More Global Warming Bullshit

[ivan]

my god, the radical lefty scientists have brain-washed grandpa now too!

[mattp]

I guess McCain just lost Fairweather' vote.

[AlpineK]

Isn't Ron Paul still running?

 

Ron Paul

[rob]

climate change deniers crack me up.

 

Climate change? Nothing to see here, folks. Move it along.

[Fairweather]

http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GW_Article/GWReview_OISM150.pdf

[olyclimber]

as mentioned above there are now three viable candidates for Pres....all three believe in global warming brought on by humankind. get ready for good times if that is not something you believe in.

[dt_3pin]

http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GW_Article/GWReview_OISM150.pdf

 

 

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=s04201998

[Fairweather]

http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GW_Article/GWReview_OISM150.pdf

 

 

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=s04201998

 

You're missing my point--which is that the debate is far from "settled" and only someone with the heart of a religious zealot would deny themselves data that refutes or challenges their belief system.

[mkporwit]

You're missing my point--which is that the debate is far from "settled" and only someone with the heart of a religious zealot would deny themselves data that refutes or challenges their belief system.

 

No, FW, the debate is pretty much settled. Most climatologists accept the negative effects of humanity on the climate. The theory of global warming is the most commonly accepted model out there right now.

 

Does that mean that there aren't smart people with PhDs claiming this is bogus? Sure there are. Some may even have a point. Heck, there's still researchers proposing different models of physics... However, trotting out an article by two researchers from a med school, published in a journal not related to the field is hardly a convincing argument for your cause.

 

It is a theory. Not a proven fact. A lot of things in science are never proven facts. The theory is simply taken as the model that best explains current observations. That theory can be replaced by a better one, should one be proposed and validated experimentally. Until such time, the current model is what it is. And there's a lot more effort being put into the current

[kevbone]

FW…..you are one of those crazy people still in disbelief that “mankind” is destroying our own planet from something called “Global warming”! I know people like you…….there is another name for your kind…….we call them republicans.

[RuMR]

or just plain idiots...

[AlpineK]

Lets see the document Fairweather provided us with a link to was written by:

 

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, 2251 Dick George Road, Cave Junction, Oregon 97523 [artr@oism.org]

 

The document I posted was a consensus opinion of 40 scientists in a formal agreed statement.

 

An Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

 

This summary, approved in detail at IPCC Plenary XXVII (Valencia, Spain, 12-17 November 2007), represents the

formally agreed statement of the IPCC concerning key findings and uncertainties contained in the Working Group

contributions to the Fourth Assessment Report.

 

 

Based on a draft prepared by:

Lenny Bernstein, Peter Bosch, Osvaldo Canziani, Zhenlin Chen, Renate Christ, Ogunlade Davidson, William Hare, Saleemul

Huq, David Karoly, Vladimir Kattsov, Zbigniew Kundzewicz, Jian Liu, Ulrike Lohmann, Martin Manning, Taroh Matsuno,

Bettina Menne, Bert Metz, Monirul Mirza, Neville Nicholls, Leonard Nurse, Rajendra Pachauri, Jean Palutikof, Martin

Parry, Dahe Qin, Nijavalli Ravindranath, Andy Reisinger, Jiawen Ren, Keywan Riahi, Cynthia Rosenzweig, Matilde

Rusticucci, Stephen Schneider, Youba Sokona, Susan Solomon, Peter Stott, Ronald Stouffer, Taishi Sugiyama, Rob Swart,

Dennis Tirpak, Coleen Vogel, Gary Yohe

 

An agreed statement means that all these 40 people were not in absolute agreement. I work with documents like this relating to trees. In all those documents they state that different opinions are discussed and the final statement is a lot more than the opinion of 50.5% of participants. While it may not be 100% opinion they take the time do discuss and review different points of view.

 

Fairweather quotes a couple dudes down on Dick George Road. Somehow I think 40 scientists involved with the IPCC might know more than a couple slack jawed motherfuckers from Cave Junction Oregon.

[mattp]

As Ariana Huffington put it recently, the media gives "equal time to lies." This is why some folks may be confused.

 

But there are other issues that quite simply do not have two sides. Iraq wasn’t a material threat to the security of the United States. Global warming is real. That’s why I called my first chapter on the media “Equal Time For Lies.” I think it’s the key to the Right’s sway over the media.

 

Right is Wrong

[Bug]

Dude, yur dissin some kick-ass growers.

[No. 13 Baby]

Lets see the document Fairweather provided us with a link to was written by:

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, 2251 Dick George Road, Cave Junction, Oregon 97523 [artr@oism.org]

 

The serious scientists at OISM also present an article on "Nuclear War Survival Skills."

 

 

[ivan]

Somehow I think 40 scientists involved with the IPCC might know more than a couple slack jawed motherfuckers from Cave Junction Oregon.

now that's starting to sound like the alpinek i remember!

[Hugh Conway]

You're missing my point--which is that the debate is far from "settled" and only someone with the heart of a religious zealot would deny themselves data that refutes or challenges their belief system.

 

You are listening to veterinarians and MDs opinions about climate change?

 

Did you go to the climatologist when you were neutered?

[Fairweather]

The UN said it. I believe it. That settles it. You guys remind me of:

 

 

Since none of you are doing ANYTHING MEANINGFUL about this perceived crisis, what's the harm in continuing the debate?

Edited May 21, 2008 by Fairweather

[Stefan]

-the earth is warming up. fact, and everybody agrees to this data.

-not everybody agrees it is due to humans. fact.

 

-so why not try to stop the earth from warming up? who cares if it is humans or not. if you can't stop it, then what are the alternative plans?

 

(thank god for $4 a gallon gas) this is a blessing to the environmentalists....I am sure they are chearing on for $5

 

[RuMR]

go cragging in the sunshine and forget about skiing?

[Hugh Conway]

go cragging in the sunshine and forget about skiing?

 

Increased climatic variability = more storms

[RuMR]

go cragging under big overhangs and forget about skiing?

[Fairweather]

-the earth is warming up. fact, and everybody agrees to this data.

-not everybody agrees it is due to humans. fact.

 

-so why not try to stop the earth from warming up? who cares if it is humans or not. if you can't stop it, then what are the alternative plans?

 

 

 

Because sometimes the cure turns out to be worse that the "disease"--ethanol/biofuels mandates are a good and current example. Shortages/food prices up and more of the world going hungry while we pump subsidized corn into our gas tanks and farmers stop growing wheat and soy.

[Hugh Conway]

go cragging under big overhangs and forget about skiing?

 

that sounds like a potbelly asking his gf for a blowjob

[RuMR]

maybe in your world...