Discussion in 'Environment' started by chanel, Apr 20, 2010.
FOXNews.com - Last in Class: Critics Give U.N. Climate Researchers an 'F'
Faux news, Heartland Institute. What more need be said. Also note, no names for the "experts". I give this post an F-.
Science using press releases, newspaper and magazine clippings, student theses, newsletters, discussion papers, and literature published by green advocacy groups is okay with hacks such as OldCrocks so long as those agree with the AGW religion.
Actual science need not apply in that world.
the same LaFramboise of LaFramboise well drilling systems?
Of course the deniers would say that. They're trying to keep the attention from their own research, which can't get over the hurdle of, if CO2 and other gases keep going up, warming is inevitable. It's a simple application of the Laws of Chemistry and Physics, which the deniers cannot assail, forcing them to take to the political arena. They have lost the scientific fight and can only pick at the margins.
Even a true believer can see that the IPCC's function is primarily political, not scientific...
No Frakking Consensus: A Seasoned Veteran's View of the IPCC
Looks like he gives them an F, too.
WHY did you run from the other thread? WHY are you avoiding it now? YOU were BUSTED lying again isn't that right....
come on coward face your lie and comment on it....
SO what if it is? You expect the world to accept whatever comes out of people with a vested financial interest in AGW at face value. If we are expected to just accept what your side tells us than whats the difference?
And even besides that, attacking the messenger and ignoring the message is what your question is all about. SO what if it comes from someone who works for a well drilling company. Maurice Strong made it rich off of oil, and is the president of Chicago Carbon Exchange, and until recently head of the UN environmental program. But you expect us to take him at his word...
One of the dirty little secrets of the environazi movement: it's never been about saving the planet.
And hacks such as OldCrocks are fully aware of that fact.
I give anyone and/or any group who plays at science by selling it out for a political agenda an F.
How would you know?
OLdsocks, You are a known and proven liar, who has tried to misrepresent the actual science you claim to follow and base your opinions on.... You are the kind of person he is talking about and the fact you had to respond to it when you were not mentioned specifically, gives testament to this.
Anyone who claims science is their reason or basis, and misrepresents or lies about the findings and data of that science, is NOT about science but selling an agenda.... You're a propagandist and nothing more...
Umm seems to me Critics always speak critically of whatever they are critical of.
Really? And every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University in the world, agrees with my propaganda? Damn, I am good!!!!
Global warming controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main articles: Scientific opinion on climate change, Climate change consensus, and Climate change denial
The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that human activities are already contributing adversely to global climate change has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries. With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific society is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.
Environmental groups, many governmental reports, and the media in all countries but the United States often state that there is virtually unanimous agreement in the scientific community in support of human-caused global warming. Opponents either maintain that most scientists consider global warming "unproved," dismiss it altogether, or highlight the dangers of focusing on only one viewpoint in the context of what they say is unsettled science, or point out that science is based on facts and not on opinion polls.
On April 29, 2008, environmental journalist Richard Littlemore revealed that a list of "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares" distributed by the Heartland Institute included at least 45 scientists who neither knew of their inclusion as "coauthors" of the article, nor agreed with its contents. Many of the scientists asked the Heartland Institute to remove their names from the list. The institute refused these requests, stating that the scientists "have no right - legally or ethically - to demand that their names be removed."
And there is the level of honesty practiced by the Heartland Institute, a Rovian institute for lying to protect corperate greed.
I think you like punishing yourself.... I will once again show you are lying.... You asked for it... you said the following...
"Really? And every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University in the world, agrees with my propaganda? "
Yet you lied just recently about what those scientific bodies said and or claimed. You hve done this repeatedly, and without any apology or reason given. You just run away and start again, pretending you didn't just get caught and the whole thing never happened...
My evidence... Your post in another thread...
I enlarged and bolded the important and telling part... You claimed and portrayed the link you supplied made this statement or point of fact...
We are past the equivelant of 450 ppm of CO2.
When we go to the link you supplied we find it did not say that at all... it actually said this....
"So we need to keep atmospheric concentrations of CO2 as low as possible and if we do go above 450 ppm, we need to get back to under 350 ppm as rapidly as possible, preferably by centurys end, though that would be no easy feat."
And so we can plainly see that your propaganda does not represent the findings, claims, and or data of the real scientific bodies you claim by any measure.....
You sir are a liar! categorically, factually, and undeniably a liar and a complete unethical propagandist. You cannot establish yourself using science and or scientific bodies supporting your claims, when in fact you lie, misrepresent, and give false accounts of the findings of said scientific bodies..... This was no error, nor was it a one time occurrence with you. I have caught you several times doing this in the short time I have been here.
And what did you do when confronted on this by me? You ran and tried to pretend it never happened..... my post to you on this still goes with no response from you after 2 days now. ANd here we see you trying to claim you represent science and they agree with your claims.....
You are an unbelievable person to say the least, and not a supporter of science. Just one more propagandist trying to push an agenda....
Lordy, lordy. Gslack, do work on your reading comprehension.
Present CO2 level. 387 ppm.
Present CH4 level, 1800 ppb.
The present level of CH4 represents an increase of over 1 ppm. That is the equivelent of 21 ppm of CO2, and counting the fact that it oxidizes into CO2, then it is the equivelant of 40 to 70 ppm of CO2. Using the lower figure, 387 plus 40 gives you the equivelant of 427 ppm of CO2.
Now, you add in the effect of all the industrial GHGs, and you will get an equivelant of over 450 ppm of CO2.
global warming potential
That was not your claim, and that is not mentioned ANYWHERE in the article like that. AND it took you 2 days to finally address it, and this is the best excuse you can come up with???
Some bullshit song and dance irrelevant math that was not part of your claim and not part of the article you cited as source?
Seriously you are pathetic now.......
Oh, come on, Gslack. Why can't you get with the program? All these folks are trying to do is hide the decline.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAlMomLvu_4]YouTube - Climategate: Hide The Decline - the video[/ame]
Why wouldn't you want to hide the decline? If the decline is due to natural forces, then you HAVE to hide it in order to parse out the contribution of man. To not hide it is like trying to measure out a liquid outside during a rain storm. If you don't "hide" the liquid you're measuring, you're going to be including a lot of rain.
Separate names with a comma.