Three Big Supporters Throw Climate Hoaxers Overboard

[CMike]

Bad link. You accidentally posted a link to something by "Citizens for a Sound Economy". I'm sure you meant to post something to a link containing full source information, or directly to a scientific article itself.

I am sorry, I thought English was your first language. My bad.

From the link.


”[/COLOR]The NAPAP study found that in the entire United
States less than 5 percent of lakes and 10 percent of
streams had high levels of acidity, and that some of
this occurred naturally. While a small number of fish
were affected by acid levels in lakes, only about onethird
of this was caused by any kind of acid rain. The
study found that forests were barely affected. Only
one species of tree affected by acid rain was identified,

That's great. On which page number are they paraphrasing this from? I would like to look in the actual study to see what was actually written, its many many pages long - I need a page number. How convenient its not supplied.




I'm sure you can point me to the actual report and page, since I'm sure you wouldn't be using this pamphlet as the basis for an argument without first checking the sources.

Then google it and find it.

I am not your research bitch.

 

[Jay Canuck]

Scientific opinion on climate change and global warming

SCIENTIFIC SUPPORT FOR HUMAN-CAUSED CLIMATE CHANGE
Environmental groups have warned of the contribution to climate change from human activities for decades. It has taken the scientific community many years to begin making definitive statements about the accuracy of these claims. It should be noted that while the overwhelming majority of scientists now accept that human activities are a major cause of global warming, there is still a small number of scientists who disagree with these conclusions.



evidence supporting global warming & human causes
The fact that carbon dioxide absorbs and emits IR radiation has been known for over a century. Gas bubbles trapped in ice cores give us a detailed record of atmospheric chemistry and temperature back more than four hundred thousand years, with the temperature record confirmed by other geologic evidence. This record tells us that carbon dioxide and temperature rise and fall tightly together. The recent rise in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is greater than any in hundreds of thousands of years and this is human-caused.


The historical temperature record shows a rise of 0.4–0.8 °C over the last 100 years, and the current warmth is unusual in the past 1000 years. Climate change attribution studies using both models and observations find that the warming of the last 50 years is likely caused by human activity. Natural variability (including solar variation) alone cannot explain the recent change. Climate models can reproduce the observed trend only when greenhouse gas forcing is included.


There is a scientific consensus behind all of the above, reflected in official statements by professional associations related to climate science. Humankind is performing a great geophysical experiment and if it turns out badly — however that is defined — we cannot undo it. We cannot even abruptly turn it off. Too many of the things we are doing now have long-term ramifications for centuries into the future.


Climate models predict more warming, and other climate effects such as sea level rise, more frequent and severe storms, drought and heat waves in the future.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

n

 

[CMike]

No the link provided the study.

 

[Jay Canuck]

so a majority of the worlds scientists and NASA are part of a world wide conspiracy? - sure they are! - cuckoo!

 

[SpidermanTuba]

they tried in the 70 with global cooloing ..../QUOTE]

no, they didn't.

Yes they did I remember the scare tactic news stories back in the late 70's.

Do you remember anything that actually was published in any sort of scientific journal?

Are you saying the scientific community should be held to account for the journalistic communities actions in misrepresenting them? Doesn't seem fair, does it?

I also remember hearing Rush talk about this some time back. He found newspaper articals going back many years showing how they pull this scare out every 10-20 years and recycle it over and over.

Newspapers, huh? You have no idea where scientific studies are published, do you? Here's a hint - NOT NEWSPAPERS.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

The funny thing about this is this is not the first time the hoax has been revealed.


The Year the Global Warming Hoax Died - by Alan Caruba - Environment & Climate News

The Year the Global Warming Hoax Died

Environment & Climate News > November 2007
Environment
Environment > Climate: Science
Email a Friend
Written By: Alan Caruba
Published In: Environment & Climate News > November 2007
Publication date: 11/01/2007
Publisher: The Heartland Institute
When did the global warming hoax die? Historians are likely to pinpoint 2007.

It will take another decade to ensure it cannot be revived, but the avalanche of scientific studies and the cumulative impact of scientists who have publicly joined those who debunked the lies on which it has been based will be noted as the tipping point.


Hoax Not Unique

It took some 40 years to unmask the Piltdown Man hoax that began in 1912, alleging the skull of an ancient ancestor of man had been found in England. Any number of British anthropologists unwittingly contributed to the hoax by confirming the authenticity of the skull--until it was found that the jaw of an orangutan had been cunningly attached.

The unmasking of global warming has taken less than half that time.


Kyoto History

The hoax has mainly been a creation of the United Nations Environmental Program. It took off in earnest with the 1992 Earth Summit and culminated in 1997 with the Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement to reduce the generation of carbon dioxide (CO2), a greenhouse gas said to be the cause of an accelerated warming of the Earth.

Wow, how surprising, a conservative economic think tank says global warming is dead. Who would have thought.


Let us know when the scientific community agrees with them.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Then google it and find it.

I am not your research bitch.

Pardon me, I thought you actually checked into the sources you used, instead of blindly accepting them as truth like some dumb sheep. You can't even link me to the report they are referring to - which is their ONLY source in that pamphlet - which means you did absolutely nothing to verify the validity of what was stated in that pamphlet. Why should anyone believe anything you say? The truth is clearly irrelevant to you.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

No the link provided the study.

They provided the name of the group doing the study and the year in which the finished their research. They did not provide the title of the study or the page numbers for their paraphrasings.


Its a 520 page book. You kinda need to cite page numbers if you actually WANT people to check your sources out - which they don't, of course, because they are lying.

 

[Jay Canuck]

Mikes been reading.

 

[SwingVoter]

Let us know when the scientific community agrees with them.

Arctic sea ice is currently 14 million square kilometers, about its median for 1979-2000, areas in the north atlantic near newfoundland seeing less, and areas off the west coast of Alaska running higher than the median.

 

[SwingVoter]

Mikes been reading.

that's a very scientific argument you're making, very persuasive

 

[Sinatra]

Let us know when the scientific community agrees with them.

Arctic sea ice is currently 14 million square kilometers, about its median for 1979-2000, areas in the north atlantic near newfoundland seeing less, and areas off the west coast of Alaska running higher than the median.

___

Don't bother with the silly warmers in here.

They are once again on the wrong side of history - as they always have been...

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Let us know when the scientific community agrees with them.

Arctic sea ice extent averaged for January 2010 was 13.78 million square kilometers (5.32 million square miles). This was 1.08 million square kilometers (417,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average for January, but 180,000 square kilometers (69,000 square miles) above the record low for the month, which occurred in January 2006.

Ice extent remained below normal over much of the Atlantic sector of the Arctic, including the Barents Sea, part of the East Greenland Sea, and in Davis Strait. The only region with above-average ice extent was on the Pacific side of the Bering Sea.

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

 

[Jay Canuck]

Mikes been reading.

that's a very scientific argument you're making, very persuasive

Scientific opinion on climate change and global warming

I am not arguing with the consensus of a majority of the worlds scientists or contending they are part of a massive conspiracy.....now perhaps you can break out the scientific research you have done to prove your point?

 

[SwingVoter]

I am not arguing with the consensus

not surprised, because you're a sheep

scientific consensus up to the 1800s was that tomatoes were poisonous, based on your method of not thinking for yourself, you must be afraid to eat them

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I am not arguing with the consensus

not surprised, because you're a sheep

scientific consensus up to the 1800s was that tomatoes were poisonous, based on your method of not thinking for yourself, you must be afraid to eat them

Why would he ignore 200 years of science to the contrary?

You don't know how science works.

 

[Jay Canuck]

I am not arguing with the consensus

not surprised, because you're a sheep

scientific consensus up to the 1800s was that tomatoes were poisonous, based on your method of not thinking for yourself, you must be afraid to eat them

so you have nothing but your opinion - thanx for playing.

P.S Tomato leaves are poisonous as they are part of the Nightshade family.... way to stick to subject fuckstick.

 

[Richard-H]

Going for a record of how many logical fallacies you can jam into one post?

O.K. - Let's hear point by point what the 'logical infallacies' are. Otherwise STFU!

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Oil giants BP PLC and ConocoPhillips and heavy-equipment maker Caterpillar Inc.

Their opinion on the issue never mattered to science to begin with, who cares?