Enviro kooks admit they're losing

[westwall]

How refreshing to hear the enviro nuts whining for support.

washingtonpost.com

 

[Oddball]

It ain't over until the ashes of the EPA, IPCC, and Sierra Club are safely in their urns.

That said, it is amusing to hear of them crying in their beer.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Does this mean more scare tactics? Maybe another Movie like "The day after"?

 

[Si modo]

They didn't have to admit, really. When they resort to cheating at the expense of scientific integrity, it's pretty obvious. They are the enemies of science.

 

[PoliticalChic]

How refreshing to hear the enviro nuts whining for support.

washingtonpost.com

Once again, Ms. Coulter proves prescient:

" Democrat ideas seem to have the most support before anyone has had time to think about them:
a. Gun control laws have become less popular the more people thought about them
b. Federal income tax has not gained in popularity since 1913
c. Abortion has not become more acceptable since 1970
d. The belief in global warming has declined steadily since its zenith, which was back before anyone knew what it was.
e. The more people learn about Democrat ideas, the more they hate them. This is a corollary to the rule that people are always conservative in their own areas of expertise."

 

[Mr. H.]

Whatya know the public is becoming better educated.

 

[Old Rocks]

Really? The evidence presented by the prior posters that they are not part of the public then.

 

[Old Rocks]

They didn't have to admit, really. When they resort to cheating at the expense of scientific integrity, it's pretty obvious. They are the enemies of science.

Quite frankly, it is the deniars that have been cheating and lying. For they are professionals at it, like Lindzen for the tobacco companies.

So what Si is stating is there are no scientists with any integrity, since all the Scientific Societies in the world, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities have policy statemenst stating that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

Now Si, if you have a few Scientific Societies that state otherwise, trot them and there statement right on out.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ann Coultier holds degrees in what scientific field? And why should I care what the silly bitch states, in any case?

 

[uscitizen]

Ohh my that will be bad news for the mansion and resort owners on the florida coast.

 

[elvis]

Ann Coultier holds degrees in what scientific field? And why should I care what the silly bitch states, in any case?

Which scientific field do you work in? And why should we care what you state, in any case?

 

[Old Rocks]

I work in no scientific field, and no one should care what I say. However, I do post articles from real scientists, many from peer reviewed journals. While people like yourself post blogs from an undegreed TV weatherman that has never done a bit of scientific research.

Scientific Consensus on Global Warming | Union of Concerned Scientists

Scientific Consensus on Global Warming
In the past few years, scientific societies and scientists have released statements and studies showing the growing consensus on climate change science. A common objection to taking action to reduce our heat-trapping emissions has been uncertainty within the scientific community on whether or not global warming is happening and whether it is caused by humans. However, there is now an overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is indeed happening and humans are contributing to it. Below are links to documents and statements attesting to this consensus.

 

[elvis]

I work in no scientific field, and no one should care what I say. However, I do post articles from real scientists, many from peer reviewed journals. While people like yourself post blogs from an undegreed TV weatherman that has never done a bit of scientific research.

Scientific Consensus on Global Warming | Union of Concerned Scientists

Scientific Consensus on Global Warming
In the past few years, scientific societies and scientists have released statements and studies showing the growing consensus on climate change science. A common objection to taking action to reduce our heat-trapping emissions has been uncertainty within the scientific community on whether or not global warming is happening and whether it is caused by humans. However, there is now an overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is indeed happening and humans are contributing to it. Below are links to documents and statements attesting to this consensus.

I've never posted a single blog on this entire site. But nice try, dipshit.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The "Deniers" are the "Liars"

LOL That's a stand up routine right there!

Mann and his tree rings? Phil Jones and his imaginary Chinese data sets, Warmers STILL won't comply with FOIA requests and to this day, they cannot point to a single repeatable laboratory experiment that shows a temperature increase as a direct result of a 200PPM increase in CO2

Goebbels would be proud of the AGW Big Lie

 

[westwall]

I work in no scientific field, and no one should care what I say. However, I do post articles from real scientists, many from peer reviewed journals. While people like yourself post blogs from an undegreed TV weatherman that has never done a bit of scientific research.

Scientific Consensus on Global Warming | Union of Concerned Scientists

Scientific Consensus on Global Warming
In the past few years, scientific societies and scientists have released statements and studies showing the growing consensus on climate change science. A common objection to taking action to reduce our heat-trapping emissions has been uncertainty within the scientific community on whether or not global warming is happening and whether it is caused by humans. However, there is now an overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is indeed happening and humans are contributing to it. Below are links to documents and statements attesting to this consensus.

You mean from peer reviewed journals that have been actively preventing contrary views? You mean by scientists who present articles that are laughable in their lack of scientific rigour that were published due to their "policy importance"? You mean scientists that have manufactured data to support their failed theories?

Those fools?

 

[Si modo]

They didn't have to admit, really. When they resort to cheating at the expense of scientific integrity, it's pretty obvious. They are the enemies of science.

Quite frankly, it is the deniars that have been cheating and lying. For they are professionals at it, like Lindzen for the tobacco companies.

So what Si is stating is there are no scientists with any integrity, since all the Scientific Societies in the world, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities have policy statemenst stating that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

Now Si, if you have a few Scientific Societies that state otherwise, trot them and there statement right on out.

What are the "deniars [sic]" denying? What do your two brain cells think I am denying?

How one could conclude that I am saying there are no scientists with integrity is beyond me, but I did refer to two brain cells.

C'mon, you just KNOW you want to say consensus again.

Gotta love your logic, Rocks.

 

[Si modo]

I work in no scientific field, ....

I'm shocked, I tell ya. Just shocked.

Scientific Consensus ....

... Union of Concerned Scientists

 

[IanC]

They didn't have to admit, really. When they resort to cheating at the expense of scientific integrity, it's pretty obvious. They are the enemies of science.

Quite frankly, it is the deniars that have been cheating and lying. For they are professionals at it, like Lindzen for the tobacco companies.

So what Si is stating is there are no scientists with any integrity, since all the Scientific Societies in the world, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities have policy statemenst stating that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

Now Si, if you have a few Scientific Societies that state otherwise, trot them and there statement right on out.

Interesting premise, that a policy statement from a science society makes it true. I haven't read any of those policy statements but I will take your word for it.

First off, I don't think any sane person can deny that
1. we are in a warming trend
2. that humans burn fossil fuels which add CO2 into the atmosphere
3. increased CO2 has some warming effect on global climate
Therefore AGW is proven. Q.E.D. Slam Dunk.

Of course the real question is how much of the warming due to natural warming and how much can be attributed to AGW but that is irrelevent to correct and provable statement, "AGW is Real!".
"Clear and present danger" is a value statement, an opinion. Hard to prove on way or the other.
So it is easy for Science Societies to make those policy statements because part of it is true, some of it is opinion, and best of all it is Politically Correct!

I can just about hear some of you out there saying what does PC have to do with it? It shouldn't but it does. Everyone likes to be on the 'good' side, usually even more than they want to be on the 'right' side, especially in public.

Want an example of a science society that strays into PC?
http://www.aaanet.org/issues/policy-advocacy/AAA-Statement-on-Race.cfm
I wonder how many forensic anthropologists think that race is just a social construct? haha

 

[Old Rocks]

Interesting that you should interject the race issue into this discussion. Because I carry the genes of people from two differant continents in my inheritance, and my children carry it from three differant continents. So what 'race' are we? In fact, what 'race' will be 'dominant' in the US and world, as the 'mixed race' people become the norm?

Clear and present danger. As in the loss of 38% of Russia's wheat crop. As in the loss of almost all of Pakistan's crops. As in the precipitation events from Tennessee to China. As in the unprecedented cold snap in South America. A changing climate from global warming does not mean that every place will be warmer. It means change in atmospheric circulation, with the resultant surprises for all of us. And an overall warming. As in Texas. Sixth coldest winter on record, yet for that area, it will rank as one of the warmest on record because of the very hot summer.

It is good that you at least recognize that AGW is a fact. I would suggest you look at the lectures from the AGU conferance in San Fransisco in 2009 for some real information how much affect that the warming is having. Real scientists discussing real science, not posiers that we have here on the board.

 

[Old Rocks]

I work in no scientific field, ....

I'm shocked, I tell ya. Just shocked.

Scientific Consensus ....

... Union of Concerned Scientists

Funny, eh. I work in no scientific field, yet in this debate concerning science, I present evidence and data from scientific sources. And you, who claim to be a scientist, present nothing except derision.

Come on, Si, show your scientific training, present real science that state that CO2 does not warm the atmosphere. Can you do that? Perhaps you can present something that shows that the physicists reading of the absorption bands of CO2 and CH4 are incorrect? Or maybe something that states that the climate is not warming, and that the Arctic permafrost is not melting and emitting CH4 and CO2? How about the emissions from the Arctic Ocean clatherates? Care to present some evidence that this is not currently happening?

All we have heard from you is yap-yap concerning logic, and no evidence concerning the subject. Which leads me to believe that you and Westwall are cut of the same cloth.