Zappa.com

The Official Frank Zappa Messageboards
It is currently Fri Oct 24, 2014 3:10 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 338 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 14  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Dec 12, 2009 5:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:19 am
Posts: 4880
Location: in deepest, darkest Germany
Very interesting video- I'd like to see even more of the emails, though; not just the snippets the main-stream media have doled out.

_________________
"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 12, 2009 11:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2005 2:17 pm
Posts: 2362
Location: Kapuskasing, Ontario
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Climatic_Rese ... _1996-2009

Enjoy! It even includes the methods used in creating the fraudulent climate models!

_________________
For my clinically insane music
http://routenote.com/album/FOWL
http://www.myspace.com/fowlmusic
http://www.last.fm/music/fowl
http://www.deezer.com/en/#music/fowl
Your mental health requires buying my cd


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 12, 2009 11:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2005 2:17 pm
Posts: 2362
Location: Kapuskasing, Ontario
What I haven't found yet in there is references to what a report released from U of G stated how they started taking temperature readings from inside of cities (which have a warmer microclimate) than the traditional method of taking them in open airport spaces thus skewing the recent data towards warmer results.

_________________
For my clinically insane music
http://routenote.com/album/FOWL
http://www.myspace.com/fowlmusic
http://www.last.fm/music/fowl
http://www.deezer.com/en/#music/fowl
Your mental health requires buying my cd


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 13, 2009 10:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:19 am
Posts: 4880
Location: in deepest, darkest Germany
FOWL wrote:
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_emails%2C_data%2C_models%2C_1996-2009

Enjoy! It even includes the methods used in creating the fraudulent climate models!


Thanks very much for the link; slogging through them in wordpad. I'll get back to you when I've found anything earth-shattering. Up until now, it seems to be basically a question of how scientific data is to be presented to laymen. Where was the bit about climate models; can you give us a tip? But I've only read about a quarter...

_________________
"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2002 12:41 pm
Posts: 13754
Location: Billy, the mountain...
Armed Response to 'Climategate' question
Journalist Phelim McAleer ('Mine Your Own Business', 'Not Evil Just Wrong') asks Prof Stephen Schneider from Stanford University an Inconvenient Question about 'Climategate' emails. McAleer is interrupted twice by Prof Schneider's assistant and UN staff and then told to stop filming by an armed UN security guard.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUtzMBfDrpI

_________________
The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true Art and Science. - Albert Einstein

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 11, 2010 12:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 7:21 am
Posts: 1690
Location: SLS
http://www.kusi.com/home/78477082.html?video=pop&t=a

_________________
http://www.ssimfg.com/index.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 11, 2010 12:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 2:41 pm
Posts: 15000
Just got the new Rolling Stone, whose main cover story is about Global Warming. Haven't read it yet.

_________________
One of the sanest, surest, and most generous joys of life comes from being happy over the good fortune of others.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 27, 2011 7:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 04, 2003 2:54 am
Posts: 2904
Location: Sydney, OZ
FOWL wrote:
So Climate experts who dissent against the orthodox view should not be investigated? And what of climategate, it is now proven the pro-global warming people have been colluding to cover up data that they don't like. Their entire climate model is now exposed as a complete fraud. Not that we didn't already know that based on the lies they'd already been caught in, but now it is proven they even discussed how to falsify data amongst the whole movement. Shame.


No, Fowl, I'm not saying that other opinions shouldn't be considered. But i think that when 95% of the world's climate scientists believe that climate change is real and primarily man-made (or wooman made) then I think we need to give it some credibility. It's not like it's a political argument here...we're talking about the survival of the planet (as we know it) for future generations...our kids and grandkids and the rest. We need to apply the precautionary principle. If we don't act to reduce carbon emissions and the climate scientists are right, future generations are severely affected. If the scientists turn out to be wrong then the world hasn't been harmed by having less pollution, surely.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 27, 2011 7:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 04, 2003 2:54 am
Posts: 2904
Location: Sydney, OZ
calvin2hikers wrote:
Just got the new Rolling Stone, whose main cover story is about Global Warming. Haven't read it yet.


I haven't either Cal, but thanks for the heads-up...will be interesting reading.

Shit...just realised your post is over a year old...I'll never know the truth!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 27, 2011 9:43 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:11 am
Posts: 3552
Uncle Bernie wrote:
FOWL wrote:
So Climate experts who dissent against the orthodox view should not be investigated? And what of climategate, it is now proven the pro-global warming people have been colluding to cover up data that they don't like. Their entire climate model is now exposed as a complete fraud. Not that we didn't already know that based on the lies they'd already been caught in, but now it is proven they even discussed how to falsify data amongst the whole movement. Shame.


No, Fowl, I'm not saying that other opinions shouldn't be considered. But i think that when 95% of the world's climate scientists believe that climate change is real and primarily man-made (or wooman made) then I think we need to give it some credibility. It's not like it's a political argument here...we're talking about the survival of the planet (as we know it) for future generations...our kids and grandkids and the rest. We need to apply the precautionary principle. If we don't act to reduce carbon emissions and the climate scientists are right, future generations are severely affected. If the scientists turn out to be wrong then the world hasn't been harmed by having less pollution, surely.



my problem with that is they do not include meteorologist, check out Joe Bastardi. Also those same climate scientists say that Mt St Helen eruption and the forest fires just from 1930 till now cause more pollution than all of civilised man,, think about it.

_________________
Confusion will be my epitaph


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 27, 2011 11:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2007 3:09 pm
Posts: 729
Location: Australia
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 3:03 pm
Posts: 5918
Location: Pouting for you? Punky Meadows, pouting for you?!!
The cartoon is very funny while also being very pertinent, just like Bernie was saying.

_________________
The way I see it Barry, this should be a very dynamite show.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 27, 2011 3:33 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:11 am
Posts: 3552
Lets not forget the famous early 70's climate article in Newsweek, remember, the worlds best climatologist said the earth was heading for another Ice age within 20 years or so. Now these government funded self serving know it alls are saying just the opposite.. Obviously water pollution and human waste to include garbage is not at issue, we know that is bad.


...
How long has the earth been here? uncontrolled volcanic emissions, and fires at a scale most have never seen, as well as climate records ;so who is bullshitting whom.. Go buy some twisty fluorescent bulbs. oh yea they have mercury in them....dang....follow the money.

_________________
Confusion will be my epitaph


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 27, 2011 7:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 5:18 pm
Posts: 3222
Location: Between the Badges
BRAVO SIERRA wrote:
Lets not forget the famous early 70's climate article in Newsweek, remember, the worlds best climatologist said the earth was heading for another Ice age within 20 years or so. Now these government funded self serving know it alls are saying just the opposite.. Obviously water pollution and human waste to include garbage is not at issue, we know that is bad.


...
How long has the earth been here? uncontrolled volcanic emissions, and fires at a scale most have never seen, as well as climate records ;so who is bullshitting whom.. Go buy some twisty fluorescent bulbs. oh yea they have mercury in them....dang....follow the money.


Why don't you explain any of the things you brought up? All I see in yer post is a bunch of insinuations. I'll tell you what. I won't prove any of this wrong, but I'll challange you to prove them right.

_________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Don't Be Stupid Unless You Want To


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 27, 2011 7:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5775
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
The Forum Killed Arkay wrote:
BRAVO SIERRA wrote:
Lets not forget the famous early 70's climate article in Newsweek, remember, the worlds best climatologist said the earth was heading for another Ice age within 20 years or so. Now these government funded self serving know it alls are saying just the opposite.. Obviously water pollution and human waste to include garbage is not at issue, we know that is bad.


...
How long has the earth been here? uncontrolled volcanic emissions, and fires at a scale most have never seen, as well as climate records ;so who is bullshitting whom.. Go buy some twisty fluorescent bulbs. oh yea they have mercury in them....dang....follow the money.


Why don't you explain any of the things you brought up? All I see in yer post is a bunch of insinuations. I'll tell you what. I won't prove any of this wrong, but I'll challange you to prove them right.


Glad that I'm not the only person who recognises that.

Perhaps he has inside information that the vast majority world scientific community is nearly unanimous about(97% specifically, the other 3% being paid to cook the books and facts).
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-19/worl ... s=PM:WORLD

http://content.usatoday.com/communities ... e-change/1

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 011609.php

http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0122-climate.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 210532.htm

Of course, those who deny that global warming is a direct result of humans,,,,,
http://dailybayonet.com/?p=8647

http://www.wnho.net/global_warming.htm

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/ ... 8369.shtml

http://theweek.com/article/index/208197 ... al-warming

http://consortiumnews.com/2011/06/12/go ... ng-threat/

Some interesting polling......
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1780/poll-g ... -tea-party



I agree with the 97% of climatologists that human activity is directly contributing to global warming.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 28, 2011 2:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 3:22 am
Posts: 960
SPACEBROTHER wrote:

I agree with the 97% of climatologists that human activity is directly contributing to global warming.



Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:57 pm
pedro1 wrote:
BUT... the big question is ... HOW MUCH IS MAN TO BLAME ( or praise ) ?




Back to square one , eh ? :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 28, 2011 3:25 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:11 am
Posts: 3552
CHECK OUT JOE BASTARDI; as I said get some more info from meteorologist. The article in Newsweek in the early 70's is no accusation,it is real go look it up and you decide why these so called climatologist were calling for an ice age!!
If you want to believe Al Gore and the rest of the nit wits go ahead. I see no reason to post links these are my opinions, if you do not agree fine. Also the fluorescent bulb bull shit is real, thanks to the EPA, who gives away hundreds of millions in grants to OTHER country's to study crap that would supposedly impact our country,

_________________
Confusion will be my epitaph


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 28, 2011 3:32 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:11 am
Posts: 3552
Also study Lord Monckton;

_________________
Confusion will be my epitaph


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 28, 2011 5:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 04, 2003 2:54 am
Posts: 2904
Location: Sydney, OZ
BRAVO SIERRA wrote:
Also study Lord Monckton;


You must be kidding! Lord Monckton is the biggest arseclown ever to represent climate change deniers! Mike Carlton (Aussie Journalist) describes him best...

"So, that blithering idiot Lord Monckton of Brenchley, the climate change denier, will be here again next week, to address a conference of the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies in Perth.

No doubt the radio shock jocks will be fawning all over him, as they did on his first visit. Monckton dazzles them with lots of sciencey stuff delivered in the fruity tones of a hereditary peer, haw haw. No matter that he spouts absolute rubbish, rejected by climate scientists the world over.

But there is a nasty edge this time around. He has taken to likening his critics to Nazis. Disagree with his lordship and you get a swastika stuck next to your name and a barked "Heil Hitler". What a vulgar, odious twerp he is."

And referring to magazine articles from the 70s doesn't really cut it with me. There's been a mountain of research since then, by CLIMATE SCIENTISTS, and as Spacebro mentioned above, more than 95% of them concur that it's real and we are contributing to it. A meteorologist with a big mouth doesn't qualify as a climate scientist...there's a big difference between climate and weather. This Joe Bastardi guy might get a tv slot over there, but I doubt he's renowned elsewhere.

Does anyone really think that we can keep pouring shit into our rivers, oceans, atmosphere and landscape and there won't be consequences? It's a question of balance...the Earth can't deal with this stuff at the rate we are producing it. This is our only habitable planet, and it might just be a one shot deal!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 28, 2011 5:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 04, 2003 2:54 am
Posts: 2904
Location: Sydney, OZ
polydigm wrote:
The cartoon is very funny while also being very pertinent, just like Bernie was saying.


Hi Poly. Yes it's a goodun eh. :D


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 28, 2011 8:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5775
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
pedro2 wrote:
SPACEBROTHER wrote:

I agree with the 97% of climatologists that human activity is directly contributing to global warming.



Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:57 pm
pedro1 wrote:
BUT... the big question is ... HOW MUCH IS MAN TO BLAME ( or praise ) ?




Back to square one , eh ? :lol:


If it's current dates you want....

97 out of 100 scientists that believe in man-made climate change. - Jun 22, 2010 http://content.usatoday.com/communities ... e-change/1

November 1, 2010 - http://globalwarming.sdsu.edu/

17. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased gradually from a low of 190 ppm 21,000 year ago, to about 290 ppm in the year 1900, i.e., at an average rate of 0.00478 ppm per year.

18. The industrial revolution, where humans developed machines (artificial animals, since they consume fuels, which are mostly organic matter), began in England about 240 years ago (1767).

25. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which was at 290 ppm in the year 1900, rose to 316 ppm in 1959, or at an average 0.44 ppm per year.

26. Measurements of the concentration of carbon dioxide since 1959 (316 ppm) have revealed an increase to 388 ppm in 2010, or at an average 1.41 ppm per year.


27. The concentration of carbon dioxide has increased an average of about 1.8 ppm per year over the past two decades.

28. The concentration of carbon dioxide increased 2.87 ppm in 1997-98, more than in any other year of record.

29. The year 1998 was the warmest of record. The year 2002 was the second warmest (to that date). The year 2003 was the third warmest (to that date). The year 2004 was the fourth warmest (to that date). The year 2005 equaled 1998 as the warmest of record. The year 2007 equaled 1998 as the second warmest of record. The ten warmest years have occurred in the twelve-year period 1997-2008.

30. About 75% of the annual increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is due to the burning of fossil fuels.



It is my opinion that the current minority of people who refuse to accept the proven data about global warming base their views purly on ideology. It is pretty much the same as those who didn't believe in the moon landing, believed the Earth was flat, believe that the world is only 6000 years old and the was created in 6 days, that the Sun, planets and stars revolve around the Earth, believe in Creationism instead of evolution and every other misbelief and misconception that has been proven false with science. Why there are a very small minority of people who deny proven scienctific fact and technology because of idealogical lines instead of physical evidence. Burn the witch.....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 28, 2011 9:20 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:11 am
Posts: 3552
OK then just one of you geniuses explain why you so called experts said we were heading for an ice age in the 70's, also explain how you can have true data from 120 thousand years ago, explain why the EPA is giving our tax dollars away to other countries?

_________________
Confusion will be my epitaph


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 28, 2011 9:24 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:11 am
Posts: 3552
GO TO OISM.org and see if you agree with 1700 scientist that say green house emissions do not lead to global warming !!!!!!!!!!!!!

_________________
Confusion will be my epitaph


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 28, 2011 9:27 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:11 am
Posts: 3552
Uncle Bernie wrote:
BRAVO SIERRA wrote:
Also study Lord Monckton;


You must be kidding! Lord Monckton is the biggest arseclown ever to represent climate change deniers! Mike Carlton (Aussie Journalist) describes him best...

"So, that blithering idiot Lord Monckton of Brenchley, the climate change denier, will be here again next week, to address a conference of the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies in Perth.

No doubt the radio shock jocks will be fawning all over him, as they did on his first visit. Monckton dazzles them with lots of sciencey stuff delivered in the fruity tones of a hereditary peer, haw haw. No matter that he spouts absolute rubbish, rejected by climate scientists the world over.

But there is a nasty edge this time around. He has taken to likening his critics to Nazis. Disagree with his lordship and you get a swastika stuck next to your name and a barked "Heil Hitler". What a vulgar, odious twerp he is."

And referring to magazine articles from the 70s doesn't really cut it with me. There's been a mountain of research since then, by CLIMATE SCIENTISTS, and as Spacebro mentioned above, more than 95% of them concur that it's real and we are contributing to it. A meteorologist with a big mouth doesn't qualify as a climate scientist...there's a big difference between climate and weather. This Joe Bastardi guy might get a tv slot over there, but I doubt he's renowned elsewhere.

Does anyone really think that we can keep pouring shit into our rivers, oceans, atmosphere and landscape and there won't be consequences? It's a question of balance...the Earth can't deal with this stuff at the rate we are producing it. This is our only habitable planet, and it might just be a one shot deal!



no shit seems there is a forum member that likes to call people that dissagree with their posts nazi's

_________________
Confusion will be my epitaph


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 28, 2011 10:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5775
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
Lots of links in this post. Click away.

Global Warming Contrarians
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/sc ... ntrarians/

The overwhelming consensus among climate scientists is that global warming is real, primarily caused by human activity, and a serious threat to our future. Yet media extremists, partisan think tanks, and special interest groups funded by fossil fuel and related industries continue to raise doubts in the minds of the public.

Global warming deniers downplay and distort the evidence of climate change, and they demand policies that allow these industries to continue polluting, as well as attempt to undercut existing anti-pollution legislation.

UCS continues to fight against misrepresentations of global warming in the popular media, providing sound, science-based evidence to set the record straight (link). UCS serves as a bastion of rationality among the distortions and hysteria whipped up by fossil fuel industry-funded deniers. In the articles listed below, learn the truth about these attacks on science.

GLOBAL WARMING CONTRARIAN BASIC READING (the following are links, each with a lot of information)

-Attacks on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Obscure Real Science
-Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails in the "Climategate" Manufactured Controversy
-New Book "SuperFreakonomics" Mischaracterizes Climate Science
-Global Warming Skeptic Organizations
-Crichton Thriller State of Fear
-UCS Examines 'The Skeptical Environmentalist'

OUR ANALYSIS OF GLOBAL WARMING CONTRARIANS (another link)

-ExxonMobil Report: Smoke Mirrors & Hot Air

More links

-NOAA
-NASA
-EPA
-National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 338 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 14  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BRAVO SIERRA and 11 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group