Anti-Global Warming Propaganda Goes Here

Ha, I'm amused, I must say. It's a pety person and a small mind that relies on spamming rather than a logical argument to make their case.

Elijah, I understand your purpose is simply to waste everyone's time by posting untold reams of garbage, and then to declare yourself victor by fiat, but it's not working. If YOU have a logically tenable argument, please voice it. No one is interested in reading any of the copy-pasted junk from you or anyone else.

Chris

 

so what is it chris? are cows or humans responsible? i'm not trolling, you just refuse to look at another side ofthe arguement before blasting it as nonsense. i'm just pointing out the holes in the UN"s theory is all. what spamming? i'm just showing things relevent to this discussion.

 

So is all of hip forums anti free speech now or just this particular thread?

I myself am not completely sold on global warming do to the fact that large volcano's that have erupted throughout time have ALWAYS put more "harmful" gas and toxins into the atmosphere than humans.

But I still believe that pollution is a problem, A problem that will destroy the world in the next 20 years?

No.

Rat I'm kinda shocked that you would agree with the

"Cause once you post it here, it's done, you can't repost this shit anywhere else on these forums. Posting this shit up on any other thread on the Hip forums will result in bans."

Who the hell says you cant?

Whats next we cant debate 9/11 or abortion in certain threads?

I thought the core reason for this site was free speech.

I understand there is a certain time and place for beliefs to be shared, expressed and debated but I would let the people decide that and not try to make a rule forcing them not to talk about it.

I thought the basis of a website that was dedicated to free speech was a great idea, Kinda like a online lallapalooza.

I liked the concept so much that I actually donated money to the cause.

But now this.

I think the majority of people here are for free speech.

If I get banned for this oh well I guess, Ill just chalk it up as a loss and try to find a more open forum.

 

those are not pressed rat's words, those are skip's words as you can see

"Anti-Global Warming Propaganda Goes Here

Here you can all have fun posting your ANTI-Global warming Bull Shit propaganda.

Here, and ONLY here, in this thread from now on.

Cause once you post it here, it's done, you can't repost this shit anywhere else on these forums. Posting this shit up on any other thread on the Hipforums will result in bans.

NO DUPLICATE POSTS PLEASE! SAY IT ONCE!

Got it?

Also, this WHOLE FORUM, is about Global Warming, NOT AL Gore. So if you post shit up about him, it will be deleted.

Also we prefer PEER-REVIEW scientific studies, as opposed to INDUSTRY PAID PROPAGANDA (they are paying $10,000 per article denying global warming and human contribution to it).

Any such articles or references are subject to deletion without notice.

This website is NOT for posting PAID PROPAGANDA, got it? (they ain't paying us so why should we put up with this BS?)

-Skip
webmaster of hipforums
do not delete"

 

Yes I know, I just thought it was odd that rat would allow them to post that under his handle, I didn't think censorship is something rat would let fly.

 

Nope, peer review has a very specific meaning in academia, one with which you are clearly unfamiliar. It's a filter to make sure inept and erroneous contributions, ones which make flawed assumptions or basic mistakes like this one don't get published as scholarly literature thereby wasting everyone's time.

Al Gore is not a climate scientist, so the fact that you think experts in this particular field would be "followers" of Al Gore is a little flabbergasting... I suppose it sounds good though, and makes sense from the perspective of someone who has no understanding of any of the issues. Gore is a visible proponent of anthropogenic climate change, so he must be its inventor!

The IPCC's analysis was based solely on studies published in peer reviewed journals...

This statement is so startlingly ill-informed that one wonders where to begin...

 

ill informed? it's not ill informed that actual IPCC panel scientists protested the panel's findings as well as it's biases and operating procedures.assuming that all scientists who disagree with these findings are being paid off by the oil lobbies is beiong ill informed
so how does placing your biases in an order of improtance before any sort of objectivity count as peer reviewed? preprogrammed computer models count as years of study? not quite, so tell me just as i asked chris jury. since cows produce more methane than humans do, and methane is a bigger influence on global warming than carbon dioxide. does this mean cows are responsible for global warming instead of humans?

 

This is a facile question indicating that you've not read any of the relevant literature. Atmospheric methane concentration is factored into the estimates of anthropogenic radiative forcing summarised in the AR4. Agriculture ("cows") is one of the main sources for the dramatic increase in atmospheric methane compared to pre-industrial revolution levels.

 

did they actually have any means to measure methane gas levels prior to the industrial revolution?

 

This data comes from ice cores. You really haven't looked into this at all, have you:tongue:

 

I'll make this quick for I'll like to get back with this forum later when I have settled some Small Business issues on the other forums on this site.

As it stands it is good to real the work others and Maybe I have done on the communications aspect of the probe. So that for every deed people can legally reveal and put their money out (I'm talking about real estate type deeds like property transaction, like city enorded instructions to use blue boxes, like the planned use of the gas pump for to the cottage or ranch) for.

Obviously, I remark to Mr. George Bush we cannot rearrange our use of language as it is meant and as it is understood for the duplicated status of our DEED; so much also hinges upon the personal values we attach to the momentary discussion; so much of this is necessary that plastically we are anyway commited to the morals expected in the substantial securing of the wealth for the production.

I believe fervently that the first bit the president did; it's the second part on substance that he was a wash up and a failure. It's the insuring of property through actuarial science that meant to make people morally aware at once with the financial decision, and it is the ignorance, in all difference to customer appropriated entrepreneurship, which determined the morality to responsible actions made life easy for the personal so-called sense of being moral.

After-all when it doesn't look that moral to your fellow customer it really may not BE. You really may have to think of how it makes an impression to the context of environment and, YES, what this Gor'ian social engineering was for.

 

as you can see, trying to control climate is an excercise in futility. but feel free to knock yourself out trying lithium. ice core samples? how can they conclude what pre industrial methane gas levels were if nobody back then was measuring them?

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=D4B5FD23-802A-23AD-4565-3DCE4095C360

Over 100 Prominent Scientists Warn UN Against 'Futile' Climate Control Efforts
"Significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming." ​

BALI, Indonesia - The UN climate conference met strong opposition Thursday from a team of over 100 prominent international scientists, who warned the UN, that attempting to control the Earth's climate was "ultimately futile."
The scientists, many of whom are current and former UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) scientists, sent an open letter to the UN Secretary-General questioning the scientific basis for climate fears and the UN's so-called "solutions."
"Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems," the letter signed by the scientists read. The December 13 letter was released to the public late Thursday. (LINK)
The letter was signed by renowned scientists such as Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists; Dr. Reid Bryson, dubbed the "Father of Meteorology"; Atmospheric pioneer Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, formerly of the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; Award winning physicist Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu of the International Arctic Research Center, who has twice named one of the "1000 Most Cited Scientists"; Award winning MIT atmospheric scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen; UN IPCC scientist Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand; French climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux of the University Jean Moulin; World authority on sea level Dr. Nils-Axel Morner of Stockholm University; Physicist Dr. Freeman Dyson of Princeton University; Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Poland; Paleoclimatologist Dr. Robert M. Carter of Australia; Former UN IPCC reviewer Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, head of the Geological Museum in Norway; and Dr. Edward J. Wegman, of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.
"It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables," the scientists wrote.
"In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is ‘settled,' significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming," the open letter added. [EPW Blog Note: To read about the latest peer-reviewed research debunking man-made climate fears, see: New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears - LINK - & New Peer-Reviewed Study Finds: "Warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence." (LINK) - For a detailed analysis of how "consensus" has been promoted, see: Debunking The So-Called "Consensus" On Global Warming - LINK ]
The scientists' letter continued: "The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions."
"The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by ­government ­representatives. The great ­majority of IPCC contributors and ­reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts," the letter added. [EPW Note: Only 52 scientists participated in the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers in April 2007, according to the Associated Press. - LINK - An analysis by Australian climate researcher Dr. John Mclean in 2007 found the UN IPCC peer-review process to be "an illusion." LINK ]

 

http://www.speroforum.com/site/arti...Scientists+say+climate+change+is+not+man-made Only 52 scientists participated in the often-quoted UN IPCC summary
Scientists say climate change is not man-made

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007.

Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears "bite the dust." In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" the green movement.

This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new "consensus busters" report is poised to redefine the debate.

Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated.

Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media," Paldor wrote. [Note: See also July 2007 Senate report detailing how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation]

Scientists from Around the World Dissent

This new report details how teams of international scientists are dissenting from the UN IPCC's view of climate science. In such nations as Germany, Brazil, the Netherlands, Russia, New Zealand and France, nations, scientists banded together in 2007 to oppose climate alarmism. In addition, over 100 prominent international scientists sent an open letter in December 2007 to the UN stating attempts to control climate were "futile."

Paleoclimatologist Dr. Tim Patterson, professor in the department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa, recently converted from a believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. Patterson noted that the notion of a "consensus" of scientists aligned with the UN IPCC or former Vice President Al Gore is false. "I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority."

 

Wow. I haven't seen anything you've written here that has not come from a basic misunderstanding or lack of the most elementary knowledge of the topic at hand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080514131131.htm

A little basic reading really would do wonders. You can't effectively criticise something until you understand what it is you're criticising. :cheers2:

 

But if you look through those 20+ pages you'll see it's just a few people posting up pages and pages of opinion-piece articles with little or no grounding in the actual physical science involved. It really is the "drown out and bombard" propaganda technique. Previously this was all over the environment forum, every single thread bombarded with these one-sided opinion articles, page after tedious page, with consequently no possibility for the discussion of the actual issues so I'm glad it's now restricted to this one thread.

 

Elijah,

Your willingness to accept propaganda at face value, and you sheer ignorance of very basic science related to this issue is simply staggering.

Yes, there are scientists that think, for one reason or another, the impact of human activities on climate is smaller than the vast majority of the scientific community agrees upon. I will note, however, that almost universally these "skeptics", if questioned, absolutely agree that human activities are affecting climate. Some of them fully accept that the climate is warming due to human activities, but, for one reason or another, think the consequences will be less severe than the vast majority of the scientific community agrees they will be.

Time and time again lists of "100 prominent scientists" and "400 prominent scientsits" and "31,000 scientists" and the whole lot have, under scrutiny, fallen apart. For example, the Oregon Petition claims to list 31,000 scientists that reject the notion that human activities are warming the climate. Scientific American did a simple quality assurance test in 2001, to see if the signatories really did agree:

"Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community."

Sen. Inhofe's list of "400 prominent scientists" has similarly been gutted. Physicians don't count as prominent climatologists; civil engineers don't count as prominent climatologists.

I work in academia (graduate student). Out of the dozens--perhaps hundreds--of people I know in academia, I honestly can't think of a single person that does not accept that human activities are quite clearly causing climate change, and that the effects will be quite bad indeed (unless we stop producing greenhouse gases, that is).

It's quite like the sham by the tobacco companies trying to convince us that scientists were not agreed that smoking causes lung cancer and other health problems. Luckily for the tobacco companies, it worked for decades. They made billions. Not so luckily for their customers, millions were killed by their products.

So yes, I know you have your article citing 100 scientists...no no, 400 scientists...no no, 31,000 scientists, and you think that gives you credibility. I am telling you here and now, as someone in the sciences in academia, that good scientists that do not accept 1) human activities are warming the climate, and 2) that warming will result in very negative outcomes if greenhouse gas emissions are not curtailed are very, very few and very, very far between. If I estimated that 1% of the scientific community denied these two points, I think it would be an overestimate. The only prominent climatologists I see ever ascribed to this sort of denial are the same names recycled over, and over, and over again. Lucky for them they get quite a lot of coverage, but it's inherent because there are so very few of them.

So, by analogy, 99 doctors just told you that you have a cancerous brain tumor and must have surgery or you'll die. One tells you the growth is benign. Another tells you that they don't even think there is a growth. What, pray tell, do you think you should do?

 

"So, by analogy, 99 doctors just told you that you have a cancerous brain tumor and must have surgery or you'll die. One tells you the growth is benign. Another tells you that they don't even think there is a growth. What, pray tell, do you think you should do?"

Very good, that is the entire argument in a nutshell.

I have the good fortune of actually having a neighbor who is a college professor who has been to antarctica twice doing ice core sampling. Yes a real live person in the flesh and blood! Not on a tv screen, what a concept. In a nutshell, he thinks we are fucked.

 

when some of the scientists who served on the un's climate change panel argue against it's findings. you should atleast bother to subject it to a healthy dose of questioning. what do i think we should all do? i think we should stop worrying so much about it and get on with our lives.

 

1) I've acknowledged that there are in fact a handful of climatologists that claim either that a) human impacts on climate are smaller than the rest of the scientific community accepts or b) the impacts of the temperature change we expect (~3 C for doubling of CO2) will be less severe than the rest of the scientific community agrees.

The question is not whether these climatologists exist. The question is what we should do given that, minimally, 95-99% of climatologists agree that rising atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations are warming the climate (and will likely result in ~3 C of warming) and will have very bad results indeed. Do we acknowledge the science and do something about it, or do we side with the tiny minority of folks that argue there isn't a problem?

2) Why focus on the IPCC reports? Those are primarily summaries of the work done by the scientific community. The work itself is what matters. Take away the IPCC and the science changes in no way whatsoever.

3) You are welcome not to worry and get on with your life. For your own sake, however, I would hope you don't apply such logic to most aspects of your life. For your sake, I certainly hope you are never diagnosed with an operable brain tumor (in keeping with the analogy above).

Chris

 

and if you let something consume it will consume you. so why allow it to do such a thing? my grandmother had cancer many years ago, but she still went on with her life as usual. the climate above us and around is bigger than you or me. therefore it's silly to think any of us could ever control it. do you have the ability to control hurricanes or tornados? if not, why would you worry about other weather related things? wether it's cooling or warming, you could not control it. does the size of dissent being smaller make it any less credible? even when there's reasonable amounts of conflicting evidence to validate such disent?

worrying about global warming or cooling is like worrying about the time when war of the worlds was read aloud over a radio broadcast. it didn't do the dinosaurs a lot of good to concern themselves with the enviroonment. regardless of what truth there wasn't to it, if it had been true nothing could have been done about it anyways. an international panel can warn us about it, but they obviously can't solve it. where does it's money trail lead to? sounds like a lot of paranoia and fear mongering to me. we had both global warming and cooling long before humans had appeared. just keep all that in mind before you pull your hair out of your head. cataclysmic things were going on then and shall continue after we are gone.

to sum it up in a nutshell, this is all beyond our control.