Where's Global Warming

[SpidermanTuba]

Our own senate: .: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.

The Inhofe list has been thoroughly debunked. You should keep yourself update with the latest lies your right wing blogger masters hand you, the ones that have yet to be debunked.

This infamous list of 650 started as a list of 400. Its a mostly bullshit list

First, a bit of background: In January, Inhofe posted his initial list of more than 400 "prominent scientists" who, he claimed, disputed that man-made greenhouse gases were responsible for rising global temperatures. Trouble is, when people started sifting through the names, they found that many experts on the list were actually weathermen, economists, and people with no real background in climate science. Worse still, when Andrew Dessler started contacting some of the actual climate scientists listed, many of them expressed first shock, then horror, and then e-mailed Inhofe's staff and demanded to be taken off, since they didn't disagree with the scientific consensus on climate change at all.

Inhofe's 650 "Dissenters" (Make That 649... 648...) - Environment and Energy



But I guess real scientific truth is in bullshit lists that right wing politicians fabricate out of thin air - and not in any actual scientific publications.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Canadian with a PHD.. Well ... at least he's intelligent:
Global Warming, climate change facts, articles

He also hasn't published any papers in 11 years and is retired.

See ... lame denial. So then, someone revered who retires is now worthless? You really are vile.

No, real life problem. You want to prove a scientific point, yet you can't seem to do it without digging up some old retiree from a nursing home. He's been out of the business for 11 years and what little he does is unpublished and funded by undisclosed sources. You need to find someone who is actually current in his field if you want to help yourself.

He's also only got FOUR climate related publications to begin with.


Do any of the scientists you claim to support your side actually go to work, or do they just sit around blogging all day?

 

[KittenKoder]

Our own senate: .: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.

The Inhofe list has been thoroughly debunked. You should keep yourself update with the latest lies your right wing blogger masters hand you, the ones that have yet to be debunked.

This infamous list of 650 started as a list of 400. Its a mostly bullshit list

First, a bit of background: In January, Inhofe posted his initial list of more than 400 "prominent scientists" who, he claimed, disputed that man-made greenhouse gases were responsible for rising global temperatures. Trouble is, when people started sifting through the names, they found that many experts on the list were actually weathermen, economists, and people with no real background in climate science. Worse still, when Andrew Dessler started contacting some of the actual climate scientists listed, many of them expressed first shock, then horror, and then e-mailed Inhofe's staff and demanded to be taken off, since they didn't disagree with the scientific consensus on climate change at all.

Inhofe's 650 "Dissenters" (Make That 649... 648...) - Environment and Energy



But I guess real scientific truth is in bullshit lists that right wing politicians fabricate out of thin air - and not in any actual scientific publications.

Your evidence isn't valid by your own criteria, it's a blog and politically biased. So nope, the "650" still stands. Where's the real proof?

 

[KittenKoder]

I give you government supported info and you use a blog ... but you said blogs are not science, so next try liar.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Our own senate: .: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.

The Inhofe list has been thoroughly debunked. You should keep yourself update with the latest lies your right wing blogger masters hand you, the ones that have yet to be debunked.

This infamous list of 650 started as a list of 400. Its a mostly bullshit list

First, a bit of background: In January, Inhofe posted his initial list of more than 400 "prominent scientists" who, he claimed, disputed that man-made greenhouse gases were responsible for rising global temperatures. Trouble is, when people started sifting through the names, they found that many experts on the list were actually weathermen, economists, and people with no real background in climate science. Worse still, when Andrew Dessler started contacting some of the actual climate scientists listed, many of them expressed first shock, then horror, and then e-mailed Inhofe's staff and demanded to be taken off, since they didn't disagree with the scientific consensus on climate change at all.

Inhofe's 650 "Dissenters" (Make That 649... 648...) - Environment and Energy



But I guess real scientific truth is in bullshit lists that right wing politicians fabricate out of thin air - and not in any actual scientific publications.

Your evidence isn't valid by your own criteria, it's a blog and politically biased. So nope, the "650" still stands. Where's the real proof?

So whatever you claim to be truth is automatically true unless someone else shows it wrong? Sorry, that's now how it works. Your list of 650 will stand once you go through each one of them for me and show me it isn't bullshit.

 

[KittenKoder]

The Inhofe list has been thoroughly debunked. You should keep yourself update with the latest lies your right wing blogger masters hand you, the ones that have yet to be debunked.

This infamous list of 650 started as a list of 400. Its a mostly bullshit list





Inhofe's 650 "Dissenters" (Make That 649... 648...) - Environment and Energy



But I guess real scientific truth is in bullshit lists that right wing politicians fabricate out of thin air - and not in any actual scientific publications.

Your evidence isn't valid by your own criteria, it's a blog and politically biased. So nope, the "650" still stands. Where's the real proof?

So whatever you claim to be truth is automatically true unless someone else shows it wrong? Sorry, that's now how it works. Your list of 650 will stand once you go through each one of them for me and show me it isn't bullshit.

It is you who used this logic, not me, don't shoot the messenger. I posted facts that our government supports, you use a blog to deny it. You said blogs are not fact so ... put up or shut up. However, with this last statement you did prove that you are the one who will only listen, read, or acknowledge any facts that contradict yours. I've read all your facts at least before determining they were junk, but you won't even do that. That is true dishonesty.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I give you government supported info and you use a blog ... but you said blogs are not science, so next try liar.

So let me get this straight - if I give you evidence in favor of AGW from a government report - you will believe it? Or only if its a government report written by politicians and not by scientists?



Anyway - lets look at you and Inhofe's little list of 650 scientists.


Hans H.J. Labohm, PhD, economist, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael
Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), The Netherlands

The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist; Chairman of the Central Europe Trust;
former Chancellor of the Exchequer, U.K.

Alister McFarquhar, PhD, international economist, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.

Ross McKitrick, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph,
Canada

Owen McShane, B. Arch., Master of City and Regional Planning (UC Berkeley),
economist and policy analyst, joint founder of the International Climate Science Coalition, Director - Centre for Resource Management Studies, New Zealand

Alan Moran, PhD, Energy Economist, Director of the IPA's Deregulation Unit, Australia

Don Aitkin, PhD, Professor, social scientist, retired Vice-Chancellor and President,
University of Canberra, Australia






Here's an idea - about you and Ihofe take your little list of 650, get rid of all all the folks who aren't actually qualified as experts in ANY physical science (you are aware that economics isn't a physical science I hope you aren't that retarded) - and then get back to me. Until then stop wasting my time. its a pain in the ass to have to go through every little list of "scientists" who oppose AGW only to find out its mostly economists, retirees, medical doctors, TV weathermen, COMEDIANS AND FUCKING MAGICIANS FOR CRYING OUT LOUD

 

[SpidermanTuba]

It is you who used this logic, not me, don't shoot the messenger. I posted facts that our government supports.

No you didn't. Its a MINORITY REPORT. Do you know what that means?

They are also not really RELEVANT facts. Sorry, its not really relevant that ECONOMISTS oppose AGW. That's not even news.

 

[KittenKoder]

Economists do not oppose Global Warming, that's one of your lies. The people who do oppose it are tax payers and those no longer under pressure from special interest groups and biased funders. Not all who do support it are actually willing participants, which is the most messed up part about US funded research. It's the exact same reason why many doctors will often support specific medicines, or why polls always show the person giving them as being better. You fail to see this, for some strange reason you think that all your scientists are really that interested in "saving the planet". Why is it that whenever your scientists retire and no longer have any reason to say one or the other, they almost always take the stance that it's a hoax? Answer that question honestly ... to yourself because most thinking Americans know the answer already.

 

[Diuretic]

I give you government supported info and you use a blog ... but you said blogs are not science, so next try liar.

So let me get this straight - if I give you evidence in favor of AGW from a government report - you will believe it? Or only if its a government report written by politicians and not by scientists?



Anyway - lets look at you and Inhofe's little list of 650 scientists.


Hans H.J. Labohm, PhD, economist, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael
Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), The Netherlands

The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist; Chairman of the Central Europe Trust;
former Chancellor of the Exchequer, U.K.

Alister McFarquhar, PhD, international economist, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.

Ross McKitrick, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph,
Canada

Owen McShane, B. Arch., Master of City and Regional Planning (UC Berkeley),
economist and policy analyst, joint founder of the International Climate Science Coalition, Director - Centre for Resource Management Studies, New Zealand

Alan Moran, PhD, Energy Economist, Director of the IPA's Deregulation Unit, Australia

Don Aitkin, PhD, Professor, social scientist, retired Vice-Chancellor and President,
University of Canberra, Australia






Here's an idea - about you and Ihofe take your little list of 650, get rid of all all the folks who aren't actually qualified as experts in ANY physical science (you are aware that economics isn't a physical science I hope you aren't that retarded) - and then get back to me. Until then stop wasting my time. its a pain in the ass to have to go through every little list of "scientists" who oppose AGW only to find out its mostly economists, retirees, medical doctors, TV weathermen, COMEDIANS AND FUCKING MAGICIANS FOR CRYING OUT LOUD

Don Aitkin got a pasting here over this, did himself no good. Just another one out of his discipline.

 

[Meister]

Drill our own oil. Sure that's find, except we don't have any. We only have 3% of the world's oil reserves.

Clean energy will be the most important industry of the 21st century. Why no be the leaders in it? Why keep giving money to the Arabs?

Chris we do have reserves...but the politicians won't let us drill, nor let us build more refineries. Clean energy is 100 years away at a minimum. It will bankrupt us to do what you want to be done as quickly as you want it. It's not going to work. Stay in the reality.

That is such horseshit.

The Germans build houses so well insulated that they don't need furnaces.

The Danes get 20% of their energy from wind.

The Israelis are building one solar power plant that will supply 5% of their energy needs.

It can be done, and it will be done.

Don't miss the school bus Chris. You need your education.
Your left wingnuts won't let most of your clean energy through the courts. That is all I need to say. except...the key words are "your left wingnuts" So I guess your full of bullshit

 

[KittenKoder]

Wait ... I missed that, Chris thinks the German houses don't need furnaces? LOL ... maybe if they're buried under a mountain, then they'll need AC and they already have air filtration.

 

[Chris]

Chris we do have reserves...but the politicians won't let us drill, nor let us build more refineries. Clean energy is 100 years away at a minimum. It will bankrupt us to do what you want to be done as quickly as you want it. It's not going to work. Stay in the reality.

That is such horseshit.

The Germans build houses so well insulated that they don't need furnaces.

The Danes get 20% of their energy from wind.

The Israelis are building one solar power plant that will supply 5% of their energy needs.

It can be done, and it will be done.

Don't miss the school bus Chris. You need your education.
Your left wingnuts won't let most of your clean energy through the courts. That is all I need to say. except...the key words are "your left wingnuts" So I guess your full of bullshit

You couldn't disprove anything that I posted so you use silly insults.

Too bad you aren't man enough to admit you are wrong.

 

[Chris]

Wait ... I missed that, Chris thinks the German houses don't need furnaces? LOL ... maybe if they're buried under a mountain, then they'll need AC and they already have air filtration.

You really need to do a bit of reading and educate yourself....

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/27/world/europe/27house.html?_r=2&em

DARMSTADT, Germany — From the outside, there is nothing unusual about the stylish new gray and orange row houses in the Kranichstein District, with wreaths on the doors and Christmas lights twinkling through a freezing drizzle. But these houses are part of a revolution in building design: There are no drafts, no cold tile floors, no snuggling under blankets until the furnace kicks in. There is, in fact, no furnace.

 

[Meister]

That is such horseshit.

The Germans build houses so well insulated that they don't need furnaces.

The Danes get 20% of their energy from wind.

The Israelis are building one solar power plant that will supply 5% of their energy needs.

It can be done, and it will be done.

Don't miss the school bus Chris. You need your education.
Your left wingnuts won't let most of your clean energy through the courts. That is all I need to say. except...the key words are "your left wingnuts" So I guess your full of bullshit

You couldn't disprove anything that I posted so you use silly insults.

Too bad you aren't man enough to admit you are wrong.

OK Chrissy, What percentage of homes in Germany have no furnaces??
Where do the Danes get the other 80% of their energy??
Israel and 5% solar?? My My. Tell me Chrissy...why not nuclear energy. Why not bring up that France gets a large chunk of their energy from nuclear energy. I'm all for that kind of clean energy. But, somehow I feel Chrissy isn't for that.

 

[Chris]

Don't miss the school bus Chris. You need your education.
Your left wingnuts won't let most of your clean energy through the courts. That is all I need to say. except...the key words are "your left wingnuts" So I guess your full of bullshit

You couldn't disprove anything that I posted so you use silly insults.

Too bad you aren't man enough to admit you are wrong.

OK Chrissy, What percentage of homes in Germany have no furnaces??
Where do the Danes get the other 80% of their energy??
Israel and 5% solar?? My My. Tell me Chrissy...why not nuclear energy. Why not bring up that France gets a large chunk of their energy from nuclear energy. I'm all for that kind of clean energy. But, somehow I feel Chrissy isn't for that.

It took all that to get you to talk about real issues.

The Israelis are trying to go all solar by 2030. I don't know if they will make it, but that is their goal.

Nuclear is a good question, but I am not sure they have solved the problem of nuclear waste yet. The French want to store their nuclear waste in America.

What percentage of homes in Germany don't have furnaces?

Who cares? We have to start where we are.

The point is that the technology is there. All it takes is the political will to move us in the right direction.

 

[Meister]

You couldn't disprove anything that I posted so you use silly insults.

Too bad you aren't man enough to admit you are wrong.

OK Chrissy, What percentage of homes in Germany have no furnaces??
Where do the Danes get the other 80% of their energy??
Israel and 5% solar?? My My. Tell me Chrissy...why not nuclear energy. Why not bring up that France gets a large chunk of their energy from nuclear energy. I'm all for that kind of clean energy. But, somehow I feel Chrissy isn't for that.

It took all that to get you to talk about real issues.

The Israelis are trying to go all solar by 2030. I don't know if they will make it, but that is their goal.

Nuclear is a good question, but I am not sure they have solved the problem of nuclear waste yet. The French want to store their nuclear waste in America.

What percentage of homes in Germany don't have furnaces?

Who cares? We have to start where we are.

The point is that the technology is there. All it takes is the political will to move us in the right direction.

Chris...where in hell are we going to get all the money to fund "your world"?
I want you to be very precise on your answer please

 

[Chris]

OK Chrissy, What percentage of homes in Germany have no furnaces??
Where do the Danes get the other 80% of their energy??
Israel and 5% solar?? My My. Tell me Chrissy...why not nuclear energy. Why not bring up that France gets a large chunk of their energy from nuclear energy. I'm all for that kind of clean energy. But, somehow I feel Chrissy isn't for that.

It took all that to get you to talk about real issues.

The Israelis are trying to go all solar by 2030. I don't know if they will make it, but that is their goal.

Nuclear is a good question, but I am not sure they have solved the problem of nuclear waste yet. The French want to store their nuclear waste in America.

What percentage of homes in Germany don't have furnaces?

Who cares? We have to start where we are.

The point is that the technology is there. All it takes is the political will to move us in the right direction.

Chris...where in hell are we going to get all the money to fund "your world"?
I want you to be very precise on your answer please

By raising taxes on the rich and not spending so much money on the military.

What if your dreaded Al Gore was president in 2000 and instead of George Bush? And what if instead of wasting $700 billion dollars on Iraq, we had spent that money on American energy independence? See? We get energy independent, and we don't need MidEast oil. That's what the Israelis are doing.

 

[Meister]

It took all that to get you to talk about real issues.

The Israelis are trying to go all solar by 2030. I don't know if they will make it, but that is their goal.

Nuclear is a good question, but I am not sure they have solved the problem of nuclear waste yet. The French want to store their nuclear waste in America.

What percentage of homes in Germany don't have furnaces?

Who cares? We have to start where we are.

The point is that the technology is there. All it takes is the political will to move us in the right direction.

Chris...where in hell are we going to get all the money to fund "your world"?
I want you to be very precise on your answer please

By raising taxes on the rich and not spending so much money on the military.

What if your dreaded Al Gore was president in 2000 and instead of George Bush? And what if instead of wasting $700 billion dollars on Iraq, we had spent that money on American energy independence? See? We get energy independent, and we don't need MidEast oil. That's what the Israelis are doing.

First of all Chrissy...Al Gore didn't win the 2000 election..OK? Second...we did spend around 600 billion in Iraq, OK? Third, the rich can't afford it, OK? Don't go back and change history to finance "your future world." I asked for a precise answer, and I got nothing from you. Stop that rhetoric. I've been real to you ,now you be real with me. PS what is the population of Israel??

 

[elvis]

It took all that to get you to talk about real issues.

The Israelis are trying to go all solar by 2030. I don't know if they will make it, but that is their goal.

Nuclear is a good question, but I am not sure they have solved the problem of nuclear waste yet. The French want to store their nuclear waste in America.

What percentage of homes in Germany don't have furnaces?

Who cares? We have to start where we are.

The point is that the technology is there. All it takes is the political will to move us in the right direction.

Chris...where in hell are we going to get all the money to fund "your world"?
I want you to be very precise on your answer please

By raising taxes on the rich and not spending so much money on the military.

What if your dreaded Al Gore was president in 2000 and instead of George Bush? And what if instead of wasting $700 billion dollars on Iraq, we had spent that money on American energy independence? See? We get energy independent, and we don't need MidEast oil. That's what the Israelis are doing.

Obama is asking for $800 billion for Iraq. Where is outrage against him?