MESO-Rx

Anabolic Steroids

Climate Change

[Also, the world is only 10,000 years old.]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xnxD_NSUQw]Perry: Scientists manipulated climate data - Bedford 8/17/11 - YouTube[/ame]
 
The cat is out of the bag. The proof is out there. Nobody except diehards are masturbating to Al Gore's speeches anymore.

It's over. It was a long run, but it's over and the writing is on the wall. Once the EPA is out of the picture it's bye bye idiots.

Speaking of idiots. I love the new light bulbs - those bulbs filled with mercury. Thankfully, a number of states are telling the government to FO and will not be banning them.

Any self-respecting scientist who sees the data manipulation and in your face code comments about cooking the data would be honest and admit the hoax is a hoax. But then there are those holdouts whose credentials as objective thinkers is seriously called into question.
 
Perry and Romney split on global warming
Perry and Romney split on global warming - The Washington Post

A sharp divide has emerged between two leading Republican presidential candidates on the issue of climate change. While apparent front-runner Mitt Romney believes the world is getting warmer and that humans are contributing to that pattern, Texas Gov. Rick Perry on Wednesday called that “a scientific theory that has not been proven.”
Click to expand...
 
gmerits said:
Which proves Romney is a follower and not a leader. RINO watch on full alert.

Coming from a guy who initiated the very unsuccessful and failed Romneycare I'm not surprised: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2009/07/12/wsj-romneycares-failures-ma-not-widely-known-i-wonder-why
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. What's on the front page of my local paper this morning?

"PERRY DOESN'T BELIEVE IN GLOBAL WARMING"

Every comment in the article is calling him crazy for not believing in it.

All that climategate stuff you cite G? About 1% of the public was/is aware any of it even happened. It flew over everyone's head (whether you are right or not) and the majority of folks still accept global warming as conventional wisdom. To make it worse, Bachmann and Palin have made ALL republicans seem batshit crazy to the majority of the public.
 
CubbieBlue said:
Doesn't matter. What's on the front page of my local paper this morning?

"PERRY DOESN'T BELIEVE IN GLOBAL WARMING"

Every comment in the article is calling him crazy for not believing in it.

All that climategate stuff you cite G? About 1% of the public was/is aware any of it even happened. It flew over everyone's head (whether you are right or not) and the majority of folks still accept global warming as conventional wisdom. To make it worse, Bachmann and Palin have made ALL republicans seem batshit crazy to the majority of the public.
Click to expand...

[:o)][:o)][:o)][:o)][:o)][:o)][:o)]

69% Say It’s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research - Rasmussen Reports

Oops.

Poll: Global warming fears cooling – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

In the last link, read it carefully and think of one word: trend. I think you'll get the picture then. The PR war is being lost and when combined with the first story you will get an idea why - when all both the Senate and House (and Executive) were controlled by Democrats there was no cap-and-trade legislation.

Simple really, you just have to think a bit.

So 69% agree with Perry about falsification. Where did they get the information about falsification? Did the 1%, as you claim, magically turn into 69%? Wow, that's amazing. It must be through mind melding or something. Your statement about 1% does not fit the data and looks foolish.

And I'm shocked - shocked I say! that comments would call Perry crazy in a single piece. I am equally shocked and stunned that you would rely on such data as proof the American people believe the scientists are being honest about the subject.

Data is data. Inconvenient truths I know, but the truth sometimes sucks. Oh well, maybe another day.
 
Last edited:
gmerits said:
[:o)][:o)][:o)][:o)][:o)][:o)][:o)]

69% Say It’s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research - Rasmussen Reports

Oops.

Poll: Global warming fears cooling – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

In the last link, read it carefully and think of one word: trend. I think you'll get the picture then. The PR war is being lost and when combined with the first story you will get an idea why - when all both the Senate and House (and Executive) were controlled by Democrats there was no cap-and-trade legislation.

Simple really, you just have to think a bit.

So 69% agree with Perry about falsification. Where did they get the information about falsification? Did the 1%, as you claim, magically turn into 69%? Wow, that's amazing. It must be through mind melding or something. Your statement about 1% does not fit the data and looks foolish.

And I'm shocked - shocked I say! that comments would call Perry crazy in a single piece. I am equally shocked and stunned that you would rely on such data as proof the American people believe the scientists are being honest about the subject.

Data is data. Inconvenient truths I know, but the truth sometimes sucks. Oh well, maybe another day.
Click to expand...

In a Gallup Poll released Monday, 51 percent of respondents said they "worry a great deal or fair amount" about global warming, down from 66 percent in 2008.
Click to expand...

he latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of American Adults shows that 69% say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data in order to support their own theories and beliefs
Click to expand...

I would vote the same exact way with those questions posed that way.

1% was obviously hyperbole, btw.

A Rasmussen Reports poll taken July 29-30 showed that 57 percent of respondents believe there is significant disagreement within the scientific community on global warming, up five points from late 2009. Only one in four believes scientists agree on global warming. The other 18 percent aren’t sure. Rasmussen polls are known for their conservative slant.

“The notion that there’s a significant debate about this fundamental view of climate science is just wrong,” Houston Chronicle science reporter Eric Berger wrote last week in reference to the Rasmussen poll. “If you disbelieve me, you should get out and speak with a lot of climate scientists. I have.”

Berger writes that “there are indeed some scientists who don’t buy into the climate models, but there are very few active, publishing scientists who do not believe elevated levels in greenhouse gases from human activities are primarily responsible for rising temperatures during the last century.”
 
CubbieBlue said:
I would vote the same exact way with those questions posed that way.

1% was obviously hyperbole, btw.

A Rasmussen Reports poll taken July 29-30 showed that 57 percent of respondents believe there is significant disagreement within the scientific community on global warming, up five points from late 2009. Only one in four believes scientists agree on global warming. The other 18 percent aren’t sure. Rasmussen polls are known for their conservative slant.

“The notion that there’s a significant debate about this fundamental view of climate science is just wrong,” Houston Chronicle science reporter Eric Berger wrote last week in reference to the Rasmussen poll. “If you disbelieve me, you should get out and speak with a lot of climate scientists. I have.”

Berger writes that “there are indeed some scientists who don’t buy into the climate models, but there are very few active, publishing scientists who do not believe elevated levels in greenhouse gases from human activities are primarily responsible for rising temperatures during the last century.”
Click to expand...

Follow the trend. And the Houston Chronicle is a left-wing echo chamber. I used to live in that hell hole of a city. Bill White screwed that city from every single angle and the Houston Chronicle was his mouthpiece. From my second link:

In a Gallup Poll released Monday, 51 percent of respondents said they "worry a great deal or fair amount" about global warming, down from 66 percent in 2008.
Click to expand...

See the drop? It's continuing.

And why did Al Gore explode with his BS rant? He's frustrated as hell, that's why. Why are there numerous articles now stating that climate change scientists are being ignored and ridiculed and that it must stop if the debate is so settled?

The PR war is lost for your side. The pendulum has swung the other way.

Read the emails themselves. Take some time and see just how viscous and coordinated the hoax was. The public knows this.

And the amount of people who believe that data is faked is now above 60%. That is meme destruction territory my friend.

The gig is up. Again, the proof is in the lack of legislation even when the liberals controlled both the legislative and executive branch. NO Cap-and-Trade! They knew the backlash would be enormous, they can read tea leaves better than some idiot from the Houston Chronicle.

If the debate was settled, we would have legislation, right here, right now - today. We don't. What we have is a President using the EPA in an extra-constitutional way to attempt to push the cap-and-trade agenda.

Oh, those facts sure do suck.
 
Why Climate Change Has Become the “Dead Parrot Sketch” of American Politics | Power Line

Interesting point in this article. The more science one knows - the more literate one is scientifically - the more apt they are to not buy the hype:

The conventional explanation for controversy over climate change emphasizes impediments to public understanding: limited popular knowledge of science, the inability of ordinary citizens to assess technical information, and the resulting widespread use of unreliable cognitive heuristics to assess risk. A large survey of U.S. adults (N = 1540) found little support for this account. On the whole, the most scientifically literate and numerate subjects were slightly less likely, not more, to see climate change as a serious threat than the least scientifically literate and numerate ones.
Click to expand...

Whoa there: The more science you know about climate change, the less likely you are to think it is a crisis? This suggest that all the money environmentalists have spent (I think the Environmental Defense Fund has spent $300 million alone on climate change) has had a negative effect on public opinion, and it offers the ironic possibility that the best thing Al Gore could do to advance his cause is shut up and grow his beard back in a Tibetan monastery.

This is by no means the first social science survey to reach an inconvenient finding like this. The journal Risk Analysis published a similar article in 2008. From the abstract:

By examining the results of a survey on an original and representative sample of Americans, we find that these three forces—informedness, confidence in scientists, and personal efficacy—are related in interesting and unexpected ways, and exert significant influence on risk assessments of global warming and climate change. In particular, more informed respondents both feel less personally responsible for global warming, and also show less concern for global warming. We also find that confidence in scientists has unexpected effects: respondents with high confidence in scientists feel less responsible for global warming, and also show less concern for global warming.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

So if this is true and we are above 60% now, even more of the so-called scientific illiterate are not buying it. Now that is a huge PR failure given the amount of money spent by liberals, grants, Hollywood, documentarians, and the like. It would not be inaccurate to call it a colossal PR failure. However, to be fair, it was the outing of the hoax itself - the emails - that sealed the deal. The scientifically literate were not buying it, and the nons were. However, how do you convince a non that something is BS? Expose it as a hoax. Even someone not scientifically literate understand a hoax. And the very powerful meme "hide the decline" really took hold and the last nail was hammered into the coffin of what was nothing more than a wealth redistribution scheme so beloved by liberals.

What even the liberal base is beginning to figure out (this piece is a blistering full frontal assault by a liberal - http://hillbuzz.org/2011/08/18/what-is-the-difference-between-slaves-on-plantations-and-blacks-who-blindly-vote-for-democrats/ - is the the wealth does not come back to them but lines the coffers of the liberal mega-groups that support so-called progressives. When the average Joe's electricity bill rises because of faux science, the backlash itself would kill cap-and-trade and the EPA within one election cycle should it ever have come to pass. Which data is now showing is about a likely as a snowballs chance in hell. Or a polar bears chance on a floating glacier. Oh wait, that was debunked to and the photographer stripped of his research credentials. Forgot about that one.

Another trend to keep in mind.
 
Since gmeritless didn't ask me to back up my claim that 97% of climatologists feel that anthropogenic climate change is a given, I'll provide it for the benefit of the rest of us. Basically gmeritless' arguments are, well, meritless.

From the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America: Expert credibility in climate change

Abstract: "Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers."
 
Last edited:
Well color me surprised. Climatologists, who are paid with grant money, agree that there is globull warming (not a spelling error). And a whopping 97%! When you see numbers that big, there is something called skepticism that should kick in with someone with normal or above average intelligence.

Climate science is not a hard science, like physics. You will find numbers such as 97% of those who understand general relativity believe it - especially because it can and has been tested and shown to be accurate out to multiple decimal places. But climate science?

A big Al Gore BS: 'Climate Change Scientists' Numbers Dropping Dramatically - Minnesotans For Global Warming

And if you read Ian Plimers book, in the first chapter he describes the specialties of some of these newly minted climate change scientists and you will laugh your ass off at some of the them - like a specialist in fossilized fecal matter. Just what is a climate change scientists and who credentials them? Hmmm....

Nice try though, but as a famous scientist said about whenever he ran into a bunch of crap from some half-wit - your not even wrong.
 
Not to rain more on your parade but: Huntsman: I believe in climate change because 90% of scientists do ? Hot Air

http://amerpundit.com/2011/05/17/jon-huntsman-of-course-i-believe-in-global-warming/

First, he provides absolutely no evidence to back up his 90% claim, and I can quickly (http://amerpundit.com/2007/11/07/weather-channel-founder-global-warming-is-a-scam/) and easily (http://amerpundit.com/2007/08/30/less-than-half-of-published-scientists-endorse-man-made-global-warming/) provide evidence to the contrary. In fact, ClimateGate came about because scientists couldn’t back up their claims so they needed to twist data to “hide the decline”. Huntsman doesn’t address ClimateGate or what it demonstrated, either.

In fact, just last week we learned that a prominent man-made global warming alarmist has become a skeptic. David Evans, who holds six university degrees and has advised governments on global warming, was once an alarmist. Now:

The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro-thin half-truths and misunderstandings. I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic.
Click to expand...

In the article announcing his conversion, Evans — a scientist himself — goes about destroying the twisted climate models and claims of the alarmists. One excellent aspect:

This is the core idea of every official climate model: For each bit of warming due to carbon dioxide, they claim it ends up causing three bits of warming due to the extra moist air. The climate models amplify the carbon dioxide warming by a factor of three — so two-thirds of their projected warming is due to extra moist air (and other factors); only one-third is due to extra carbon dioxide.

That’s the core of the issue. All the disagreements and misunderstandings spring from this. The alarmist case is based on this guess about moisture in the atmosphere, and there is simply no evidence for the amplification that is at the core of their alarmism.
Click to expand...

Let’s face it: Most global warming climate scientists are no longer scientists primarily. They’re fearmongers who need to keep people scared in order to keep the grant money flowing.

Tell people that everything is going to be okay and governments will stop sending you tons of money. Tell people that everything is going to be okay and the gravy train will come to a halt. Keep the fear going — pump it up even — and governments will spend whatever it takes to stop something you created in the first place.
Click to expand...

Follow the links for quickly and easily.

Is that the big buzzer of massive failure that I hear GirlyMan? Why, yes it is.

This is too fucking easy. I mean read people, research, THINK! The first question you should have asked and researched was "what is a climate scientist?". Then move on from there. After Climategate and the links above, as well as NASA and NOAA it just falls nicely into place. I'm rolling my eyes at the sheer level of ignorance and inability to think. What, were most of you educated in a liberal brainwashing institute and never learned to think for yourselves? I mean, COME ON! It's like the Monty Python script "Has anybody seen my brain"? But it's not funny. It's actually kind of sad. At least the American people are waking up in very large numbers and the tide has turned. Thank God for that.

Next.
 
Last edited:
For those who won't buy the book, a portion is available here (this is Ian Plimer's book): [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Heaven-Earth-Warming-Missing-Science/dp/1589794729#reader_1589794729"]Amazon.com: Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science (9781589794726): Ian Plimer: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41fVTRjpnNL.@@AMEPARAM@@41fVTRjpnNL[/ame]

Try as they might, the smear campaign has not affected Plimer in the least, because he uses actual facts in a scientific manner. Facts and graphs from the IPCC that can be checked and referenced. His book is seminal in turning the tide and why climate science that pushes the AWG agenda is on the downtrend. He even goes into the history of the birth the AWG alarmists, starting with environmental groups against nuclear weapons, to global cooling alarmists, and finally to global warming. He shows recent periods of warming int the past 1000 years that can't be explained by human emissions of CO2, and then he hits on a topic dear to my heart:

Numerical solutions of differential equations. You see, there are closed forms of mathematical equations and differential equations (those that can be calculated with the result being another mathematical equation) and equations that cannot lead to an equation but rather just a number based upon very complex algorithms that use a guess at a solution, try it, and then iterate and compare to the previous result. This continues until you have reached a level of error predefined by you. This is used in my field of Electromagnetic Signal Integrity and there is no shortage of issues with this approach in my field or any other field which uses this approach. You must choose to decide what you can and cannot ignore or the problem becomes too big. Current climate scientists - so-called - tend to ignore the biggest contributor to the Earth's ecosystem - the Sun, sunspots, and their affect on the Earth's magnetic field and subsequent affect on cosmic ray and other electromagnetic field energy that reaches the upper levels of the atmosphere.

If we did not have an iron core, and we were not spinning (a spinning iron core creates a magnetic field), then we would be cooked alive. Occam's razor is screaming out here - hey idiots, this is THE most simple way of understanding global warming and cooling trends that occurred throughout our past BEFORE the industrial revolution burped into existence.

The Medieval Warming (900-1300 AD) - a wonderful time for life, crain crops, cattle, sheep, farms and villages were established on Greenland which was 6 degrees Celsius warmer than today. Excess wealth allowed for the building of cathedrals, monasteries, and universities. Human caused global warming? I think not. Correlation with sun activity and numerous other examples are provided in the book. Examples which the current established AWG scientists cannot and will not explain. The fact they won't explain it is possible because they believe the public is disconnected and won't catch the obvious. This is true and also explains why my post above showed that scientifically literate people are LESS likely to buy into the BS than the scientifically illiterate. Some hackers figured this out and knew that to unravel the mythology one had to provide to the public something they could understand - the exposure of a hoax. Good thinking on their part or the AWG cabal would still be winning and Al Gore would not be running around with the vein sticking out in his forehead crying out "BS!" as if this is some new and interesting word he stumbled across. Not much scientific refutation in repeating that word, but hey, it's Al Gore - inventor of the internet - and all around genius.

The book is filled with facts from established climate science - not faux "hide the decline" crap. Read it and you will begin to understand why AWG is BS, the real agenda of the alarmists, the amount of money spent on propagating that rumor and funneling it into a cap-and-trade system that would not reduce emissions.

Why? Take a look at what the failed proposed legislation said: America could buy carbon credits from countries who were not releasing predetermined amounts of CO2. This is where a little research will give one an aha moment and where many of you have failed to pick up on the scheme. After redistributing this wealth - the companies in America who are paying (the cost of which is passed on to you and me) can then produce at their current amounts.

If you did a double take there, you're catching on. Same level of CO2 emission, money funneled to the UN for distribution to other countries. Money out of your pocket for no change to the level of CO2 emissions. But if AWG was so important, why would anyone cook up this scheme? And why would they think they could sell it to you? Because THEY THINK YOU ARE STUPID. Mad yet? If your not, you're are certainly not paying attention. As Ian Plimer says, AWG is your religion. Just as you can't reason with a person when challenging their religion, nobody can reason with you.

You get it now?
 
Last edited:
gmerits said:
Well color me surprised. Climatologists, who are paid with grant money, agree that there is globull warming (not a spelling error). And a whopping 97%!
Click to expand...

Goddam gmeritless, you really are a teatard. So instead of getting our scientific information from those most qualified to know we should instead rely on clueless teatards. Where do you get your TRT from? Your Aunt Martha?
Embedded Image Unvailable
 
That is the second time you have called me Teatard. Did GirlyMan learn a new word today? How cute!

And where are those rebuttals? Oh yeah, they don't exist. Which means GirlyMan's estrogen must be a bit high and he is venting his anger at being the loser in this debate. I provide mounds of data and you serve up a spoonful of stupid. Man up GirlyMan.

And gmeritless - how original. Kind of like the post where you called me asswipe a number of times. Very original.

Keep typing GirlyMan - one day you may actually convey something intelligent. Keep hope alive.
 
Last edited:
GirlyMan said:
Yeah, I like it, I like it a lot. I like it so much I'm gonna keep using it.:)
Click to expand...

Can somone make a yawning smile? GirlyMan is as challenging to debate as a flea and about as original. In a battle of the wits he enters combat unarmed. A demitasse would fit his head like a sombrero. If he tried hard enough he is going to let his brains go to his head.

He's like one of those "idiot savants," except without the "savant" part. In a world where we sprang from apes, he obviously did not spring far enough.

:rolleyes:

I guess rolling ones eyes will suffice for now.

And it looks like I won the globull warming debate! Do I get a prize?
 
Growth of Cities Endangers Global Environment, According to New Analysis
Growth of cities endangers global environment, according to new analysis

ScienceDaily (Aug. 19, 2011) — The explosive growth of cities worldwide over the next two decades poses significant risks to people and the global environment, according to a meta-analysis published August 19 in PLoS ONE.
Click to expand...


Seto KC, Fragkias M, Guneralp B, Reilly MK. A Meta-Analysis of Global Urban Land Expansion. PLoS ONE 2011;6(8):e23777. PLoS ONE: A Meta-Analysis of Global Urban Land Expansion

The conversion of Earth's land surface to urban uses is one of the most irreversible human impacts on the global biosphere. It drives the loss of farmland, affects local climate, fragments habitats, and threatens biodiversity. Here we present a meta-analysis of 326 studies that have used remotely sensed images to map urban land conversion. We report a worldwide observed increase in urban land area of 58,000 km2 from 1970 to 2000. India, China, and Africa have experienced the highest rates of urban land expansion, and the largest change in total urban extent has occurred in North America. Across all regions and for all three decades, urban land expansion rates are higher than or equal to urban population growth rates, suggesting that urban growth is becoming more expansive than compact. Annual growth in GDP per capita drives approximately half of the observed urban land expansion in China but only moderately affects urban expansion in India and Africa, where urban land expansion is driven more by urban population growth. In high income countries, rates of urban land expansion are slower and increasingly related to GDP growth. However, in North America, population growth contributes more to urban expansion than it does in Europe. Much of the observed variation in urban expansion was not captured by either population, GDP, or other variables in the model. This suggests that contemporary urban expansion is related to a variety of factors difficult to observe comprehensively at the global level, including international capital flows, the informal economy, land use policy, and generalized transport costs. Using the results from the global model, we develop forecasts for new urban land cover using SRES Scenarios. Our results show that by 2030, global urban land cover will increase between 430,000 km2 and 12,568,000 km2, with an estimate of 1,527,000 km2 more likely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

bigrobbie
objective research paper on those of us who handle our own TRT
Replies
11
Views
5K
Rand
R
Human_backhoe
Black Americans, the GI bill, inequality/poverty and crime.
3 4 5
Replies
98
Views
5K
Big_paul
Big_paul
master.on
China vows to Trump pressure, bans fentanyl
Replies
0
Views
625
master.on
master.on
flenser
War Powers Act
Replies
8
Views
637
flenser
flenser
tenpoundsleft
Obama - the failed president
8 9 10
Replies
181
Views
17K
Jspd
J

Sponsors

Latest posts

Back
Top