'Global Warming' Losing Support

[PoliticalChic]

"Hollywood producer James Cameron has the Midas touch when it comes to the silver screen, but his grasp on his favorite subject, the environment, is less confident than it once was. A debate between Mr. Cameron and climate realists set to take place last weekend at the American Renewable Energy Day conference in Aspen, Colo., was canceled after Mr. Cameron pulled out at the last minute.

[Cameron] was itching to take on the opposition for months. In March, he spouted off against those who dared question whether mankind's actions have heated the globe, saying "I want to call those deniers out into the street at high noon and shoot it out with those boneheads."

...settled on Andrew Breitbart, founder of the popular BigGovernment and BigHollywood websites, to captain the "Climate Change denier" team that included documentary filmmaker Ann McElhinney and Marc Morano, editor of the Climate Depot website. Mr. Cameron was to be supported by a pair of scientists who share his faith that the planet faces cataclysm unless other people limit their consumption of the earth's resources.

...informed Mr. Cameron had withdrawn from the great event.

There's good reason for global warmists to be afraid. To take just one example,we've heard Hollywood big shots and United Nations bureaucrats peddling the tale for years that man has angered Mother Earth with development and she has struck back with "extreme" hurricanes, floods and other disasters. Unfortunately for the hysterics, the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society earlier this month debunked this nonsensical plotline. "The studies show no trends in losses, corrected for changes (increases) in population and capital at risk, that could be attributed to anthropogenic climate change," the peer-reviewed journal article concluded."
EDITORIAL: Cold feet on global warming - Washington Times

Rumor: noted warmists Chris and Old Rocks were offered the gig, but declined...

 

[konradv]

LOL!!! Talk about a biased piece. The discussion didn't even happen and the author already decided who the "climate realists" are. Putting the cart before the horse, aren't you?

 

[Wry Catcher]

LOL!!! Talk about a biased piece. The discussion didn't even happen and the author already decided who the "climate realists" are. Putting the cart before the horse, aren't you?

She trolls with tainted bait.

 

[PoliticalChic]

LOL!!! Talk about a biased piece. The discussion didn't even happen and the author already decided who the "climate realists" are. Putting the cart before the horse, aren't you?

She trolls with tainted bait.

Thanks for biting.

 

[PoliticalChic]

LOL!!! Talk about a biased piece. The discussion didn't even happen and the author already decided who the "climate realists" are. Putting the cart before the horse, aren't you?

You seem unable to understand the editorial...here, let me help:

it spotlights the retreat of a champion of 'global scamming,' even though he issued the challenge for the debate.

It also suggests the reason for his ignominious withdrawl, and, possibly why there is far less trumpeting of the nonsense by the lefties...

There, does that help?

At the risk of causing you sensory overload, you might want add this, from Ann Coulter, in formulating your weltanschauung...

"Liberals have been wrong about everything!
a. They were wrong about Stalin, “Uncle Joe” to FDR.
b. They were wrong about Reagan and the Cold War
c. They were wrong about the Soviet Union.
d. They were wrong about their precious “Abraham Lincoln Brigade,” in the Spanish Civil War, which the Soviet archives proves was a “rigidly controlled Soviet operation.”
e. They were wrong about Nicaragua, as Communist dictatorships in Latin America turned out not to be ‘inevitable revolutions’ after all.
f. They were wrong about welfare.
g. They were wrong about crime, as Giuliani’s success proved.
h. They were wrong about Social Security, which I now heading toward bankruptcy.
i. They were wrong about ditching our ally, the Shah of Iran, allowing him to be replaced by crazy ayatollahs.
j. And today, the Left’s single biggest cause is ‘global warming.’"

 

[RDD_1210]

Another unemployed stay at home mom with nothing better to do. This site seems to be a magnet for them.

 

[konradv]

LOL!!! Talk about a biased piece. The discussion didn't even happen and the author already decided who the "climate realists" are. Putting the cart before the horse, aren't you?

You seem unable to understand the editorial...here, let me help:

it spotlights the retreat of a champion of 'global scamming,' even though he issued the challenge for the debate.

It also suggests the reason for his ignominious withdrawl, and, possibly why there is far less trumpeting of the nonsense by the lefties...

There, does that help?

At the risk of causing you sensory overload, you might want add this, from Ann Coulter, in formulating your weltanschauung...

"Liberals have been wrong about everything!
a. They were wrong about Stalin, “Uncle Joe” to FDR.
b. They were wrong about Reagan and the Cold War
c. They were wrong about the Soviet Union.
d. They were wrong about their precious “Abraham Lincoln Brigade,” in the Spanish Civil War, which the Soviet archives proves was a “rigidly controlled Soviet operation.”
e. They were wrong about Nicaragua, as Communist dictatorships in Latin America turned out not to be ‘inevitable revolutions’ after all.
f. They were wrong about welfare.
g. They were wrong about crime, as Giuliani’s success proved.
h. They were wrong about Social Security, which I now heading toward bankruptcy.
i. They were wrong about ditching our ally, the Shah of Iran, allowing him to be replaced by crazy ayatollahs.
j. And today, the Left’s single biggest cause is ‘global warming.’"

All you've proved is MY thesis on the controversy. Those that believe AGW is real, do it on a scientific basis. The deniers are doing it on a political basis with scientific window dressing. Thanks for playing.

 

[PoliticalChic]

LOL!!! Talk about a biased piece. The discussion didn't even happen and the author already decided who the "climate realists" are. Putting the cart before the horse, aren't you?

You seem unable to understand the editorial...here, let me help:

it spotlights the retreat of a champion of 'global scamming,' even though he issued the challenge for the debate.

It also suggests the reason for his ignominious withdrawl, and, possibly why there is far less trumpeting of the nonsense by the lefties...

There, does that help?

At the risk of causing you sensory overload, you might want add this, from Ann Coulter, in formulating your weltanschauung...

"Liberals have been wrong about everything!
a. They were wrong about Stalin, “Uncle Joe” to FDR.
b. They were wrong about Reagan and the Cold War
c. They were wrong about the Soviet Union.
d. They were wrong about their precious “Abraham Lincoln Brigade,” in the Spanish Civil War, which the Soviet archives proves was a “rigidly controlled Soviet operation.”
e. They were wrong about Nicaragua, as Communist dictatorships in Latin America turned out not to be ‘inevitable revolutions’ after all.
f. They were wrong about welfare.
g. They were wrong about crime, as Giuliani’s success proved.
h. They were wrong about Social Security, which I now heading toward bankruptcy.
i. They were wrong about ditching our ally, the Shah of Iran, allowing him to be replaced by crazy ayatollahs.
j. And today, the Left’s single biggest cause is ‘global warming.’"

All you've proved is MY thesis on the controversy. Those that believe AGW is real, do it on a scientific basis. The deniers are doing it on a political basis with scientific window dressing. Thanks for playing.

Wow!

Another 'teachable moment!"

You reached the fork in the road, but took the wrong fork...
AGW is a totally political theory.

You know who said that? Professor Mike Hulme, who is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA), [http://mikehulme.org/]

Check out the Prof:
"I have prepared climate scenarios and reports for the UK Government (including the UKCIP98 and UKCIP02 scenarios), the European Commission, UNEP, UNDP, WWF-International and the IPCC. I was co-ordinating Lead Author for the chapter on 'Climate scenario development' for the Third Assessment Report of the UN IPCC, as well as a contributing author for several other chapters. Earlier in my career I worked on the evaluation of climate models, the development of global and national observational climate data sets, and climate change and desertification in Africa. I have published over 120 peer-reviewed journal papers and over 35 book chapters on climate change topics, together with over 250 reports and popular articles."
Professor Mike Hulme - University of East Anglia (UEA)

Does the name of the institution ring a bell?
"In November 2009, computer servers at the Climatic Research Unit (a research institute within the University) were hacked, and the stolen information made public."
University of East Anglia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Prof was good enough to reveal the truth in the Guardian, 2007: “…this particular mode of scientific activity… has been labeled "post-normal" science. Climate change seems to fall in this category. Disputes in post-normal science focus as often on the process of science - who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear of policy - as on the facts of science…. Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking,… scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity…. Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.” The appliance of science | Society | The Guardian.


Did you get that? You've been hornswoggled!
I've seen how slow you are on the up-take, so let me translate for you:
1. Post-normal science means non-science.

2. He says that climate change science should be considered politically, not scientifically!

3. "Trade truth..." That means dispense with truth!

4. "Social limits..." that means that 'global warming is a 'social' not scientific, concept.

5. Oop! Sorry- didn't mean to laugh at you....


Now, just between us, if you really wish to understand the view and the times in which we live, you need to study philosophy and history...compare the Age of Enlightenment, and its opposite, Post-Modernism.

In academia, truth has fallen in priority to ideology, also known as the ‘greater truth’ of pre-formed conclusions. A case in point is climate change. Normal science discovers facts, and then constructs a theory from those facts. ‘Post-modern science’ starts with a theory that is politically sensitive, and then makes up facts to influence opinion in its favor.

Hey, don't believe me: do your own study.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Another unemployed stay at home mom with nothing better to do. This site seems to be a magnet for them.

Interesting analysis...thoughtful and intuitive...but you left out the operative term: 'intelligence.'


But I understand why you left it out.
You must be so very sensitive about your lacking same.

 

[RDD_1210]

Another unemployed stay at home mom with nothing better to do. This site seems to be a magnet for them.

Interesting analysis...thoughtful and intuitive...but you left out the operative term: 'intelligence.'


But I understand why you left it out.
You must be so very sensitive about your lacking same.

Actually, I'm pretty sure my analysis was spot on. Not my fault if I hit the nail on the head and it stings just a bit.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Another unemployed stay at home mom with nothing better to do. This site seems to be a magnet for them.

Interesting analysis...thoughtful and intuitive...but you left out the operative term: 'intelligence.'


But I understand why you left it out.
You must be so very sensitive about your lacking same.

Actually, I'm pretty sure my analysis was spot on. Not my fault if I hit the nail on the head and it stings just a bit.

What is telling is how you chose to assault the poster rather than attempt to rebut, disprove, or poke holes in my analysis.

As these are the aspects that pertain to the term 'intelligence,' you have inadvertently announced that "my analysis was spot on".

Proves exactly what I stated in the previous post, the one that drew you out of the ooze.


Let's see some better work.

 

[RDD_1210]

Interesting analysis...thoughtful and intuitive...but you left out the operative term: 'intelligence.'


But I understand why you left it out.
You must be so very sensitive about your lacking same.

Actually, I'm pretty sure my analysis was spot on. Not my fault if I hit the nail on the head and it stings just a bit.

What is telling is how you chose to assault the poster rather than attempt to rebut, disprove, or poke holes in my analysis.

As these are the aspects that pertain to the term 'intelligence,' you have inadvertently announced that "my analysis was spot on".

Proves exactly what I stated in the previous post, the one that drew you out of the ooze.


Let's see some better work.

Yeah, I've tried the discussion route with you before. You are a stubborn mess to try and have a conversation with. So, I used my "intelligence" this time and skipped that route all together and pointed out the obvious instead. In the end though it's the same result....You still think your shit doesn't stink and you're still unemployed.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Actually, I'm pretty sure my analysis was spot on. Not my fault if I hit the nail on the head and it stings just a bit.

What is telling is how you chose to assault the poster rather than attempt to rebut, disprove, or poke holes in my analysis.

As these are the aspects that pertain to the term 'intelligence,' you have inadvertently announced that "my analysis was spot on".

Proves exactly what I stated in the previous post, the one that drew you out of the ooze.


Let's see some better work.

Yeah, I've tried the discussion route with you before. You are a stubborn mess to try and have a conversation with. So, I used my "intelligence" this time and skipped that route all together and pointed out the obvious instead. In the end though it's the same result....You still think your shit doesn't stink and you're still unemployed.

I'm going to guess that "stubborn mess to try and have a conversation with" means that you lost the debate.

Debate, not conversation. For me, you are in the wrong place if discussion is what you seek. You will find others for that.

If you fear the back and forth, the butting heads, and have a weakness in education and research, then- by all means, continue as you are.

In summary, you're correct...based on your ability, I suggest you stay with personal attacks, rather than reasoned debate.

 

[RDD_1210]

What is telling is how you chose to assault the poster rather than attempt to rebut, disprove, or poke holes in my analysis.

As these are the aspects that pertain to the term 'intelligence,' you have inadvertently announced that "my analysis was spot on".

Proves exactly what I stated in the previous post, the one that drew you out of the ooze.


Let's see some better work.

Yeah, I've tried the discussion route with you before. You are a stubborn mess to try and have a conversation with. So, I used my "intelligence" this time and skipped that route all together and pointed out the obvious instead. In the end though it's the same result....You still think your shit doesn't stink and you're still unemployed.

I'm going to guess that "stubborn mess to try and have a conversation with" means that you lost the debate.

Debate, not conversation. For me, you are in the wrong place if discussion is what you seek. You will find others for that.

If you fear the back and forth, the butting heads, and have a weakness in education and research, then- by all means, continue as you are.

In summary, you're correct...based on your ability, I suggest you stay with personal attacks, rather than reasoned debate.

Well thanks for admitting that you aren't looking to discuss topics and are just looking to "win debates". I'll know that all threads you start are just to bait people in to an argument.

In summary, you're correct

Thanks!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yeah, I've tried the discussion route with you before. You are a stubborn mess to try and have a conversation with. So, I used my "intelligence" this time and skipped that route all together and pointed out the obvious instead. In the end though it's the same result....You still think your shit doesn't stink and you're still unemployed.

I'm going to guess that "stubborn mess to try and have a conversation with" means that you lost the debate.

Debate, not conversation. For me, you are in the wrong place if discussion is what you seek. You will find others for that.

If you fear the back and forth, the butting heads, and have a weakness in education and research, then- by all means, continue as you are.

In summary, you're correct...based on your ability, I suggest you stay with personal attacks, rather than reasoned debate.

Well thanks for admitting that you aren't looking to discuss topics and are just looking to "win debates". I'll know that all threads you start are just to bait people in to an argument.

In summary, you're correct

Thanks!

Welcome.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Here's all the scientific evidence in support of Man Made Global Warming:

1. Because we say so.

 

[Flopper]

Climate change is a very long term phenomena. You can't look at what the weather was last year or even the last decade to validate global climate change. For concrete proof, you would need reliable climate data for hundreds of years. We have good data for only about 130 years. We do have a lot of scientific evidence form many branches of science that the planet is warming, however none of this evidence will ever be as convincing as actual long term recorded climate data. Unfortunately, by the time we have that data, it won't be needed to validate climate change.

I am very pessimistic about our ability to do anything about climate change for several reasons:

1. The impact on life styles and world economics are huge. Most people are not willing to make the sacrifices today to avert some poorly defined world wide disaster that may occur in a hundred or so years from now. No matter how strong the evidence, many will still claim that this is a natural phenomenon and nothing can be done.

2. Any plan to deal with global climate change would require support from most of the nations on earth. This seems very unlikely.

3. We have never been very good at forming lone term plans and sticking to them. Look at the wars we have engaged in, 8 or 10 years and we are ready to call it quits. The time frame of putting a man on the moon in 10 years was based on the belief that American support would dwindle if the program lasted longer. Plans to deal with global climate change would need public support for much longer 10 years.

Faced with the above problems, political leaders have given mostly lip service to the problem. Our best shot at dealing with global climate change is to push programs for energy independence with cleaner forms of energy, not as a solution for climate change but as a solution to a host of other problems in which we would see results in a short time period.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Climate change is a very long term phenomena. You can't look at what the weather was last year or even the last decade to validate global climate change. For concrete proof, you would need reliable climate data for hundreds of years. We have good data for only about 130 years. We do have a lot of scientific evidence form many branches of science that the planet is warming, however none of this evidence will ever be as convincing as actual long term recorded climate data. Unfortunately, by the time we have that data, it won't be needed to validate climate change.

I am very pessimistic about our ability to do anything about climate change for several reasons:

1. The impact on life styles and world economics are huge. Most people are not willing to make the sacrifices today to avert some poorly defined world wide disaster that may occur in a hundred or so years from now. No matter how strong the evidence, many will still claim that this is a natural phenomenon and nothing can be done.

2. Any plan to deal with global climate change would require support from most of the nations on earth. This seems very unlikely.

3. We have never been very good at forming lone term plans and sticking to them. Look at the wars we have engaged in, 8 or 10 years and we are ready to call it quits. The time frame of putting a man on the moon in 10 years was based on the belief that American support would dwindle if the program lasted longer. Plans to deal with global climate change would need public support for much longer 10 years.

Faced with the above problems, political leaders have given mostly lip service to the problem. Our best shot at dealing with global climate change is to push programs for energy independence with cleaner forms of energy, not as a solution for climate change but as a solution to a host of other problems in which we would see results in a short time period.

I thought the Vostok ice cores showed an 800 year lag between the warming and then a subsequent rise in CO2.

Do you feel that modern CO2 is somehow different, more sensitive?

 

[Oddball]

All you've proved is MY thesis on the controversy. Those that believe AGW is real, do it on a scientific basis. The deniers are doing it on a political basis with scientific window dressing. Thanks for playing.

Exqueeze me?...What are the politics of virtually all the people pushing the AGW hoax?

I'll tell you what they are...They're technocratic, central authoritarian, command-and-control social engineer types, most of whom have never had to produce anything anyone ever wanted to willingly buy in their entire lives....IOW, socialists, displaced communists, and ivory tower academe eggheads (most of whom unabashedly display their socialistic proclivities).

Talk about disguising your politics with flimsy scientific window dressing.

 

[westwall]

Another unemployed stay at home mom with nothing better to do. This site seems to be a magnet for them.

Interesting analysis...thoughtful and intuitive...but you left out the operative term: 'intelligence.'


But I understand why you left it out.
You must be so very sensitive about your lacking same.

Actually, I'm pretty sure my analysis was spot on. Not my fault if I hit the nail on the head and it stings just a bit.

Don't take this personally but PC actually had something to say and backed it up with relevant links. You, on the other hand, merely dispensed petty insults. Where exactly did you demonstrate one iota of intellect?