five Environmental Policy "Myths" of 950000 to Be Released by
Science and Environmental Policy Project
Date: 10 Jan 1996
Length: 3 pages
===============
Philip Morris
Seminar of 930510 on the Linear Relationship
Date: 31 Mar 1993
Length: 3 pages
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2028443741-3743.html
Opening speech by Chairman of the Seminar, Prof. Bruce N. Ames
(Biologist'4 Dir., Nat. Inst. of EnvironmentallHealth Sciences Center,
Berkeley, U.S.A.). 9/9.20 a.m. · How biofogically based modeis may
help extrapolating cancer risk to low doses.
· The Delaney amendment and its consequences on the American
regufation. Prof. S. Fred Singer (Physicist, former Dir., US Weather
Satellite Program; President, Science & Environmental Policy Project,
U'.S.A.). 10.20/10.30 a.m.
Noon · Case studies: Predictions and reality. - The Arsenic case.
Prof. Gerhard Stohrer (former chief, Dept!. of chemical risk, Research
Inst. Sloan-Kettering~ U.S.A.).
The DDT case. Dr. William Hazeltine (Ph.D., entomo!bgist, former
Manager of mosquito abatement in California, U.S:A.).
===============
Philip Morris
Update 930419
Date: 19 Apr 1993
Length: 7 pages
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2025475593-5599.html
CONFERENCE/MEETING: Scientific Integrity in the Public Process
SPONSOR: International Institute of George Mason University and the
Science and Environmental Policy Project DATE: May 24-25, 1993
LOCATION: The Madison Hotel, Washington, DC TELEPHONE NUMBER:
703-993-8200
===============
BATCo
[Note from Heather Cooke to Tom Fitzgerald regarding report issued by
The Science & Environmental Policy Project SEPP]
Date: 27 Feb 1996
Length: 1 page
http://tobaccodocuments.org/batco/700520244.html
BRITISH-AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANY LIMITED To: FACSIMILE MR TOM
FITZGERALD I From: HEATHER COOKE Company: Brown & Williamson Phone
01784 448045 'Tobacco Corp Number: Fax No: Fax No: 0"784 448654 Date:
27/02/96 Pages To Follow: 3 Comments: I am trying to get hold of a
report issued by The Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)
which relates to the attached press release. Do you have a copy that
you can fax to me or know where I might be able to get hold of a copy?
Many thanks Heather Cooke Administrator, Smoking Issues
===============
Philip Morris
Toxic Policy at Dead End: the Case of Arsenic
Date: 10 May 1993 (est.)
Length: 6 pages
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2502146148-6153.html
International Center for a Scientific Ecology Seminar on linear risk
assessment May 10, 1993 Toxic Policy at Dead End: The Case of Arsenic
Gerhard Strohrer Science and Environmental Policy Project 2101 Wilson
Boulevard, Suite 1003 Arlington, Virginia 22201
===============
Philip Morris
Give Industry A Bigger Science Rol
Date: 19921229/P
Length: 1 page
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2074144040.html
Patrick J. Michaels is associate professor of environmental sciences
at the University Virginia and is affiliated with the Washington-based
Science & Environment Policy Project. The Science & Environmental
Policy Project, 2101 Wilson Blvd., #1003, Arlington, VA 22201 .(703)
527-0130
===============
Peter Principle
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 15:32:39 -0500, "Peter Principle"
> <petes...@CUTITOUTgmail.com> wrote:
>
>> djw wrote:
>>> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 14:17:51 -0500, "Peter Principle"
>> OK, moron, let's see you produce a citation to ANY peer reviewed
>> science that so much as mentions Gore in any way, shape or form.
>> Begin, moron...
>>
> What on earth are you blathering about now? I didn't mention Al Gore
> in that paragraph. I already forced you to agree he's a fat
> hypocrite.
The discussion, you stupid asshole, is a bit broader than the last fucking
paragraph. Jaybus...
It's really very simple, moron, just like you. Either you can back up your
asinine assertion that Gore is somehow central to the scientific debate,
such as it is, about the reality of global warming or you can't. So far you
can't. Gosh, what a shock...
> I don't have to produce peer-reviewed journals or some such bullshit
> for my last statement.
Hey, you're free to fart whatever stupid asshole nonsense you wish, no
matter that easily verifiable facts prove you wrong. You have a perfect
right to be an incredible ignoramus. However, should you ever desire to
appear something OTHER than an incredible ignoramus, backing up your claims
is a good place to start.
> You're merely blowing smoke as usual pretending as though I've made
> some fatal flaw in my argument.
You've utterly failed to back up your stupid asshole assertion with
ANYTHING, moron. Man, talk about blowing smoke...
> You are nothing but bluster and childish insults.
So sez the incredible stupid asshole, all the while farting bluster and
insults.
Brilliant, sparky. Just fucking brilliant. Look for your Irony Cross
nomination in the mail.
<snip>
>> As usual, you can't back up your silly-ass claims with anything
>> other than more bullshit. And you think this somehow makes you look
>> LESS stupid?
>>
> What claims? This is barely a conversation and not a civil one. You
> get the quality which you give which is very low.
You have claimed numerous times and without backing up your stupid asshole
claim with ANYTHING, that Gore is somehow central to the scientific
discussion surrounding the reality of global warming. Do you now wish to
back off that asinine claim, moron? Be my guest.
> I waste very little time on the likes of you except to hurl back at
> you what you give because you deserve no more.
Sez the incredible idiot, wasting yet more time posting absolutely
nothing...
Sorry, moron, only 1 Irony Cross nomination per month.
>> <boggle>
>>
>>> Learn to communicate like a grown-up and someone might pay attention
>>> to you.
>>
>> Learn to stand behind your own words, foam duck. You're claimed Gore
>> is somehow central to the scientific debate, such as it is,
> He is. What back up do you need moron? He's your man in the
> political arena. You're just a dumbshit.
>
>> surrounding the
>> reality of global warming. Now, can your stupid ass provide a
>> citation to ANY peer reviewed science that so much as mentions Gore
>> or are you every bit the lying fool you appear to be?
>>
> Why would I need to do that?
Hey, if you're happy being the stupid asshole farting asinine FUD who is
completely and utterly unwilling to and incapable of backing your stupid
asshole bullshit FUD in any way, shape or form, that works for me.
BTW, clueless luser, please do learn how to TRIM your responses, as 99% of
users here manage every day without a 2nd thought. All of your incredible
idiocy will still be there. It will just be ever so much easier to access.
Harold Burton
"Peter Principle" <petes...@CUTITOUTgmail.com> wrote:
> Some Stupid Asshole Rightard Forging Gandalf Grey wrote:
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&
> > oref=slogin
>
> First off, moron, that article is a month old and has already been discussed
> in these forums many times. Way to keep up!
so?
Harold Burton
djw <wells....@insightbb.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 17:23:58 -0500, "Peter Principle"
> <petes...@CUTITOUTgmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Some Stupid Asshole Rightard Forging Gandalf Grey wrote:
> >> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print
> >> &oref=slogin
> >
> >First off, moron, that article is a month old and has already been discussed
> >in these forums many times. Way to keep up!
> >
> Calling people a-holes does nothing to deflect the reality that
> AlGore's a rich, fat, hypocrite. He's been raping the environment
> with multiple mansions, indoor heated pools, big screen TVs in every
> room, big cars, limo and plane rides, nickel mines and all of it
> completely unnecessary whether you're an environmentalist or not.
>
> He's obviously given zero thought to his personal consumption until
> his recent embarrassment.
>
> I don't call that a deep thinker regardless of what the sycophantic NY
> Times reports.
>
> Now that he's even more filthy rich from marketing gw to gullible
> liberal lemmings it's only going to get worse.
He likes to talk the talk but can't walk the walk.
Harold Burton
"Peter Principle" <petes...@CUTITOUTgmail.com> wrote:
> <snip of idiot.fart lagniappe>
>
> FYI, stupid asshole personal attack slanderous red herrings have absolutely
> NOTHING to do with the serious problem of global warming, you stupid
> asshole...
Looks like djw struck a nerve.
Also looks like you couldn't refute anything he said. No surprise
there, truth can't be refuted, Gore is a polluting, energy wasting, CO2
producing hypocrite.
Harold Burton
djw <wells....@insightbb.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 19:20:20 -0500, "Peter Principle"
> >Now, do you have anything OTHER than stupid asshole rightard knee jerk
> >attacks on all things Clinton or Gore you'd like to share *on the subject*
> >or are you every bit the ignorant stupid asshole you appear?
> >
> Well this is rich. Can you explain why Al Gore is not a big, fat,
> hypocrite instead of ad hominem attacks on me?
Nope, that's why Pecker Principle didn't.
Harold Burton
"Peter Principle" <petes...@CUTITOUTgmail.com> wrote:
> Can you explain what your stupid asshole personal vendetta against all
> things hypocritical has to do with the serious problem of global warming,
> moron?
Fixed your posting for you.
Harold Burton
"Peter Principle" <petes...@CUTITOUTgmail.com> wrote:
> The discussion, you stupid asshole, is a bit broader than the last fucking
> paragraph. Jaybus...
>
> It's really very simple, moron, just like you.
gotta love it, your rants are as amusing as Alec Baldwin's. djw clearly
struck a nerve.
Peter Principle
Gotta love it. Like all of your kook.farts, this one is entirely sans
content. Maybe one day you'll strike a brain cell or 2...
Burt Burton
> Harold Burton wrote:
> > In article <462a8987$1$16725$4c36...@roadrunner.com>,
> > "Peter Principle" <petes...@CUTITOUTgmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> The discussion, you stupid asshole, is a bit broader than the last
> >> fucking paragraph. Jaybus...
> >>
> >> It's really very simple, moron, just like you.
> >
> >
> > gotta love it, your rants are as amusing as Alec Baldwin's. djw
> > clearly struck a nerve.
>
> Gotta love it. Like all of your kook.farts, this one is entirely sans
> content. Maybe one day you'll strike a brain cell or 2...
>
>
they're on to something when it amounts to incoherent rubbish, Hollywood
celebrity gossip and meaningless nonsense. It proves that what's left of the
Republican party consists of demented crack pot, senile old farts, bigots and
right wing extremist high school drop-outs who don't understand the first thing
about life. They'd be better off sticking to what they do best, jerking off
to images of Limbaugh.
Bush Lost Iraq War
> In article <462a8987$1$16725$4c368...@roadrunner.com>,
Bush Lost Iraq War
Harold Burton is Choosing You to be a victim of Mass Murder.
Like Cho Seung-Hui, Harold Burton is a sociopath utterly without pity
for his randomly chosen victims -- it's just a violent video game for
him, where he tries for the "most points" using weather of mass
destruction. 20,000 dead in France from Heat Wave, 3,000 wacked in New
Orleans, just points to keep score.
The longer you stay unaware that your death is his goal, the more his
words can infect you like poison to delay your self-defense plan.
Global Warming briefings were being given to tobacco company
executives two decades ago, while they were in the midst of carrying
out serial murders of 400,000 Americans per year with delay tactics of
hired science-falsifiers. They loaned part of their propaganda
apparatus to the OILY INC liars to delay actions on Global Warming, as
the court records show as early as 1988.
It wasn't until 1998 that the evidence came to light in courts of law,
but nine years later the same people are still doing the same frauds.
Since 1988 to 1998, 4 million Americans were killed by frauds that
said that the science on tobacco was unsettled. These are willful
deliberate premeditated murders, using people like Harold Burton to
spread their message.
Since 1998 another 3.6 million have been murdered by falsified science
"debate" keeping the settled science from being taken seriously by
thew victims of opportunity whom have been knowingly addicted by
corporate serial murderers, and their henchmen like Harold Burton.
Harold Burton
Bush Lost Iraq War <Bush.Lost.Iraq.War.-.@Exxon-Turds.info> wrote:
> Harold Burton is a Cho Seung-Hui of Usenet.
Thank you.
Harold Burton
"Peter Principle" <petes...@CUTITOUTgmail.com> wrote:
> Harold Burton wrote:
> > In article <462a8987$1$16725$4c36...@roadrunner.com>,
> > "Peter Principle" <petes...@CUTITOUTgmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> The discussion, you stupid asshole, is a bit broader than the last
> >> fucking paragraph. Jaybus...
> >>
> >> It's really very simple, moron, just like you.
> >
> >
> > gotta love it, your rants are as amusing as Alec Baldwin's. djw
> > clearly struck a nerve.
>
> Gotta love it. Like all of your kook.farts, this one is entirely sans
> content.
Yup. Just like you lefards.
<snicker>
Australia Apocalypse NOW
> In article <1177197014.317421.155...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> Bush Lost Iraq War <Bush.Lost.Iraq.War...@Exxon-Turds.info> wrote:
>
> > Harold Burton is a Cho Seung-Hui of Usenet.
>
> Thank you.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21591153-2,00.html
Butterflies under threat of extinction
SOME of Queensland's most beautiful butterflies are under threat of
extinction from global warming, scientists have warned.
Species such as the Australian Fritillary and the Richmond Birdwing
are most at risk, according to CSIRO scientist Dr Don Sands, but a
host of beetles and other insects are also in the firing line.
The average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans rose 0.6C
in the 20th century and scientists predict further rises of up to 5C
by 2100.
In Queensland, scientists warn that climate change is likely to lead
to the extinction of thousands of insect species.
"Insects are the first things to go," Sands says. "They're the best
indication of climate change that we have because the impact on them
is almost immediate."
Sands believes those living in the sub-tropical coastal zone
stretching from Grafton in New South Wales north to Gladstone in
Queensland will be most affected.
"Butterflies like the Australian Fritillary - which is already
endangered - live in the sub-tropics and will almost surely become
extinct," he says. "It is the only species of its kind in Australia
and it relies on wild violets, but those wetlands aren't really wet
any more and the butterflies' food source is losing its density."
Others, such as Illidge's Ant-Blue butterfly, will suffer the same
fate. "It's found in a small band from Brunswick Heads to Maryborough
and is dependent on feeding on ants that nest in the mangroves, but it
will suffer from drought as well as a drop in food source because the
ants will no longer be able to survive there," says Sands, a retired
scientist who still conducts research in a voluntary capacity.
Some scientists believe the alpine regions of Australia will be the
first affected by impending climate change while others believe the
Wet Tropics region which stretches north from Townsville to Cooktown
will feel the impact most.
Regardless, any insect species that has adapted to a specific
geographical area because of its climate and food source will struggle
to survive under global warming. It's a phenomenon gripping scientists
all over the world.
In the United States, ecologists have discovered the Edith's
Checkerspot butterfly is in sharp decline near the Mexico-California
border where it has become too warm and dry. Its numbers are expanding
in British Columbia, which used to be too cold for the butterfly.
Scientists in the United Kingdom have warned that bumblebees are among
thousands of native insect species in danger of dying out from climate
change, intensive agriculture, housing development and competition
from foreign insects.
Australia, however, has many more insects than Britain - hundreds of
thousands more - and though many of them don't have common names,
their survival is vital to the country's ecosystem.
Dr Lesley Hughes of Macquarie University's research team on the impact
of climate change on plant-insect interactions says losing even one
native species is like losing a piece of Australian heritage.
"There's pragmatic reasons for trying to protect these insects -- they
provide all sorts of ecosystem services like pollinating plants,
eating other insects and providing food for larger vertebrates like
bird life," says Hughes, who sits on the UN-sponsored
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
"Take out one section of the food web and lots of things would starve
to death.
"Philosophically, each species is a product of millions of years of
evolution like a heritage item. Losing one is a tragedy."
But thousands of insects are at risk of dying out in Queensland's Wet
Tropics region alone, warns Dr Tony Clarke of the School of Natural
Resource Sciences at Queensland University of Technology.
A change in temperature, rainfall and moisture could lead to some
endemic insects dying out and one of them may be the colourful Cairns
Birdwing butterfly.
"Australia has about 520,000 named insects and half of those would be
from the Wet Tropics so we're talking potentially tens or hundreds of
thousands of insects under threat of climate change," he says.
Dr Stephen Williams, who heads James Cook University's Centre for
Tropical Biodiversity and Climate Change, says research on
invertebrates has only just begun but there's already cause for
serious concern.
"What we have up here is the relics of Gondwanaland (the continent of
200 million years ago which joined Australia with Antarctica, South
America, Africa and India)," he says.
"These insects have really adapted to the cool, wet conditions only
found in the eastern rainforests but they're at risk now and that's
increasing all the time.
"Some are at risk of complete extinction in the order of a few
decades."
But climate change has more far-reaching implications for insects,
Sands says.
"In the sub-tropics, insects go into a kind of hibernation when the
temperature starts to drop as a means of allowing them to get through
winter," says Sands, who was awarded an Order of Australia Medal in
2003 for his conservation work.
"That diapause breaks in spring when the day length, temperature and
moisture change."
But global warming, he says, is upsetting this process.
Butterflies such as the Richmond Birdwing, found in northern NSW and
the hinterland of the Gold Coast and on the Sunshine Coast between
Beerwah and Eumundi, are changing their hatching and mating patterns.
"They normally hatch when day length increases in September over a
two- or three-week period when they find a mate and reproduce but
we're finding their diapause isn't breaking all at once," he says.
"They're now appearing right through to Christmas time and their
density is low.
"They only live for six weeks so they don't find a mate or produce."
Food sources are also affected, Sands says.
"If you have a dramatic drop in rainfall like we have had in Brisbane,
the plants are not producing any soft leaves," he explains. "Young
insects like caterpillars can't chew through the old, tough leaves and
they don't have enough nutrition for them anyway."
Leaf-eating beetles such as the chrysomelid, of which there are 50
species in Brisbane, are struggling for survival.
"They're dying out because they don't have young growth to feed on,"
he says.
Clarke warns of another dimension to climate change.
Just as it will cause the extinction of some species, it will lead to
the proliferation of others.
"Mosquitoes are a big issue," he says. "Most of them are largely
restricted to the tropics and sub-tropics but as these areas become
larger with global warming, mosquitoes will move down the coast.
"Malaria will become a big health issue.
"Because we don't have it in Australia, people don't know how serious
it is but there's 1.5 million to 2.7 million deaths per year and 300
million to 500 million clinical cases per year around the world.
"Only about a third of the world currently lives in areas affected by
malaria but under predictions of global warming, this will increase to
two-thirds of the world.
"As a scientist, I cannot stress enough the importance of the fact
that the planet is fundamentally changing."
Peter Muehlbauer
Please do not feed the troll.
Simply killfile him.
Vendicar Decarian
"James" <king...@iglou.com> wrote
> So trust the scientists or trust you. LOL
Scientist Carl Wunsch claims that his comments in the documentary were
purposely distorted and mad to appear to be the opposite of what he actually
stated.
The directory of the documentary - made by wag the dog tv - has a history of
making such distortions.
Here is what Carl Wunsch says about the creative editing of Wag the dog TV.
The following letter from Carl Wunsch is intended to clarify his views on
global
warming in general, and the The Great Global Warming Swindle which
misrepresented them.
Partial Response to the London Channel 4 Film "The Global Warming Swindle"
Carl Wunsch 11 March 2007
I believe that climate change is real, a major threat, and almost surely has
a
major human-induced component. But I have tried to stay out of the `climate
wars' because all nuance tends to be lost, and the distinction between what
we
know firmly, as scientists, and what we suspect is happening, is so
difficult to
maintain in the presence of rhetorical excess. In the long run, our
credibility
as scientists rests on being very careful of, and protective of, our
authority
and expertise.
The science of climate change remains incomplete. Some elements are so
firmly
based on well-understood principles, or for which the observational record
is so
clear, that most scientists would agree that they are almost surely true
(adding
CO2 to the atmosphere is dangerous; sea level will continue to rise,...).
Other
elements remain more uncertain, but we as scientists in our roles as
informed
citizens believe society should be deeply concerned about their possibility:
failure of US midwestern precipitation in 100 years in a mega-drought;
melting
of a large part of the Greenland ice sheet, among many other examples.
I am on record in a number of places complaining about the
over-dramatization
and unwarranted extrapolation of scientific facts. Thus the notion that the
Gulf
Stream would or could "shut off" or that with global warming Britain would
go
into a "new ice age" are either scientifically impossible or so unlikely as
to
threaten our credibility as a scientific discipline if we proclaim their
reality
[i.e. see this previous RC post]. They also are huge distractions from more
immediate and realistic threats. I've paid more attention to the extreme
claims
in the literature warning of coming catastrophe, both because I regard the
scientists there as more serious, and because I am very sympathetic to the
goals
of my colleagues who sometimes seem, however, to be confusing their specific
scientific knowledge with their worries about the future.
When approached by WAGTV, on behalf of Channel 4, known to me as one of the
main
UK independent broadcasters, I was led to believe that I would be given an
opportunity to explain why I, like some others, find the statements at both
extremes of the global change debate distasteful. I am, after all a teacher,
and
this seemed like a good opportunity to explain why, for example, I thought
more
attention should be paid to sea level rise, which is ongoing and unstoppable
and
carries a real threat of acceleration, than to the unsupportable claims that
the
ocean circulation was undergoing shutdown (Nature, December 2005).
I wanted to explain why observing the ocean was so difficult, and why it is
so
tricky to predict with any degree of confidence such important climate
elements
as its heat and carbon storage and transports in 10 or 100 years. I am
distrustful of prediction scenarios for details of the ocean circulation
that
rely on extremely complicated coupled models that run out for decades to
thousands of years. The science is not sufficiently mature to say which of
the
many complex elements of such forecasts are skillful. Nonetheless, and
contrary
to the impression given in the film, I firmly believe there is a great deal
to
be learned from models. With effort, all of this is explicable in terms the
public can understand.
In the part of the "Swindle" film where I am describing the fact that the
ocean
tends to expel carbon dioxide where it is warm, and to absorb it where it is
cold, my intent was to explain that warming the ocean could be
dangerous---because it is such a gigantic reservoir of carbon. By its
placement
in the film, it appears that I am saying that since carbon dioxide exists in
the
ocean in such large quantities, human influence must not be very
important ---
diametrically opposite to the point I was making --- which is that global
warming is both real and threatening in many different ways, some
unexpected.
Many of us feel an obligation to talk to the media---it's part of our role
as
scientists, citizens, and educators. The subjects are complicated, and it is
easy to be misquoted or quoted out context. My experience in the past is
that
these things do happen, but usually inadvertently --- most reporters really
do
want to get it right.
Channel 4 now says they were making a film in a series of "polemics". There
is
nothing in the communication we had (much of it on the telephone or with the
film crew on the day they were in Boston) that suggested they were making a
film
that was one-sided, anti-educational, and misleading. I took them at face
value---clearly a great error. I knew I had no control over the actual
content,
but it never occurred to me that I was dealing with people who already had a
reputation for distortion and exaggeration.
The letter I sent them as soon as I heard about the actual program is below.
[available here]
As a society, we need to take out insurance against catastrophe in the same
way
we take out homeowner's protection against fire. I buy fire insurance, but I
also take the precaution of having the wiring in the house checked, keeping
the
heating system up to date, etc., all the while hoping that I won't need the
insurance. Will any of these precautions work? Unexpected things still
happen
(lightning strike? plumber's torch igniting the woodwork?). How large a fire
insurance premium is it worth paying? How much is it worth paying for
rewiring
the house? $10,000 but perhaps not $100,000? There are no simple answers
even at
this mundane level.
How much is it worth to society to restrain CO2 emissions --- will that
guarantee protection against global warming? Is it sensible to subsidize
insurance for people who wish to build in regions strongly susceptible to
coastal flooding? These and others are truly complicated questions where
often
the science is not mature enough give definitive answers, much as we would
like
to be able to provide them. Scientifically, we can recognize the reality of
the
threat, and much of what society needs to insure against. Statements of
concern
do not need to imply that we have all the answers. Channel 4 had an
opportunity
to elucidate some of this. The outcome is sad.
Vendicar Decarian
"Joe Fischer" <J...@BigScreenComputers.com> wrote
> You should be ashamed, calling Global Warming
> a "Swindle", when it is outright robbery,
So says the scientific illiterate.
Here is what science says...
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change
--------------------------------------
Approved by the AAAS Board of Directors
9 December 2006
For more information:
The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human
activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.
Accumulating data from across the globe reveal a wide array of effects:
rapidly melting glaciers, destabilization of major ice sheets, increases in
extreme weather, rising sea level, shifts in species ranges, and more. The
pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the
last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now.
The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, a critical greenhouse gas,
is higher than it
has been for at least 650,000 years. The average temperature of the Earth is
heading for levels not experienced for millions of years. Scientific
predictions of the impacts of increasing atmospheric concentrations of
greenhouse gases from fossil fuels and deforestation match observed changes.
As expected, intensification of droughts, heat waves, floods, wildfires, and
severe storms is occurring, with a mounting toll on vulnerable ecosystems
and societies.
These events are early warning signs of even more devastating damage to
come, some of which will be irreversible.
Delaying action to address climate change will increase the environmental
and societal consequences as well as the costs. The longer we wait to tackle
climate change, the harder and more expensive the task will be.
History provides many examples of society confronting grave threats by
mobilizing knowledge and promoting innovation. We need an aggressive
research, development and eployment effort to transform the existing and
future energy systems of the world away from technologies that emit
greenhouse gases. Developing clean energy technologies will provide economic
opportunities and ensure future energy supplies.
In addition to rapidly reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it is essential
that we develop strategies to adapt to ongoing changes and make communities
more resilient to future changes. The growing torrent of information
presents a clear message: we are already experiencing global climate change.
It is time to muster the political will for concerted action. Stronger
leadership at all levels is needed. The time is now. We must rise to the
challenge. We owe this to future generations.
The conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus
represented by, for example, the intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(www.ipcc.ch/), and the joint National Academies' statement
(http://nationalacademies. org/onpi/06072005.pdf).
Vendicar Decarian
"Gandalf Grey" <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote
> COPENHAGEN, Denmark, March 15 (UPI) -- A Danish scientist said the idea of
> a "global temperature" and global warming is more political than
> scientific.
Ya, global temp doesn't exist because it's too complex for incompetents to
understand. All those jiggling molecules, and atoms, and the things moving
about. Who can figure out all of that complex stuff. Might as well just
throw your arms up into the air and proclaim that temperature is too complex
to exist.
Ahahahahahahahahahahahaha.... Where are these fools coming from? That
moon of Mars that Denialist Singer claims was made by aliens?
Vendicar Decarian
"Gandalf Grey" <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote
> Other critics have zeroed in on Mr. Gore's claim that the energy industry
> ran a "disinformation campaign" that produced false discord on global
> warming. The truth, he said, was that virtually all unbiased scientists
> agreed that humans were the main culprits. But Benny J. Peiser, a social
> anthropologist in Britain who runs the Cambridge-Conference Network, or
> CCNet, an Internet newsletter on climate change and natural disasters,
> challenged the claim of scientific consensus with examples of pointed
> disagreement.
>
> "Hardly a week goes by," Dr. Peiser said, "without a new research paper
> that questions part or even some basics of climate change theory,"
> including some reports that offer alternatives to human activity for
> global warming.
Yawn....
Science 3 December 2004:
Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1686
DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618Prev | Table of Contents | Next
Essays on Science and Society
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Naomi Oreskes*
Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently
assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an
argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA
administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through
review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate
change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected
by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major
uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might
be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality
of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.
The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the
World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental
Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a
basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed
and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment,
IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that
Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities
... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that
absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over
the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse
gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].
IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major
scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears
directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the
National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis
of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in
Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air
temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The
report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of
professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion
that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have
been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately
reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue"
[p. 3 in (5)].
Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American
Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of
Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that
the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).
The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities
for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would
diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless,
they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was
tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific
journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the
keywords "climate change" (9).
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of
the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals,
methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position.
Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either
explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with
methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic
climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the
consensus position.
Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying
paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural.
However, none of these papers argued that point.
This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed
literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the
public statements of their professional societies. Politicians,
economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion,
disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is
incorrect.
The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of
science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for
failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely
blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic
climate change and failed to do anything about it.
Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there
are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for
understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate
change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the
reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have
repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to
listen.
References and Notes
A. C. Revkin, K. Q. Seelye, New York Times, 19 June 2003, A1.
S. van den Hove, M. Le Menestrel, H.-C. de Bettignies, Climate Policy 2
(1), 3 (2003).
See www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm.
J. J. McCarthy et al., Eds., Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation,
and Vulnerability (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2001).
National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Science of Climate Change,
Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (National
Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2001).
American Meteorological Society, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 84, 508
(2003).
American Geophysical Union, Eos 84 (51), 574 (2003).
See www.ourplanet.com/aaas/pages/atmos02.html.
The first year for which the database consistently published abstracts
was 1993. Some abstracts were deleted from our analysis because,
although the authors had put "climate change" in their key words, the
paper was not about climate change.
This essay is excerpted from the 2004 George Sarton Memorial Lecture,
"Consensus in science: How do we know we're not wrong," presented at the
AAAS meeting on 13 February 2004. I am grateful to AAAS and the History
of Science Society for their support of this lectureship; to my research
assistants S. Luis and G. Law; and to D. C. Agnew, K. Belitz, J. R.
Fleming, M. T. Greene, H. Leifert, and R. C. J. Somerville for helpful
discussions.
10.1126/science.1103618
The author is in the Department of History and Science Studies Program,
University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA. E-mail:
nore...@ucsd.edu
Vendicar Decarian
"Gandalf Grey" <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote
> Bjorn Lomborg, a statistician and political scientist in Denmark long
> skeptical of catastrophic global warming, said in a syndicated article
> that
> the panel, unlike Mr. Gore, had refrained from scaremongering. "Climate
> change is a real and serious problem" that calls for careful analysis and
> sound policy, Dr. Lomborg said.
"The danger is that global warming may become self-sustaining, if it has not
done so already. The melting of the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps reduces
the fraction of solar energy reflected back into space, and so increases the
temperature further. Climate change may kill off the Amazon and other rain
forests, and so eliminate once one of the main ways in which carbon dioxide
is removed from the atmosphere. The rise in sea temperature may trigger the
release of large quantities of carbon dioxide, trapped as hydrides on the
ocean floor. Both these phenomena would increase the greenhouse effect, and
so global warming further. We have to reverse global warming urgently, if we
still can."- Stephen Hawking - ABC News interview (2006-08-16)
Vendicar Decarian
"djw" <wells....@insightbb.com> wrote
> Calling people a-holes does nothing to deflect the reality that
> with multiple mansions, indoor heated pools, big screen TVs in every
> room, big cars, limo and plane rides, nickel mines and all of it
> completely unnecessary whether you're an environmentalist or not.
Yawn.... He purchases green energy - environmentally sound generation.
Gore is rich, and he is powerful, and he is intelligent, and women love
him.
And that is why you are jelous of his tremendous success at virtually
everything he touches.
And of course we all know that he would have been president if it hadn't
been for the theft of the election by the corrupt Bush Administration back
in 2000.
"djw" <wells....@insightbb.com> wrote
> He's obviously given zero thought to his personal consumption until
> his recent embarrassment.
The fact that he purchaes green energy generated by windpower and solar,
proves you wrong.
"djw" <wells....@insightbb.com> wrote
> I don't call that a deep thinker regardless of what the sycophantic NY
> Times reports.
>
> Now that he's even more filthy rich from marketing gw to gullible
> liberal lemmings it's only going to get worse.
Excellent. More power to Gore for making money in an environmentally
beneficial way.
What do scientists have to say about Gore?
---
"Far more than other lawmakers, Gore during his career in Washington has
gained a reputation in the science community for being concerned,
knowledgeable, and articulate on matters of science and technology.
Researchers of various disciplines interviewed by The Scientist attest
to this, saying they are impressed that Gore is well versed in
scientific areas as diverse as space science, supercomputing, and
biotechnology." - New Scientist V6 #17.
---
:I think his <Al Gore's> credentials, in terms of science, are probably
better than those of anybody else in the Congress," - Robert Park,
American Physical Society (APS) / professor of physics University of
Maryland, College Park.
---
"I have interacted with him <Al Gore> a number of times, at many
conferences. And he is surely the most knowledgeable major politician in
terms of his actual scientific knowledge." - F. Sherwood Rowland,
tmospheric chemist at the University of California, Irvine / president
of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
---
"On key issues such as the space station, Al Gore actually knows what
he's talking about. He's not just mouthing words that some staff person
wrote for him." - John Pike, space policy project director for the
Federation of American Scientists (FAS) in Washington, D.C.
Vendicar Decarian
"Peter Principle" <petes...@CUTITOUTgmail.com> wrote
> Can you explain what your stupid asshole personal vendetta against all
> warming, moron?
Scaif Operative.
P.Henery
> "James" <king...@iglou.com> wrote
>> So trust the scientists or trust you. LOL
Despite you idiots posting and reposting this nonsense, there is no debate
in the scientific community . If you look hard enough, you'll find a
'scientist' who believes the earth to be 6000 years old..
You're a fool.
Danny McCoy
> > "James" <king...@iglou.com> wrote
> >> So trust the scientists or trust you. LOL
>
> Despite you idiots posting and reposting this nonsense, there is no debate
> in the scientific community . If you look hard enough, you'll find a
> 'scientist' who believes the earth to be 6000 years old..
>
> You're a fool.
>
You mean that untrained political hacks ranting about Al Gore aren't a credible
opposition to non-partisan climate specialists?
Science: The Skeptics
By Dr. David Suzuki
The debate is over about whether or not climate change is real. Irrefutable
evidence from around the world - including extreme weather events, record
temperatures, retreating glaciers, and rising sea levels - all point to the
fact climate change is happening now and at rates much faster than previously
thought.
The overwhelming majority of scientists that study climate change agree that
human activity is responsible for changing the climate. The United Nations
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is one of the largest bodies
of international scientists ever assembled to study a scientific issue,
comprised of more than 2,000 scientists from 100 countries. The IPCC has
concluded that most of the warming observed during the past 50 years is
attributable to human activities. Its findings have been publicly endorsed by
the national academies of science of all G-8 countries, as well as those of
China, India and Brazil. The Royal Society of Canada - together with the
national academies of fifteen other nations - also issued a joint statement on
climate change that stated, in part: "The work of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international
scientific community on climate change science. We recognize IPCC as the
world's most reliable source of information on climate change."
Who are the climate change skeptics?
Despite the international scientific community's consensus on climate change, a
very small band of critics continues to deny that climate change exists or that
humans are causing it. Widely known as climate change "skeptics" or "deniers",
these individuals are generally not climate scientists and do not debate the
science with the climate scientists directly - for example, by publishing in
peer-reviewed scientific journals or participating in international conferences
on climate science. Instead, they focus their attention on the media, the
general public, and policy makers with the goal of delaying action on climate
change.
Not surprisingly, the skeptics have received significant funding from coal and
oil companies, including ExxonMobil. They also have well-documented connections
with public relations firms that have set up industry-funded lobby groups to -
in the words of one leaked memo - "reposition global warming as theory (not
fact)."
Over the years, the skeptics have employed a wide range of arguments against
taking action on climate change - some of which actually contradict each other.
For example, they have claimed that:
* Climate change is not occurring
* The global climate is actually getting colder
* The global climate is getting warmer, but not because of human activities
* The global climate is getting warmer, in part because of human
activities, but this will create greater benefits than costs
* The global climate is getting warmer, in part because of human
activities, but the impacts are not sufficient to require any policy response
After 15 years of increasingly definitive scientific studies attesting to the
reality and significance of global climate change, there has been a noticeable
shift in the skeptics' tactics. Many skeptics no longer deny that climate
change is happening, but instead argue that the cost of taking action is too
high - or even worse, that it is too late to take action. All of these
arguments are false and are rejected by the scientific community at large.
To gain an understanding of the level of scientific consensus on climate
change, a recent study examined every article on climate change published in
peer-reviewed scientific journals over a 10-year period. Of the 928 articles on
climate change the authors found, not one of them disagreed with the consensus
position that climate change is happening or is human-induced.
These findings contrast dramatically with the popular media's reporting on
climate change. One recent study analyzed coverage of climate change in four
influential American newspapers (New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, and
Wall Street Journal) over a 14-year period. It found that more than half of the
articles discussing climate change gave equal weight to the scientifically
discredited views of the skeptics.
This discrepancy is largely due to the media's drive for balance in reporting.
Journalists are trained to identify one position on any issue, and then seek
out a conflicting position, providing both sides with roughly equal attention.
Unfortunately, the "balance" of the different views within the media does not
always correspond with the actual prevalence of each view within society, and
can result in unintended bias. This has been the case with reporting on climate
change, and as a result, many people believe that climate change is still being
debated by scientists when in fact it is not.
While some level of debate is of course useful when looking at major social
problems, eventually society needs to move on and actually address the issue.
To do nothing about the problem of climate change is akin to letting a fire
burn down a building because the precise temperature of the flames is unknown,
or to not address the problem of smoking because one or two doctors still claim
that it does not cause lung cancer. As the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change (UNFCCC) acknowledges, a lack of full scientific certainty
about some aspects of climate change is not a reason for delaying an immediate
response that will, at a reasonable cost, prevent dangerous consequences in the
climate system.
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/print/Climate_Change/Science/Skeptics.asp
Bill
> "The debate is over ", "The overwhelming majority", etc: This isn't
> science; this is religion. True Believers (tm) looking for converts
> and seeking to punish heretics say crap like this.
>
Invoking the tiresome "it's religion" hysteria doesn't make it religion, it
just proves that you're ignorant and probably one of the clods who latches on
to any of the litany of bogus "alternative theories", while you're not ranting
about Al Gore in the meantime.
Why is it that the only response most of you can come up with are conservative
talking points and Ann Coulter like slogans?
There are so few who are of the opinion that man-made green house gasses aren't
the cause that you're babbling is irrelevant. Are there any major
industrialized nations or major corporations who haven't sided with the
majority of the credible scientific community on this issue?
Most of you hadn't even heard of global warming before 2-years ago, and by
then, the lion's share of the scientific debate had been over for 3 years.
Your gibbering can't change that.
Gig
> ori...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> >> Invoking the tiresome "it's religion" hysteria doesn't make it religion,
> > Acting like it's a religion makes it a religion.
>
> Yes, those inconvenient laws of physics - things like the conservation
> of energy and momentum, conservation of mass, energy mass equivalence,
> and the disproportionate scale of nuclear and optical energies.
>
> I know these things opened up my eyes and made me see the light.
>
> It's much better for you to remain in the darkness.
>
It's usually the superstitious religious nut cases who don't understand
scientific principals who accuse what they fail to grasp as being "religion".
Just as a cigarette lighter would have been a divine miracle to these clods 300
years-ago, today they probably call 'intelligent design' and credible
alternative to the Theory of Evolution. Most of them originate in the USA, a
place famous for raving right wing religious ignoramuses.
This just in from "The Church":
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change
Australia Apocalypse NOW
Peter Muehlbauer is Choosing You to be a victim of Mass Murder.
Like Cho Seung-Hui, Peter Muehlbauer is a sociopath utterly without
pity for his randomly chosen victims -- it's just a violent video game
for him, where he tries for the "most points" using weather of mass
destruction. 20,000 dead in France from Heat Wave, 3,000 wacked in New
Orleans, just points to keep score.
The longer you stay unaware that your death is his goal, the more his
words can infect you like poison to delay your self-defense plan.
Global Warming briefings were being given to tobacco company
executives two decades ago, while they were in the midst of carrying
out serial murders of 400,000 Americans per year with delay tactics of
hired science-falsifiers. They loaned part of their propaganda
apparatus to the OILY INC liars to delay actions on Global Warming, as
the court records show as early as 1988.
It wasn't until 1998 that the evidence came to light in courts of law,
but nine years later the same people are still doing the same frauds.
Since 1988 to 1998, 4 million Americans were killed by frauds that
said that the science on tobacco was unsettled. These are willful
deliberate premeditated murders, using people like Peter Muehlbauer to
spread their message.
Since 1998 another 3.6 million have been murdered by falsified science
"debate" keeping the settled science from being taken seriously by
thew victims of opportunity whom have been knowingly addicted by
corporate serial murderers, and their henchmen like Peter Muehlbauer.
Peter Principle
> In article <462a910e$1$9909$4c36...@roadrunner.com>,
> "Peter Principle" <petes...@CUTITOUTgmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Harold Burton wrote:
>>> In article <462a8987$1$16725$4c36...@roadrunner.com>,
>>> "Peter Principle" <petes...@CUTITOUTgmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> The discussion, you stupid asshole, is a bit broader than the last
>>>> fucking paragraph. Jaybus...
>>>>
>>>> It's really very simple, moron, just like you.
>>>
>>>
>>> gotta love it, your rants are as amusing as Alec Baldwin's. djw
>>> clearly struck a nerve.
>>
>> Gotta love it. Like all of your kook.farts, this one is entirely sans
>> content.
>
> Yup. Just like you lefards.
>
>
> <snicker>
I have no idea what your stupid goober ass erroneously thinks a "lefards" to
be, but if it's content you want, you stupid asshole, I've got plenty for
your stupid ass...
You swine. You vulgar little maggot. You worthless bag of filth. As we
say in Texas, you couldn't pour water out of a boot with instructions
printed on the heel. You are a canker, an open wound. I would rather
kiss a lawyer than be seen with you. You took your last vacation in
the Islets of Langerhans.
You're a putrescent mass, a walking vomit. You are a spineless little
worm deserving nothing but the profoundest contempt. You are a jerk, a
cad, and a weasel. I take that back; you are a festering pustule on a
weasel's rump. Your life is a monument to stupidity. You are a stench,
a revulsion, a big suck on a sour lemon.
I will never get over the embarrassment of belonging to the same
species as you. You are a monster, an ogre, a malformity. I barf at
the very thought of you. You have all the appeal of a paper cut.
Lepers avoid you. You are vile, worthless, less than nothing. You are
a weed, a fungus, the dregs of this earth. You are a technicolor yawn.
And did I mention that you smell?
You are a squeaking rat, a mistake of nature and a heavy-metal bagpipe
player. You were not born. You were hatched into an unwilling world
that rejects the likes of you. You didn't crawl out of a normal egg,
either, but rather a mutant maggot egg rejected by an evil scientist
as being below his low standards. Your alleged parents abandoned you
at birth and then died of shame in recognition of what they had done
to an unsuspecting world. They were a bit late.
Try to edit your responses of unnecessary material before attempting
to impress us with your insight. The evidence that you are a
nincompoop will still be available to readers, but they will be able
to access it ever so much more rapidly. If cluelessness were crude
oil, your scalp would be crawling with caribou.
You are a thick-headed trog. I have seen skeet with more sense than
you have. You are a few bricks short of a full load, a few cards short
of a full deck, a few bytes short of a full core dump, and a few
chromosomes short of a full human. Worse than that, you top-post. God
created houseflies, cockroaches, maggots, mosquitos, fleas, ticks,
slugs, leeches, and intestinal parasites, then he lowered his
standards and made you. I take it back; God didn't make you. You are
Satan's spawn. You are Evil beyond comprehension, half-living in the
slough of despair. You are the entropy which will claim us all. You
are a green-nostriled, crossed eyed, hairy-livered inbred
trout-defiler. You make Ebola look good.
You are weary, stale, flat and unprofitable. You are grimy, squalid,
nasty and profane. You are foul and disgusting. You're a fool, an
ignoramus. Monkeys look down on you. Even sheep won't have sex with
you. You are unreservedly pathetic, starved for attention, and lost in
a land that reality forgot. You are not ANSI compliant and your markup
doesn't validate. You have a couple of address lines shorted together.
You should be promoted to Engineering Manager.
Do you really expect your delusional and incoherent ramblings to be
read? Everyone plonked you long ago. Do you fantasize that your
tantrums and conniption fits could possibly be worth the $0.000000001
worth of electricity used to send them? Your life is one big
W.O.M.B.A.T. and your future doesn't look promising either. We need to
trace your bloodline and terminate all siblings and cousins in order
to cleanse humanity of your polluted genes. The good news is that no
normal human would ever mate with you, so we won't have to go into the
sewers in search of your git.
You are a waste of flesh. You have no rhythm. You are ridiculous and
obnoxious. You are the moral equivalent of a leech. You are a living
emptiness, a meaningless void. You are sour and senile. You are a
loathsome disease, a drooling inbred cross-eyed toesucker. You make
Quakers shout and strike Pentecostals silent. You have a version 1.0
mind in a version 6.12 world. Your mother had to tie a pork chop
around your neck just to get your dog to play with you. You think
that HTTP://WWW.GUYMACON.COM/FUN/INSULT/INDEX.HTM is the name of a
rock band. You believe that P.D.Q. Bach is the greatest composer who
ever lived. You prefer L. Ron Hubbard to Larry Niven and Jerry
Pournelle. Hee-Haw is too deep for you. You would watch test patterns
all day if the other inmates would let you.
On a good day you're a half-wit. You remind me of drool. You are
deficient in all that lends character. You have the personality of
wallpaper. You are dank and filthy. You are asinine and benighted.
Spammers look down on you. Phone sex operators hang up on you.
Telemarketers refuse to be seen in public with you. You are the source
of all unpleasantness. You spread misery and sorrow wherever you go.
May you choke on your own foolish opinions. You are a Pusillanimous
galactophage and you wear your sister's training bra. Don't bother
opening the door when you leave - you should be able to slime your
way out underneath. I hope that when you get home your mother runs
out from under the porch and bites you.
You smarmy lagerlout git. You bloody woofter sod. Bugger off, pillock.
You grotty wanking oik artless base-court apple-john. You clouted
boggish foot-licking half-twit. You dankish clack-dish plonker. You
gormless crook-pated tosser. You bloody churlish boil-brained clotpole
ponce. You craven dewberry pisshead cockup pratting naff. You cockered
bum-bailey poofter. You gob-kissing gleeking flap-mouthed coxcomb. You
dread-bolted fobbing beef-witted clapper-clawed flirt-gill. May your
spouse be blessed with many bastards.
You are so clueless that if you dressed in a clue skin, doused yourself
in clue musk, and did the clue dance in the middle of a field of horny
clues at the height of clue mating season, you still would not have a
clue. If you were a movie you would be a double feature;
_Battlefield_Earth_ and _Moron_Movies_II_. You would be out of focus.
You are a fiend and a sniveling coward, and you have bad breath. You
are the unholy spawn of a bandy-legged hobo and a syphilitic camel.
You wear strangely mismatched clothing with oddly placed stains. You
are degenerate, noxious and depraved. I feel debased just knowing that
you exist. I despise everything about you, and I wish you would go
away. You are jetsam who dreams of becoming flotsam. You won't make
it. I beg for sweet death to come and remove me from a world which
became unbearable when you crawled out of a harpy's lair.
It is hard to believe how incredibly stupid you are. Stupid as a stone
that the other stones make fun of. So stupid that you have traveled
far beyond stupid as we know it and into a new dimension of stupid.
Meta-stupid. Stupid cubed. Trans-stupid stupid. Stupid collapsed to
a singularity where even the stupons have collapsed into stuponium.
Stupid so dense that no intelligence can escape. Singularity stupid.
Blazing hot summer day on Mercury stupid. You emit more stupid in one
minute than our entire galaxy emits in a year. Quasar stupid. It cannot
be possible that anything in our universe can really be this stupid.
This is a primordial fragment from the original big stupid bang. A pure
extract of stupid with absolute stupid purity. Stupid beyond the laws
of nature. I must apologize. I can't go on. This is my epiphany of
stupid. After this experience, you may not hear from me for a while.
I don't think that I can summon the strength left to mock your moronic
opinions and malformed comments about boring trivia or your other
drivel. Duh.
The only thing worse than your logic is your manners. I have snipped
away most of your of what you wrote, because, well ... it didn't
really say anything. Your attempt at constructing a creative flame was
pitiful. I mean, really, stringing together a bunch of insults among a
load of babbling was hardly effective... Maybe later in life, after
you have learned to read, write, spell, and count, you will have more
success. True, these are rudimentary skills that many of us "normal"
people take for granted that everyone has an easy time of mastering.
But we sometimes forget that there are "challenged" persons in this
world who find these things to be difficult. If I had known that this
was true in your case then I would have never have exposed myself to
what you wrote. It just wouldn't have been "right." Sort of like
parking in a handicap space. I wish you the best of luck in the
emotional, and social struggles that seem to be placing such a
demand on you.
P.S.: You are hypocritical, greedy, violent, malevolent, vengeful,
cowardly, deadly, mendacious, meretricious, loathsome, despicable,
belligerent, opportunistic, barratrous, contemptible, criminal,
fascistic, bigoted, racist, sexist, avaricious, tasteless, idiotic,
brain-damaged, imbecilic, insane, arrogant, deceitful, demented, lame,
self-righteous, byzantine, conspiratorial, satanic, fraudulent,
libelous, bilious, splenetic, spastic, ignorant, clueless, EDLINoid,
illegitimate, harmful, destructive, dumb, evasive, double-talking,
devious, revisionist, narrow, manipulative, paternalistic,
fundamentalist, dogmatic, idolatrous, unethical, cultic, diseased,
suppressive, controlling, restrictive, malignant, deceptive, dim,
crazy, weird, dyspeptic, stifling, uncaring, plantigrade, grim,
unsympathetic, jargon-spouting, censorious, secretive, aggressive,
mind-numbing, arassive, poisonous, flagrant, self-destructive,
abusive, socially-retarded, puerile, and Generally Not Good.
I hope this helps...
David Pierce
> You swine. You vulgar little maggot. You worthless bag of filth. As we
> say in Texas, you couldn't pour water out of a boot with instructions
> printed on the heel. You are a canker, an open wound. I would rather
> kiss a lawyer than be seen with you. You took your last vacation in
> the Islets of Langerhans.
>
> You're a putrescent mass, a walking vomit. You are a spineless little
> worm deserving nothing but the profoundest contempt. You are a jerk, a
> cad, and a weasel. I take that back; you are a festering pustule on a
> weasel's rump. Your life is a monument to stupidity. You are a stench,
> a revulsion, a big suck on a sour lemon.
>
York before they toned it down!
"You're a bum
You're a punk
You're an old slut on junk
Lying there almost dead on a drip in that bed
You scumbag, you maggot
You cheap lousy faggot
Happy Christmas your arse
I pray God it's our last"
Harold Burton
"Peter Principle" <petes...@CUTITOUTgmail.com> wrote:
> Harold Burton wrote:
> > In article <462a910e$1$9909$4c36...@roadrunner.com>,
> > "Peter Principle" <petes...@CUTITOUTgmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Harold Burton wrote:
> >>> In article <462a8987$1$16725$4c36...@roadrunner.com>,
> >>> "Peter Principle" <petes...@CUTITOUTgmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> The discussion, you stupid asshole, is a bit broader than the last
> >>>> fucking paragraph. Jaybus...
> >>>>
> >>>> It's really very simple, moron, just like you.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> gotta love it, your rants are as amusing as Alec Baldwin's. djw
> >>> clearly struck a nerve.
> >>
> >> Gotta love it. Like all of your kook.farts, this one is entirely sans
> >> content.
> >
> > Yup. Just like you lefards.
> >
> >
> > <snicker>
>
> I have no idea what your stupid goober ass erroneously thinks a "lefards" to
> be...
Look in a mirror.
djw
Vendicar Decarian
<ori...@earthlink.net> wrote
> "The debate is over ", "The overwhelming majority", etc: This isn't
> science; this is religion.
While you seem to have great faith in your own ignorance, the scientific
community deals with measurements, theory, and numerical analysis.
This is an issue of the hard science of global warming, being attacked by
anti-science religionists.
It is quite illustrative that the strongest opposition to the science of
global warming comes from Christian Fundamentalists and a Christian
Fundamentalist president who has engaged in a non-stop stream of lies,
deceit, and denial since he entered office.
Meanwhile, what do the scientists say...
djw
<petes...@CUTITOUTgmail.com> wrote:
>P.S.: You are hypocritical, greedy, violent, malevolent, vengeful,
>cowardly, deadly, mendacious, meretricious, loathsome, despicable,
>belligerent, opportunistic, barratrous, contemptible, criminal,
>fascistic, bigoted, racist, sexist, avaricious, tasteless, idiotic,
>brain-damaged, imbecilic, insane, arrogant, deceitful, demented, lame,
>self-righteous, byzantine, conspiratorial, satanic, fraudulent,
>libelous, bilious, splenetic, spastic, ignorant, clueless, EDLINoid,
>illegitimate, harmful, destructive, dumb, evasive, double-talking,
>devious, revisionist, narrow, manipulative, paternalistic,
>fundamentalist, dogmatic, idolatrous, unethical, cultic, diseased,
>suppressive, controlling, restrictive, malignant, deceptive, dim,
>crazy, weird, dyspeptic, stifling, uncaring, plantigrade, grim,
>unsympathetic, jargon-spouting, censorious, secretive, aggressive,
>mind-numbing, arassive, poisonous, flagrant, self-destructive,
>abusive, socially-retarded, puerile, and Generally Not Good.
>
>I hope this helps...
Echoes of Cho??
People like this are why I don't use my real name here.
Vendicar Decarian
<ori...@earthlink.net> wrote
> Acting like it's a religion makes it a religion.
Then global warming denialism certainly is a religion since it is based on
fath and ignorance rather than measurement and science.
Vendicar Decarian
"Joe Fischer" <J...@BigScreenComputers.com> wrote
> I am not a stocking.
But you are a knit whit. A panty hoser so to speak.
Vendicar Decarian
"Peter Principle" <petes...@CUTITOUTgmail.com> wrote
> ABSTRACT:
> ...the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile
> on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test
> performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the
> 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd.
And so it is with KKKonservatism in AmeriKKKa.
Vendicar Decarian
"Cal" <cal...@gmail.com> wrote
> Clinton had sex with a woman and Gore ran against alcoholic cocaine
> abusing
> AWOL chicken hawk Führer Bush in an election.
>
> That's all the proof these drooling retards need that global warming is a
> big
> hoax, a conspiracy to steal their pick up trucks.
Exactly.
What do you intend to do about it?
Vendicar Decarian
"djw" <wells....@insightbb.com> wrote
> Bullshit. You merely wish it to be completely settled. A significant
> number of respected scientists in the field aren't nearly as sure as
> you are that global warming is human induced. And some aren't certain
> that if there's warming it's anything more than a temporary trend
> possibly due to solar activity.
Science 3 December 2004:
Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1686
DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618
Vendicar Decarian
"Peter Principle" <petes...@CUTITOUTgmail.com> wrote
> FYI, you incredible stupid asshole, like the MAJORITY of those who can see
> the facts for themselves, I have NEVER seen Gore's film, read Gore's book,
> nor, you stupid asshole seen his PowerPoint presentation. IOW, you stupid
> asshole, Gore has exactly NOTHING to do with the science, at least to
> those of us in the triple digit club.
You owe it to yourself to see Gore's move - An Inconvenient Truth. Not only
is it an excellent and engaging film, it is being described in the
scientific community as a "paragon of scientific communication with the
public".
David Pierce
Gore's movie was more of a presentation.
"Woodstock" was a movie about something that happened and never took liberties
(unless you think that Jimi Hendrix's footage in front of the remaining 15,000
fans on the Monday was in front of 400,000), but documentaries have rarely been
so without a slanted, or at least a dramatized approach.
This is a good look at what they're about in the modern era:
http://www.rrj.ca/issue/1999/spring/277/
"Fact and fiction have been jostling for position ever since John Grierson-the
pioneer of the British and North American documentary form and one of the
founders of the National Film Board of Canada-was credited with coining the
term "documentary film". He first used it in a 1926 essay to describe Robert
Flaherty's, Moana, a 1926 film about the daily life of Samoan islanders.
Flaherty was one of the first filmmakers to push the boundary between reality
and dramatization. In his first film, the 1922 Nanook of the North, Flaherty
had Nanook, an Inuit, perform certain daily tasks over and over again while
being filmed. Although the tasks Flaherty shot were all ones Nanook really did
daily, Flaherty scripted the scenes so the filmmaker could capture enough
footage to recreate the events as if they were unfolding. In this sense,
Flaherty's film technique of capturing reality-which Grierson described as the
creative treatment of reality-was the first of its kind. Before Flaherty,
events had long been filmed in a simple straightforward manner in newsreels-
ever since the Lumi?re brothers of France invented the cin?matographie in March
1895. The newsreel provided a graphic, eyewitness account that print couldn't
match. It showed actual events in plain terms without bias or a point of view.
Although the genre has become extinct, newsreels were popular in the late 1920s
and 1930s and provided a foundation for other nonfiction forms, such as
broadcast news reports and editorial documentaries."
The Pretzel
say, the maggot you slam will not comprehend it and will probably snip
it and call you a name... Maybe he'll say something stupid like "look in
the mirror" or something as you ask him what a "Lefard" is. His mistake
but he'll blame you for it. They take NO responsibility...
After all, <Laughing> he's a Rightard.
Big Glob
>Most of you hadn't even heard of global warming before 2-years ago, and by
>then, the lion's share of the scientific debate had been over for 3 years.
And now it is 10 degrees warmer?
Shove the debate, give us warmer weather.
>Your gibbering can't change that.
Leftists are setting themselves up for a big let down.
Big Glob
>ori...@earthlink.net wrote:
>>> Invoking the tiresome "it's religion" hysteria doesn't make it religion,
>
>> Acting like it's a religion makes it a religion.
>
>Yes, those inconvenient laws of physics - things like the conservation
>of energy and momentum, conservation of mass, energy mass equivalence,
>and the disproportionate scale of nuclear and optical energies.
>
>I know these things opened up my eyes and made me see the light.
Nah, Al's Tennessee drawl hypnotized you.
David Pierce
debate over tobacco being a carcinogen when ludicrous nut cases like Steve
Milloy of www.junkscience.com, said it was all a scam.
Your hack opinions and conspiracy theories about global warming being a big
socialist idea to make work for scientists and create a one-world government,
don't cut it when it comes to the real world.