Global Warming - Greatest scam in history !

POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Wednesday, July 6, 2016 16:27
VIEWED: 9772
PAGE 1 of 1

AURAPTOR

Thursday, November 8, 2007 10:46 PM

If the founder of The Weather Channel spoke out strongly against the manmade global warming myth, might media members notice?

We're going to find out the answer to that question soon, for John Coleman wrote an article published at ICECAP Wednesday that should certainly garner attention from press members -- assuming journalism hasn't been completely replaced by propagandist activism, that is.

It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in [sic] allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild "scientific" scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda. Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment....

I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.

http://media.newsbusters.org/stories/weather-channel-founder-global-wa
rming-greatest-scam-history.html?q=blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/11/07/weather-channel-founder-global-warming-greatest-scam-history

"Hillary tried to get a million dollars for the Woodstock museum. I understand it was a major cultural and pharmaceutical event. I couldn't attend. I was tied up at the time." - John McCain

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

RUE

Thursday, November 8, 2007 11:07 PM

"I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied."

And yet, when I ask for a mere half-dozen names of climatologists who disagree with global warming you can't come up with any. And you can't come up with any links, article titles, or quotes from any credible study that 'disproves' global warming for all the supposed papers you've read. Not one.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

AURAPTOR

Thursday, November 8, 2007 11:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied."

And yet, when I ask for a mere half-dozen names of climatologists who disagree with global warming you can't come up with any. And you can't come up with any links, article titles, or quotes from any credible study that 'disproves' global warming for all the supposed papers you've read. Not one.

That quote isn't me talking, genius. That's the John Coleman, founder of The Weather Channel speaking. Doofus.

(corrected - Happy now ? )

"Hillary tried to get a million dollars for the Woodstock museum. I understand it was a major cultural and pharmaceutical event. I couldn't attend. I was tied up at the time." - John McCain

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

RUE

Thursday, November 8, 2007 11:17 PM

Woulda been nice if you had formatted the first part of the quote the same way as the second. You know, in italics so it doesn't look like YOUR commentary at the start. Might wanna correct that.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

RIGHTEOUS9

Friday, November 9, 2007 1:14 AM

So we want to take the word of a business man? I'm not exactly sure what your point is? He's read "dozens" of scientific papers, and he "knows" he's correct.

I"m not saying he's not an authority, but you tell us we should listen because he founded the weather channel? What gives with that? What makes his voice significant on this supposed debate?

AURAPTOR

Friday, November 9, 2007 2:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
So we want to take the word of a business man? I'm not exactly sure what your point is? He's read "dozens" of scientific papers, and he "knows" he's correct.

I"m not saying he's not an authority, but you tell us we should listen because he founded the weather channel? What gives with that? What makes his voice significant on this supposed debate?

A business man. A climatetologist. A meteorologist. As the list grows of those who speak out against the global warming myth, what else will it take to convince you ? 5 years ? 10 ? 20 ?

"Hillary tried to get a million dollars for the Woodstock museum. I understand it was a major cultural and pharmaceutical event. I couldn't attend. I was tied up at the time." - John McCain

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

ANTHONYT

Friday, November 9, 2007 3:04 AM

Hello,

The weather seems to be changing, and we can only make educated guesses as to why. Unfortunately, proper scientific testing requires a test group and a control group. We just don't have 200 Earths to split up and examine under different conditions. We will never be able to conclusively prove the cause of Global Warming, and only our great-grandchildren will be able to say with certainty whether our current perceived Global Warming crisis is real, or merely a momentary blip on the radar of a millions-of-years-old planet. (Or is it billions? Same difference.)

I will say now what I have said before. And anyone should feel free to dig up my old posts on the subject. It doesn't matter if Global Warming is man-made or not. There are plenty of good, selfish reasons to change the behavior of mankind that have nothing to do with Global Warming. Oil and Coal are limited resources, they are dirty (whether or not they cause Global Warming) and they are expensive. Finding a way to utilize clean and plentiful energy resources helps the race and the individual on a purely selfish level. It might also help the planet, or it might not. Who cares? It helps me!

So shove Global Warming up your rectum and give me a car that delivers a mile per penny. That would be progress.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

OLDENGLANDDRY

Friday, November 9, 2007 8:55 AM

Yes, Global warming is a scam. Created by the Reagan-Thatcher governments in the Eighties in order to push forward the Nuclear power agenda. Which is why I'm surprised by Auraptors stance.

CITIZEN

Friday, November 9, 2007 10:19 AM

"Greatest scam in history !"

Nice way to frame a debate. You lose your temper and run away from the last one, unable or unwilling to provide a logical rational argument for your stance, and instead start a new topic framed for confirmation bias. Personally I'm interested in the truth of the matter, not confirming my preconceptions, someone who won't even make they're case isn't going to be helpful in that regard.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, November 9, 2007 10:32 AM

I normally don't bother with these discussions cause for a fact, I lack the scientific grounding to discuss it accurately, not that it stops anyone else...

But I must say, Anthony, you summed up MY position on the topic quite exactly, if something is a good idea in it's own right, who the hell needs some excuse to do it ?

Other than the profits of some corporate dickheads who'd go running to the Gov for a handout if the price of their product ever tanked, where exactly, is there a logical, reasonable incentive NOT to move towards using clean and renewable energy sources ?

Apparently that point is somewhat lost on the folks entrenched on one side or the other lobbing shells - that somewhere in the middle of that no-mans-land lies the simple fact that it's not a bad idea all by it's lonesome, without the need to prove any damned thing one way or the other.

The big three might be telling you it can't be done, but try tellin that to maniac johnnie goodwin.
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/120/motorhead-messiah.html

"Goodwin installed the Duramax and a five-speed Allison--the required transmission for a Duramax, which also helps give it race-car-like control and a rapid take off. After five days' worth of work, the Hummer was getting about 18 mpg--double the factory 9 mpg--and twice the original horsepower. He drove it over to a local restaurant and mooched some discarded oil from its deep fryer, strained the oil through a pair of jeans, and poured it into the engine. It ran perfectly."

Can be done, will be done.

Get with the program, folks.

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

AURAPTOR

Friday, November 9, 2007 11:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
"Greatest scam in history !"

Nice way to frame a debate. You lose your temper and run away from the last one, unable or unwilling to provide a logical rational argument for your stance, and instead start a new topic framed for confirmation bias. Personally I'm interested in the truth of the matter, not confirming my preconceptions, someone who won't even make they're case isn't going to be helpful in that regard.

Didn't run away from anything, just started a new thread to show the latest development in the ongoing discussion that is global warming. As this was an entirely new story, I felt it needed its own thread. Why does that annoy you? Because I happened to use the headline for the thread title ? Hey, I didn't write the story, so don't get cranky at me.

"Hillary tried to get a million dollars for the Woodstock museum. I understand it was a major cultural and pharmaceutical event. I couldn't attend. I was tied up at the time." - John McCain

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

JONGSSTRAW

Friday, November 9, 2007 12:46 PM

Gore and his merry band of mindless followers, STILL REELING from their 2000 election defeat, have latched on to global warming with a religious fervor I haven't seen since, well yesterday in Iran, when hundreds of thousands of neaderthals chanted in unison death to America. Heck...it looked just like your typical weekend Liberal gathering in San Francisco.
Let's see...the last time the "Gore Camp" was so irrationally & emotionally stirred into an hysterical frenzy was back when Tipper took on the recording industry over foul language in the lyrics of songs. In those days, the so-called enlightened liberals just hated the Gores, but now they worship them. At last, they finally found an "issue" that appeals to all the haters of everything in America. Meanwhile, as Fat Boy w/ Little Brains tools around the country in his entourage of 747's & SUV's, he's using more gas and energy than everyone on the Planet, except maybe his blood-brother ally, the ultra feeble-minded & barely understandable RFK Jr. Hypocricy never has been both so blatantly transparent & ignored by the faithful...but what can you expect from the idol worshippers of the Sensei of the Insane?

LEADB

Friday, November 9, 2007 12:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
...

But I must say, Anthony, you summed up MY position on the topic quite exactly, if something is a good idea in it's own right, who the hell needs some excuse to do it ?

...

The big three might be telling you it can't be done, but try tellin that to maniac johnnie goodwin.
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/120/motorhead-messiah.html

...

Can be done, will be done.

Get with the program, folks.

-Frem

What Athonony and Frem said. I posted similar in the last thread on the topic; glad to see others post similar views.

====
Please vote for Firefly hourly: http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

Consider $5/year to support FFF: http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/pay/T39WWCGS4JYCV4

CAUSAL

Friday, November 9, 2007 1:00 PM

Personally, I blame the Bush administration for the global warming scam.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police
- Vote JonnyQuest/Causal, for Benevolent Co-Dictator of Earth; together, toward a brighter tomorrow!

GEEZER

Friday, November 9, 2007 2:23 PM

Outside the whole "global warming, is it real?" thing, what strikes me is that the people on this forum who are so exercised about possible abuses to individual rights due to, say, wiretapping or the Patriot Act vis a vis the War on Terror see no problem with the massive increase in government regulation and invasive bureaucracy that would be needed to enforce all the differing proposals to reduce carbon emissions.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Friday, November 9, 2007 2:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Outside the whole "global warming, is it real?" thing, what strikes me is that the people on this forum who are so exercised about possible abuses to individual rights due to, say, wiretapping or the Patriot Act vis a vis the War on Terror see no problem with the massive increase in government regulation and invasive bureaucracy that would be needed to enforce all the differing proposals to reduce carbon emissions.

I was thinking the same thing myself after reading several of the most recent threads here in RWED.
Several Posters were referred to as 'jackbooted nazi's' and 'Alliance' for wanting the laws already on the books enforced. Now these same name callers want more government interference from gun control to global warming to telling people what the can and cannot put into their bodies. Who are really the 'Alliance' trying to meddle as opposed to the 'Independants' who simply want to be left alone to live their lives?

STORYMARK

Friday, November 9, 2007 6:00 PM

'Rap bailing from one thread, after failing to provide documentation of his claims.... then starting a new thread with the same talking points, and still no documentation...

Hell, that alsmot never happens, right?

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

RIGHTEOUS9

Friday, November 9, 2007 6:39 PM

Well no shit most of us lack the scientific grounding to talk about the actual science of it. When you lack that grounding, it only seems logical to defer to those who have it.

I don't agree that it doesn't matter whether or not global warming is manmade. The roadblock being put up on the other side of this issue is that it would be too costly and that it would severely impact our economy if we tried to do something about this today. They'd argue that we need more time for research and more time to study just the best way to go about any changes so that it doesn't hurt us adversly, which is all really just bullshit that means "lets take this off the table indefinitely," and they would use this logic under the cover of there being no crisis, and no reason to hurry on this matter.

And a lie is a fucking lie. It matters that the scientific consensus is being muddied. It matters that we hold science in such low regard in this country that anybody can write an article on a subject so complex and without any vetting, get equal or greater media attention for it, to uh, "balance" the "debate". You can't tell me that should be left alone, ignored, and allowed to continue to permeate the mindset of the American people on an issue of such importance.

...........

That being said, I've made the same argument to friends and family that antonyt has. It's a valid argument as to whether or not we should be doing something either way, but it doesn't adress the malfeasance and the consequences of said malfeasance, which frankly, needs attention also.

............

Araptor, I think this Mister Coleman should do us all a favor then, take all of that research he did, take all of his accredidations, sit down and write a scientific paper. Then, he should have it peer reviewed and published in a journal, and then I may start to think that anything he has to say on the subject is anything but bullshit.

Hell, if he's got irrefutable evidence that man-made global warming is a hoax, as he says he does, he should do us all the biggest service ever perpetrated on mankind and do the actual leg work involved in disproving the evil scientists , wouldn't you think?

Seriously, when honest studies come out that put this issue into question, I'll pay attention to them.

.............

RIGHTEOUS9

Friday, November 9, 2007 6:48 PM

Bigdamnnobody and geezer...

I'm not sure how the issues equate. Generally the rule of thumb on civil rights is that your rights stop at the next person's nose, or something like that. When you pollute you are affecting all of those around you...and so infringing upon the rights of others...therefore you have no standing. It becomes a matter of who's rights are more valid...the right to clean air and a healthy planet, or the right to make money by destroying the planet.

And corporations aren't people and shouldn't have rights(though I believe they do), so as to any and all regulations involving them, it's not a rights issue at all.

HERO

Friday, November 9, 2007 6:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
So we want to take the word of a business man? I'm not exactly sure what your point is? He's read "dozens" of scientific papers, and he "knows" he's correct.

I"m not saying he's not an authority, but you tell us we should listen because he founded the weather channel?

I note for the record that John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, is a meteorologist, which is defined as a person who engages in an interdisciplinary study of the atmosphere that focuses on weather forecasting. He has over fifty years of experiance dating back to the early '50s.

In a court of law a man like this would easily qualify as an expert witness.

H

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, November 9, 2007 6:57 PM

Salient point, Geeze - one reason I'd rather get it done before it comes to that, cause once the Gov gets involved it will devolve into the usual half baked counterproductive heavily politicized lunacy.. well, worse than it is already.

And no bailing out the Big Three when they refuse to face the music that there is indeed a strong demand for this kinda thing - if they refuse to meet the demand and someone else does, they deserve to take a financial beating over it.

One of the most popular Bio-D conversion vehicles around here are actually Volvos with the D5 Engine, but they're rather more expensive to maintain - couple D24's running around too, but those are getting a bit long in the tooth, and overhauling them is expensive and sucks.

The Volvo wagon is an especially popular beast with the local farmers, but most of em are kinda paranoiac about admitting it or allowing them to be examined.

-F

RIGHTEOUS9

Friday, November 9, 2007 7:11 PM

and in a court of law, both sides can find an expert witness who will say what they want him to say.

This isn't a matter of whether or not the man is in a position of persuation, it is about him turning a matter of science into a political debate, taking the position that people can be talked into looking at man-made global warming as alarmism, rather than bothering to prove it, or some part of it by actually doing the science, and getting the science published. I suppose he would be very much like an expert witness in a court of law, Hero, good analogy.

CITIZEN

Friday, November 9, 2007 7:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Didn't run away from anything, just started a new thread to show the latest development in the ongoing discussion that is global warming. As this was an entirely new story, I felt it needed its own thread. Why does that annoy you? Because I happened to use the headline for the thread title ? Hey, I didn't write the story, so don't get cranky at me.

If you think making two threads about the same subject so you can get "Global Warming is the greatest scam in history" above the discussion thread "Global Warming" is reasonable, it says a lot about your willingness to debate. The best place for this would have been in the thread already started on the subject.

As for not running away, you said:

Quote:
I'm really fucking tired of having this discussion over and over and over. I'm done w/ it. Y'all go play w/ yourselves.

Sounds very emotional wording to me. You lost your temper and scurried away because you couldn't back up your stance, then started a whole new thread that framed the debate the way you liked it. If you don't want to discuss this any more, why start a new thread on the subject? Undoubtedly it wasn't a lie, you don't want to discuss it any more, you just forgot the qualifier. You don't want to discuss it any more, you want everyone you disagree with to shut up and disappear. Like I said, I want to know the truth of the situation, I won't get that from someone too arrogant and disrespectful of other people to back up their own assertions, so from now on you can go ahead and rant at anyone who'll listen, I won't be one of them, and I urge anyone concerned with thinking for themselves to do the same.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

PIRATENEWS

Friday, November 9, 2007 7:50 PM

Quote:
"The Sun - it's that big firey thing up in the sky. But that's not important right now."
-John Lee, Pirate News

Global warming yes, man-made global warming no.

Global warming comes from the Sun, not a tailpipe or cow fart.

The entire Solar System is warming. This is normal. Then it will cool down. 1934 was hotter than now.

Global Warming = Global Tax + Global Genocide.

Not fun.

CHRISISALL

Friday, November 9, 2007 7:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by piratenews:

The entire Solar System is warming.

Quick- what's the temperature on Pluto right now?

Are you saying the Sun is a little hotter now than 10 years ago? Seriously, that seems a little science-challenged to me.

But I do agree it is in large part natural. Our gases impact it's rate and longevity though IMO.

Chrisisall the scientist

GEEZER

Friday, November 9, 2007 8:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
When you pollute you are affecting all of those around you...and so infringing upon the rights of others...therefore you have no standing.

And the fact that you make this statement so blythely is the scary part to me.

Everyone pollutes. Every single one of us. Therefore we are all infringing on the rights of others and have no standing. So some bureaucracy gets to tell us where the line is between acceptable and too much. That'll determine what we can do, and what we can own, and how warm or cold we can be, and that we can't charcoal grill our food or have a fire in winter. Hey, we're all self-evidently guilty, just by being here.

There are many folk here who get all riled about possible government wire-tapping, which no one will ever know happened and will never cause any changes in most people's lives.

But these same folk don't mind giving up any control over major decisions in their, and everyone else's, lives to a probably supra-national bureaucracy they have no control over, and who may very well not have their best interests at heart.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Friday, November 9, 2007 8:41 PM

Actually the government already determines what we can buy - try getting a car w/o seat belts, or lead paint for your house.

So a supra-national agency is going to run our lives ? Riiiight. B/c they can write US laws at all levels and enforce them. (note - sarcasm)

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

RIGHTEOUS9

Friday, November 9, 2007 8:46 PM

dude, are you telling me there should be no lines drawn?

A matter of degrees is exactly what we are talking about...

you are not free to walk outside and shoot a gun down the street, pedestrians be damned. Balances have to be considered...all of us polluting is something that has to be balanced with everything else...but a chemical company doesn't have the right to dump their waste in the ocean to get rid of it; the sheer scale of the results of such dumping is damning.

and I've got news for you, without laws governing this shit, without regulations and bureocracy, that's exactly what they would do...should I add a "duh" to the end of this post?
................

Here's another question to pose you...

is it okay for cities to outlaw fireworks? Are those kinds of laws off-limits to you because they infringe on somebody elses right to do as they choose? Is the police department that enforces said laws a capricious bureocratic authority in this matter, that has no business regulating these activities and arresting for them?

Should everybody else sit tight and have to hose down their roof's every fourth of july, maybe make a moat around their house, just so that everybody can enjoy the pretty lights and the cool bangs?

GEEZER

Friday, November 9, 2007 10:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
So a supra-national agency is going to run our lives ? Riiiight. B/c they can write US laws at all levels and enforce them. (note - sarcasm)

"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

So who else is gonna do what you want done about global warming? You don't trust business to do anything against their bottom line. You don't trust the US government to do anything against business. You don't trust the US electorate to make the sacrifices you know are necessary.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CHRISISALL

Friday, November 9, 2007 10:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
You don't trust the US government to do anything against business. You don't trust the US electorate to make the sacrifices you know are necessary.

We are damned, Geez.

Gorram Chrisisall

GEEZER

Friday, November 9, 2007 10:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
dude, are you telling me there should be no lines drawn?

A matter of degrees is exactly what we are talking about...

you are not free to walk outside and shoot a gun down the street, pedestrians be damned. Balances have to be considered.

Absolutely, but who decides?

Our laws in the US are pretty much legislated by folks that are elected to office, supposedly responsible to their constituents, and subject to removal if they make too many folks too mad.

The majority of folks in some places (not all BTW) don't want firearms shot down the street, or fireworks set off. In Hungry Horse, MT. folks stand on opposite sides of the main drag on July 4th and shoot fireworks at each other.

If the people want action on global warming, let them elect folks who'll act on it. I'm afraid that the "We must do something now!" crowd won't wait for that.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, November 9, 2007 10:47 PM

*steps out on the front porch, lights a cigar, farts loudly and waves downwind...*

My in town ride and only vehicle I use besides the ones of my employer, gets 180-213 MPG, and has less emissions profile than your yard equipment.

Compare that to 11mpg SUVs immune to most emissions restrictions cause of their GVW and then explain to me how any of them fuckers have any kind of right to bitch at ME for smoking ?

You can bitch about my secondhand smoke,
When I can bitch about your secondhand emissions.

Seriously tho, fuck the law, I see it as a respect issue, respect for youself (conspicuous consumption is just freakin crass), respect for others and respect to your living space but not effectively crapping where ya live, in essence.

Just imagine my opinion of one of these secondhand smoke whiners when I am near their vehicle at a stoplight on my little 64cc trike and their goddamn H2 exhaust pipe is pointed right at my face the whole time.

-F

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Friday, November 9, 2007 10:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
This isn't a matter of whether or not the man is in a position of persuation, it is about him turning a matter of science into a political debate,...

Yeah, isn't that Gore's job?

TPAGE

Friday, November 9, 2007 11:22 PM

Whether your position is Global Warming is real or fake, whether you care for the environment or not you should check out this video:

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

And if someday on some little piss-ant moon/My hand is a little too slow, or my aim a little bit off/At least I’ll go down fighting, not lying abed surrounded by quacks - "Sir Warrick" by Geezer

RIGHTEOUS9

Friday, November 9, 2007 11:24 PM

Oh bigdamnednobody...how cute you are.

I knew somebody was going to invoke Gore's name in this vain when I posted that, thought about preemtpively nipping it in the bud, then decided to let you look like an ass instead.

I don't believe in global warming because Gore says it. Gore is effective at bringing the issue into the limelight, and he is effective at giving the actual scientists a platform from which to be heard...

but its the overwhelming consensus of said scientists that I find fairly convincing. You can't see a difference here?

Gore has made a case for us to listen to the science on this subject, he hasn't snubbed it in the name of his own opinion. The facts he cited he didn't pull out of his ass...they came sourced and vetted. If the businessman meteorologist, climatologist coleman wants to be held in the same regard, he should do the same.

RUE

Saturday, November 10, 2007 12:02 AM

"If the people want action on global warming, let them elect folks who'll act on it. I'm afraid that the "We must do something now!" crowd won't wait for that."

Yeah, they're gonna invoke the world government to come to the US with troops and set it all straight. Yuh-huh.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Saturday, November 10, 2007 12:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
Oh bigdamnednobody...how cute you are.
I knew somebody was going to invoke Gore's name in this vain when I posted that, thought about preemtpively nipping it in the bud, then decided to let you look like an ass instead.

What a great way to start off a discussion. Try to put me on the defensive before any meaningful exchange occurs. You do know what those emoticons are for don't you?

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
I don't believe in global warming because Gore says it. Gore is effective at bringing the issue into the limelight, and he is effective at giving the actual scientists a platform from which to be heard...
but its the overwhelming consensus of said scientists that I find fairly convincing. You can't see a difference here?

My point was about Gore politicizing something that should not be. Can you actually claim that Gore has no partisan agenda? Did you see his movie?
And Gore draws from the findings of the I.P.C.C. The same panel who went from people on the coasts needing to grow gills to people on the coasts maybe getting their toes wet.

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
Gore has made a case for us to listen to the science on this subject, he hasn't snubbed it in the name of his own opinion. The facts he cited he didn't pull out of his ass...they came sourced and vetted. If the businessman meteorologist, climatologist coleman wants to be held in the same regard, he should do the same.

Agreed. Let's not jump the gun and dismiss this guy's stance because it does not jib with yours after cursory inspection. It's not like this guy is Joe Blow crazy-talker on some street corner. He does know a thing or two about the Earth's climate.

GEEZER

Saturday, November 10, 2007 1:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"If the people want action on global warming, let them elect folks who'll act on it. I'm afraid that the "We must do something now!" crowd won't wait for that."

Yeah, they're gonna invoke the world government to come to the US with troops and set it all straight. Yuh-huh.

So who's gonna do it for you, Rue? Folk aren't gonna vote for it quick enough for you, if at all. You keep citing the UN's IPCC reports like they were scripture. Don't you think the UN or the EU will come and save you from the rising water?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Saturday, November 10, 2007 2:16 AM

Have you been drinking again ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

RALLEM

Saturday, November 10, 2007 2:30 AM

I read an article about the man made global warming myth, which stated that sun spots might be the real culprit to our current global warming. A basic understanding of what the article said was that the core of the sun was at a few million degrees Celsius or something like that, and the surface of the sun was only like a few hundred thousand degrees Celsius, and the atmosphere was a few million degrees, and they think that sun spots are the cause of this discrepancy. The article also said that during this planet’s last ice age there were only 50 sun spots during the entire time of the ice age while usually there are several thousand per year. (My memory of details is very fuzzy so please don’t quote me on any of the details)

This sounds somewhat plausible except how do scientists know how many sunspots happened during our last ice age? There are a few more things I would like to say, but I have to prepare my station for my closing. If I have internet access at home tomorrow, I will revisit this post then, but if not I will on Sunday Afternoon.

SIGNYM

Saturday, November 10, 2007 2:52 AM

Curiously, Geezer can't even keep his own argument straight. If the government should decide to DO something about global warming, then they're just

Quote:
some bureaucracy {which} gets to tell us where the line is between acceptable and too much. That'll determine what we can do, and what we can own, and how warm or cold we can be, and that we can't charcoal grill our food or have a fire in winter.

But if the government does NOTHING, they're suddenly elevated to

Quote:

folks that are elected to office, supposedly responsible to their constituents, and subject to removal if they make too many folks too mad.

Not that Geezer is a disinformationalist or anything....

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Saturday, November 10, 2007 3:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Not that Geezer is a disinformationalist or anything....

Signy reads, Signy does not comprehend.

GEEZER

Saturday, November 10, 2007 4:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Have you been drinking again ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

Not so much.

And what are you going to do when the majority of the electorate either doesn't buy human caused global warming as a threat, or doesn't think we have enough information about possible ameliorative strategies to settle on any particular solution?

Got a plan? A workable one?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Saturday, November 10, 2007 4:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Not that Geezer is a disinformationalist or anything....

You've either got to convince a majority of folk in the US that global warming is an imminent threat - and that someone knows how to correct it in an efficient manner - or you've got to have an external entity impose their solution on the US.

If you can provide another option, please do so.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Saturday, November 10, 2007 6:11 AM

Here we have a majority of posters who, while they may or may not credit scientists with knowing anything about global warming, are calling for efficient and renewable energy. And your reply - not - hallelujah, just was I was saying was needed - popular support ! No, your response to actual popular support is - wow, you (me specifically) are crazy - looking for, believing in, being part of - whatever your point was (you made so may) - an international conspiracy to run the US.
Seriously - PN incoherent, illogical, and plain nutty. Without the interesting tidbits though.

So now you shift ground to plan B - 'THE FALSE DILEMNA'.

When you feel like having a real discussion instead of running disinformation routines, let us know.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SIGNYM

Saturday, November 10, 2007 1:58 PM

GEEZER, you said

Quote:
You've either got to convince a majority of folk in the US that global warming is an imminent threat...

SO...

Poll: U.S. need to address global warming
Quote:
Nov. 7, 2007
NEW YORK, Nov. 7 (UPI) -- A majority of people questioned in a new Harris Poll said the United States needs to take the lead in addressing global warming. Seventy-one percent of the 1,052 U.S. adults polled last month said they believe current trends will lead to global warming and an increase in average temperatures.

The poll said 87 percent agreed with the statement that "since emerging countries such as India and China will soon pass the United States as the largest contributor of greenhouse gases, whatever is done to control these gases should be undertaken by almost all industrial countries";

Eighty-one percent said they believe "the United States needs to set the lead when it comes to controlling greenhouse gases and pollution."

www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Science/2007/11/07/
poll_us_need_to_address_global_warming/1375/

Quote:
- and that someone knows how to correct it in an efficient manner...

In point of fact there are many efficient means of correcting the problem.

What I'm hearing from the global-warming deniers is...

There's no such thing as global warming!
Clearly false.

Gore shouldn't "politicize" the issue!
Why not? Politics should be how we get things done. ANY political party can jump on-board the issue. If a Party chooses not to do so, that's their choice.

You need a majority!
Okay, got it. A rather large one at that.

And last but not least: It's got to be efficient!
It is. I know you can't see it because you believe that American auto engineering is the pinnacle, but the truth is out there.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RIGHTEOUS9

Saturday, November 10, 2007 5:53 PM

Bigdamnnobody

are you seriously going to call your end of this conversation a meaningful exchange?

You like your one liner posts, and they may be amusing to you, but they certainly don't pass for high discourse,

that is not to say you aren't capable and worthy of quality discourse, and I do appreciate your follow up response, because it adds some dimension to your ealier one...

....................

I saw Gore's movie. I don't know what about it you are referring to that suggests he has been the one politicizing this issue. But perhaps you could direct me to the part of the film where he does what you suggest.

My theory is that people portray him as politicizing it because he himself is a politician and has had a (D) after his name. If that's what it takes to politicize an issue though, we are in fucking trouble. If people in Washington are unwilling to look beyond that letter to the content and the scientific consensus, well, they are the ones politicizing it...

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Sunday, November 11, 2007 7:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
are you seriously going to call your end of this conversation a meaningful exchange?
You like your one liner posts, and they may be amusing to you, but they certainly don't pass for high discourse

Not to quibble here but I said BEFORE a meaningful exchange occurs. I agree that I was being naughty by bringing up Gore, hence why I used the wink emoticon. If you had really been looking for high discourse I don't think you would have started off by being condesending and insulting in your response to me.

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
I saw Gore's movie. I don't know what about it you are referring to that suggests he has been the one politicizing this issue. But perhaps you could direct me to the part of the film where he does what you suggest.

I could supply you with my obviously bias take on the film but you would easily dismiss that. Instead I'll supply the following link describing what the High Court of Justice of England and Wales decided regarding the film.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimmock_v_Secretary_of_State_for_Educatio
n_and_Skills
In response, the Government's counsel said that the guidance notes that accompanied the DVD of An Inconvenient Truth meant that the overall package was politically balanced. Teachers could present the film in any way they wished but could provide balance by explaining to pupils that some of Gore's views were political and asking them for their views. The Government offered to modify the guidance notes to meet specific scientific concerns. On the last day of the hearing, 2 October, the judge announced that he would be saying in his formal written judgment that the film did promote "partisan political views" and teachers would have to inform pupils that there were other opinions on global warming and they should not necessarily accept the views of the film. However, he stated that "I will be declaring that, with the guidance as now amended, it will not be unlawful for the film to be shown."

CITIZEN

Sunday, November 11, 2007 11:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimmock_v_Secretary_of_State_for_Educatio
n_and_Skills
In response, the Government's counsel said that the guidance notes that accompanied the DVD of An Inconvenient Truth meant that the overall package was politically balanced. Teachers could present the film in any way they wished but could provide balance by explaining to pupils that some of Gore's views were political and asking them for their views. The Government offered to modify the guidance notes to meet specific scientific concerns. On the last day of the hearing, 2 October, the judge announced that he would be saying in his formal written judgment that the film did promote "partisan political views" and teachers would have to inform pupils that there were other opinions on global warming and they should not necessarily accept the views of the film. However, he stated that "I will be declaring that, with the guidance as now amended, it will not be unlawful for the film to be shown."

To be fair, that's what we think about most American media

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

SIGNYM

Sunday, November 11, 2007 1:48 PM

Quote:
Not to quibble here but I said BEFORE a meaningful exchange occurs. I agree that I was being naughty by bringing up Gore, hence why I used the wink emoticon. If you had really been looking for high discourse I don't think you would have started off by being condesending and insulting in your response to me.

THIS from the master of insults? Honestly, I don't anticipate discourse from you at all.

Quote:
Teachers could present the film in any way they wished but could provide balance by explaining to pupils that some of Gore's views were political

The "inconvenient truth" that you fail to mention.... the part right before the sentence that you quote, is... The court ruled that the film was substantially founded upon scientific research and fact. There were nine points in dispute in the film, of those, three are definitely wrong and the remainder are more correct than not according to the scientific consensus.

The film is clearly a call for action. Does that make it "political"? I guess it is if you assume ANY call for action is political. In that view, Silent Spring by Rachel Carson would also be deemed "political", as would Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman. What I don't understand is the idea that this movie is somehow "partisan" i.e. supporting one political party over another. It's been a while since I saw the film; I wasn't particularly impressed with it but I didn't get the feeling that it was a Republican v Democrat film.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

ALLIETHORN7

Sunday, November 11, 2007 2:52 PM

Don't know if I'm reiterating here, as I'm too lazy to read the thread, but didn't ANYONE think that it may be just a natural thing? Seein' as we just got out of the Lil' Ice Age, maybe this is just the opposite of it, like the Lil' Apocalypse of Damnation and Hellfire?

-Danny

and every time I play with passion I start breaking strings,
and my voice cracks when I sing from my heart
guess that's the price I've got to pay to know that I'm alive
this melody is tearing me apart

THRICE RULES!!!!!!!!!
My Master went to the Moon in a Rocket of Flamin' Cheese!
I LIKE CHEESE!!!
http://www.myspace.com/otherrandomdude

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Sunday, November 11, 2007 3:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The "inconvenient truth" that you fail to mention.... the part right before the sentence that you quote, is... The court ruled that the film was substantially founded upon scientific research and fact. There were nine points in dispute in the film, of those, three are definitely wrong and the remainder are more correct than not according to the scientific consensus.

You may be right if my original point was that the movie was not based on scientific fact. Righteous and I are clearly discussing the partisan nature of the film, not the science.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The film is clearly a call for action. Does that make it "political"? I guess it is if you assume ANY call for action is political. In that view, Silent Spring by Rachel Carson would also be deemed "political", as would Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman. What I don't understand is the idea that this movie is somehow "partisan" i.e. supporting one political party over another. It's been a while since I saw the film; I wasn't particularly impressed with it but I didn't get the feeling that it was a Republican v Democrat film.

That is your opinion. Obviously myself and at least a couple of Brit's think otherwise. I have the same misgivings regarding Canada's leading man-made global warming champion David Suzuki. Why he feels it necessary to muddy the waters with his politics instead of the straight facts escapes me. It needlessly puts roughly half of his target audience on the defensive for no good reason IMHO.

p.s. Signy, you stink.

SIGNYM

Sunday, November 11, 2007 4:55 PM

Quote:
You may be right if my original point was that the movie was not based on scientific fact. Righteous and I are clearly discussing the partisan nature of the film, not the science.

Where is the "partisan" part of the film? (Partisan politics means supporting one party over another.) As I said, it's been a while since I saw the film, but I don't recall Gore touting Democrats over Republicans. So if you would care to be specific about the partisan nature of the film- especially by providing examples- that would be helpful.

AFA the film being "political": IMHO where a movie (book, etc) is scientific or factual it is NOT political. If it is mostly scientific, it is mostly not political; science trumps politics in my view. For example: The earth is round is not a political statement, and if a politician or party chooses to run on a flat-earth platform that STILL doesn't make the earth is round "political". If the facts are that the earth is warming, AND the CO2 is a greenhouse gas, AND that the concentration of atmosphereic CO2 has been rising - all of which are proveably true - then what part is "political"? Again, if you could provide some examples of what you think is overtly partisan or political that would be helpful.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

CHRISISALL

Sunday, November 11, 2007 5:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
For example: The earth is round

So...this is a lefty belief is it? Hmmmm, AU will have to join the flat-Earth side, I guess.

Terminally silly Chrisisall

SIGNYM

Sunday, November 11, 2007 5:27 PM

Well, you know us lefty-types: Always on the lunatic fringe

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

STORYMARK

Sunday, November 11, 2007 5:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So if you would care to be specific about the partisan nature of the film- especially by providing examples- that would be helpful.

Because anything that doesn't automatically give corporations blanket permission to do anything they damned well please is Liberal propaganda.

Duh.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

SIGNYM

Sunday, November 11, 2007 6:00 PM

Where my objections to the film lay were the few times I got that game-show buzzer in my head when Gore said something that I knew wasn't true- for example, the Kilomanjaro snow isn't melting because of global warming. Also IMHO there was too much about "the lonely man in an uncaring world", trudging sadly but gamely through airports and backstages to bring the message to the people. Was that a play for sympathy? Probably. Was that "partisan"? Didn't seem to to me. Was that "political"? I guess, in so far as it tried to sway people to take action by appealing to their emotions. But by that definition even advertising is political.

Nonetheless, I thought the movie on the whole presented the science as is currently understood.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

AURAPTOR

Sunday, November 11, 2007 6:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:

Terminally silly Chrisisall

About all we agree on. That, and Jessica Alba.

"Hillary tried to get a million dollars for the Woodstock museum. I understand it was a major cultural and pharmaceutical event. I couldn't attend. I was tied up at the time." - John McCain

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

LEADB

Sunday, November 11, 2007 8:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Alliethorn7:
Don't know if I'm reiterating here, as I'm too lazy to read the thread, but didn't ANYONE think that it may be just a natural thing? Seein' as we just got out of the Lil' Ice Age, maybe this is just the opposite of it, like the Lil' Apocalypse of Damnation and Hellfire?

-Danny

Yes; but the 'Apocalypse of Damnation and Hellfire' reference is... unique.

JARHEAD

Monday, November 12, 2007 1:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

I will say now what I have said before.... There are plenty of good, selfish reasons to change the behavior of mankind that have nothing to do with Global Warming.... It might also help the planet, or it might not. Who cares? It helps me!

So shove Global Warming up your rectum and give me a car that delivers a mile per penny. That would be progress.

Quoted for truth.

I drive a F350 Turbo-Diesel Super-Duty everyday at work. Right now mixing up my own almost-biodiesel would really save on the fuel bill, wish I could convince the boss. Those of you in countries where you can actually buy diesel cars should really take advantage cause near as I can tell they aren't allowed to import them in the States. Fraken politicians. I think when #2 diesel goes over $4.00 a gallon here(like next month or so)I might be able to make some headway.

I’m never serious. Serious means something bad is about to happen.

98% of teens have smoked pot, if you are one of the 2% that haven't, copy this into your signature

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Saturday, June 25, 2016 1:31 AM

Further proof of the scam.

Federal laboratory has been shut down due to extensive data manipulation regarding the fake science perpetuating the myth of global warming. Much of the prophets of the global warming religion have based their claims on these known false piles of data doo.

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/lakewood-co/TRGO6A8B2P1HF7CS9

https://www.doioig.gov/reports/inspection-scientific-integrity-inciden
t-usgs-energy-geochemistry-laboratory

Something that I find interesting is that this threead was started at the end of 2007 by RapKnight, and this knowledge of corruption of data and false reporting of "Libtard facts" dates back to 2008 - they did n't bother to look at all the fictional science findings before that!!!
Did RapKnight spur the investigation into facts instead of Libtard mythology?

I am wondering which excuses and rationalizations the Libtards and other disciples of the global warming religion will rely upon and use to deflect the mythical basis for their false claims. How will they dismiss the facts, as they do whenever the facts and science get in the way of their belief system?

THGRRI

Saturday, June 25, 2016 1:48 AM

In general society feels bad for those who for what ever reason are assigned to the special bus. When the world and 90% of its scientists claim we are entering a time of global warming of which man is a major contributor of, those who say it ain't so are those relegated to the special bus. The happy news for them is that they don't know it. But the rest of us do.

Do you think we should tell them the world is flat? Naw

SECOND

Saturday, June 25, 2016 7:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Further proof of the scam.

I am wondering which excuses and rationalizations the Libtards and other disciples of the global warming religion will rely upon and use to deflect the mythical basis for their false claims. How will they dismiss the facts, as they do whenever the facts and science get in the way of their belief system?

You jumped to a conclusion as broad as the entire world, without supporting facts, JewelStaiteFan. The incident specifically concerned accusations of scientific misconduct and data manipulation by a mass spectrometer operator assigned to the Energy Resources Program’s (ERP) Energy Geochemistry Laboratory in Lakewood, CO, in the Energy and Minerals Mission Area.

In other news, the arctic sea ice is melting:
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

Low ice, low snow, both poles
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2016/06/low-ice-low-snow-both-poles/

1KIKI

Saturday, June 25, 2016 11:54 AM

Quote:
Federal laboratory has been shut down due to extensive data manipulation regarding the fake science perpetuating the myth of global warming.

The first link said nothing about global warming, or even what the lab analyzed for. The second link went nowhere. Neither supported your babbling. So I looked further - what was this really about?
The lab appears to be a single-instrument lab that only uses that one kind of instrument called an ICP-MS (inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometer) Where I work we have a plethora of instruments, including two ICP-MSs.
An ICP-MS is useful for analyzing any solid that can be dissolved in acids, and gives you how much of the various elements are in each solid. So it's very useful for analyzing rocks, soils (made of broken down rocks), and dusts (made of broken down soils).
What it CAN'T do is analyze elements that combine together to form gases - like when one atom of the element carbon combines with four atoms of the element hydrogen to form the gas methane; or when one atom of the element carbon combines with two atoms of the element oxygen to form the gas carbon dioxide; or when one atom of the element carbon combines with two atoms of the element chlorine and two atoms of the element fluorine to form the gas dichlorodifluoromethane otherwise known as Freon-12 (all these gazes being important to global warming).
So, an ICP-MS can measure elements found in the various forms of rocks and other dissolveable solids, but can't measure important greenhouses gases. I'm not finding a direct connection between the lab and data vital to verifying global warming.

Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

SIGNYM

Saturday, June 25, 2016 3:50 PM

JEWEL, you have a grasp on the fact that liberals have some stupid beliefs, but this isn't one of them. I've looked into every single one of RAPPY'S claims about global warming, from the ...

1) East Anglia data "conspiracy" (it had to do with how ONE POINT out of approx a thousand was treated) to the

2) Carbon dioxide trapped in the ice of ice shields, to the presumed

3) 18-Year "pause" in global temperature rise, heralding "the end" of increasing temperature

.... and every single point was wrong. The single point in the East Anglia data wouldn't have budged the conclusion whether it was included or excluded, the presumed "lag" of carbon dioxide concentrations relative to global warming simply points out a net positive feedback loop (warmed oceans release gases, including CO2), and that presumed "end of global warming" has been wiped out by a year-after-year "hottest ever" (2014, 2015, and 2016 so far). The latest "revelation" is also wrong.

There's no "conspiracy".

It's just physics at work.

--------------
I'll tell you what I DON'T like about Trump: I think that he has never confronted either the international banking cartel, nor the CIA-State Dept multi-headed hydra, nor the military-industrial complex. The last person to confront them was JFK (BTW, ALL immigration was illegal under JFK) and look what happened to him.

REAVERFAN

Saturday, June 25, 2016 6:39 PM

Looks like poor JSF has made a fool of himself. Reichwing climate deniers always do. They fall for the denial propaganda of the big energy companies, who spend millions brainwashing tiny reichwing brains.

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/climate-deniers/koch-indu
stries/

REAVERFAN

Saturday, June 25, 2016 6:49 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Tuesday, June 28, 2016 6:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Quote:
Federal laboratory has been shut down due to extensive data manipulation regarding the fake science perpetuating the myth of global warming.

The first link said nothing about global warming, or even what the lab analyzed for. The second link went nowhere.

Are you saying the second link was no good? It did not link to the Inspector General's Report of Investigation?
Or you think it was insubstantial?

Quote:

Neither supported your babbling. So I looked further - what was this really about?
The lab appears to be a single-instrument lab that only uses that one kind of instrument called an ICP-MS (inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometer) Where I work we have a plethora of instruments, including two ICP-MSs.
An ICP-MS is useful for analyzing any solid that can be dissolved in acids, and gives you how much of the various elements are in each solid. So it's very useful for analyzing rocks, soils (made of broken down rocks), and dusts (made of broken down soils).
What it CAN'T do is analyze elements that combine together to form gases - like when one atom of the element carbon combines with four atoms of the element hydrogen to form the gas methane; or when one atom of the element carbon combines with two atoms of the element oxygen to form the gas carbon dioxide; or when one atom of the element carbon combines with two atoms of the element chlorine and two atoms of the element fluorine to form the gas dichlorodifluoromethane otherwise known as Freon-12 (all these gazes being important to global warming).
So, an ICP-MS can measure elements found in the various forms of rocks and other dissolveable solids, but can't measure important greenhouses gases. I'm not finding a direct connection between the lab and data vital to verifying global warming.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Tuesday, June 28, 2016 6:37 AM

More linkies:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3443201/posts?page=44

http://talk.baltimoresun.com/topic/272518-federal-lab-shut-down-after-
18-years-of-disturbing-data-manipulation/

http://whatifthereisnorapture.blogspot.com/2016/06/disturbing-data-man
ipulation-forces.html

http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/23/federal-lab-forced-to-close-after-di
sturbing-data-manipulation/

http://lucianne.com/thread/?artnum=878032

1KIKI

Tuesday, June 28, 2016 7:18 AM

The second link repeatedly generates an error -

The connection was reset

The connection to the server was reset while the page was loading.

The site could be temporarily unavailable or too busy. Try again in a few moments.
(or repeatedly, over days)
If you are unable to load any pages, check your computer's network connection.
(get every page I try, just not this one)
If your computer or network is protected by a firewall or proxy (no), make sure that is permitted to access the Web. (accessing 'the Web' is fine, just not that page)

Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

1KIKI

Tuesday, June 28, 2016 7:36 AM

None of these links relate to whether or not global warming exists. As I posted earlier, the lab was analyzing 'inorganic' stuff that could be dissolved in acids: rock, soils, and dusts. More specifically they seemed to be looking at uranium in the environment (uranium is in rock, soil and dust), health effects of different energy sources (probably looking at mineral ash pollution from coal and oil), and US coal (coal is a rock).

NOTHING relates to the validity of global warming, which has to do with gases in the atmosphere.

I'm not going to look into this again.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3443201/posts?page=44
"The inorganic section of the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) Energy Geochemistry Laboratory in Lakewood, Colo. manipulated data on a variety of topics – including many related to the environment."
But not global warming.

http://talk.baltimoresun.com/topic/272518-federal-lab-shut-down-after-
18-years-of-disturbing-data-manipulation/
repeat of the first

http://whatifthereisnorapture.blogspot.com/2016/06/disturbing-data-man
ipulation-forces.html
"The research topics that faced data manipulation – including uranium in the environment, health effects of energy resources, and U.S. coal resources and reserves – was “disturbing,” Westerman said."
But not global warming.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/23/federal-lab-forced-to-close-after-di
sturbing-data-manipulation/
repeat of the previous article

http://lucianne.com/thread/?artnum=878032
repeat of the first article

Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

SIGNYM

Tuesday, June 28, 2016 11:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
More linkies:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3443201/posts?page=44

http://talk.baltimoresun.com/topic/272518-federal-lab-shut-down-after-
18-years-of-disturbing-data-manipulation/

http://whatifthereisnorapture.blogspot.com/2016/06/disturbing-data-man
ipulation-forces.html

http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/23/federal-lab-forced-to-close-after-di
sturbing-data-manipulation/

http://lucianne.com/thread/?artnum=878032

So I went to the USGS' website and decided to do a few searches and see what kinds of papers their data was used in.

Out of curiosity, I did a search of "climate". No results.
So I looked for "uranium" and got a crap-ton of results. AHA! I know the database works!
So I tried for "global". Got a few hits on that, mostly on global distribution of gas or oil resources.
"Global climate" finds nothing.
"Glacial" brings up nothing.
"Carbon dioxide" brings up nothing.
"Carbon" brings up 106 papers, scanning the first page it seems mostly about carbon dioxide storage sites, but I can't call up more than that.
"Coal" brings up "The Paleozoic record of changes in global climate and sea level" (2004) and "The evolution of global climate from the Carboniferous to the Tertiary" (1984).

I can guess what a lab like this MIGHT be doing, especially if they have several mass spectrometers, and one of those tasks is to establish the atomic weight ratios of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen or other elements, and thus establish the geologic age of a particular deposit. I'll give you an example of how this might be useful: Say that there is a large methane pocket slowly bubbling up to the surface of an urban landscape which has both oil deposits and old landfills (which produce methane) and causing a hazard. ONE way to determine the source of the methane is to look at the C12 versus C14 ratios ... yanno, carbon-dating the gas. By carbon-dating the gas, one can determine if the source is geologic (a natural gas deposit) or historic (a "lost" landfill).

This is especially important when trying to establish the geologic age of carbon dioxide and water in a glacier, which can say something about geologic global warming.

However, I COULD FIND NO SUCH EVIDENCE THAT THIS LAB DID GLOBAL-WARMING WORK. OTHER work, yes, but not related to global warming.

That you keep insisting that this lab's fraud is evidence of some sort of conspiracy surrounding global warming ... when it had little, if anything, to do with the topic ... I just don't know what to say. It's global climate shift deniers grasping at straws because they've run out of anything substantive to say.

--------------
I'll tell you what I DON'T like about Trump: I think that he has never confronted either the international banking cartel, nor the CIA-State Dept multi-headed hydra, nor the military-industrial complex. The last person to confront them was JFK (BTW, ALL immigration was illegal under JFK) and look what happened to him.

REAVERFAN

Tuesday, June 28, 2016 9:04 PM

Just more deniers denying solid science and believing denial propaganda bought by- you guessed it! - big energy companies like ExxonMobil.

Oh, what's this?

ExxonMobil climate change cover-up probe to expand as 17 AGs join NY to tackle fossil fuel firms

https://www.rt.com/usa/337698-exxonmobil-lawsuit-climate-change/

So much more!

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/climate-deniers/koch-indu
stries/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/oil-cover-up-climate_us_570e98bbe4
b0ffa5937df6ce
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-cha
nge-denial-effort/
http://graphics.latimes.com/oil-operations/

Are you really that gullible? I feel sorry for you.

THGRRI

Wednesday, June 29, 2016 1:29 AM

Deny Global Warming at your own expense. He is waiting for you!

http://insideclimatenews.org/

____________________________________________

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Wednesday, June 29, 2016 6:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
The second link repeatedly generates an error -

The connection was reset

The connection to the server was reset while the page was loading.

The site could be temporarily unavailable or too busy. Try again in a few moments.
(or repeatedly, over days)
If you are unable to load any pages, check your computer's network connection.
(get every page I try, just not this one)
If your computer or network is protected by a firewall or proxy (no), make sure that is permitted to access the Web. (accessing 'the Web' is fine, just not that page)

Thank you for your reply.
I checked the link yesterday, and again today - all on different computers. I was able to get to the link destination, no delay at all. I thank you for letting me know that you have a problem with this link or site, because there is no way for me to check if this problem exists for everybody else.
I saw a button for pdf which sent me to a different page/address. I have copied the link and posted below. If you have problems viewing this as well, I will try to copy it entirely.

https://www.doioig.gov/sites/doioig.gov/files/2016EAU010Public.pdf

1KIKI

Wednesday, July 6, 2016 11:05 AM

http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/news/2016/07/investigators-us-lab-w
orker-colorado-faked-test-results

Investigators: U.S. Lab Worker in Colorado Faked Test Results

A worker at a federal laboratory in Colorado intentionally manipulated test results for years, possibly tainting research that includes toxic metals in the Everglades, uranium near the Grand Canyon and coal in Afghanistan, investigators say. ... The manipulation occurred between 2008 and 2014 at the USGS Energy Geochemistry Laboratory in the Denver suburb of Lakewood, the inspector general said. The test samples were mostly coal and water.

Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

REAVERFAN

Wednesday, July 6, 2016 4:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/news/2016/07/investigators-us-lab-w
orker-colorado-faked-test-results

Investigators: U.S. Lab Worker in Colorado Faked Test Results

A worker at a federal laboratory in Colorado intentionally manipulated test results for years, possibly tainting research that includes toxic metals in the Everglades, uranium near the Grand Canyon and coal in Afghanistan, investigators say. ... The manipulation occurred between 2008 and 2014 at the USGS Energy Geochemistry Laboratory in the Denver suburb of Lakewood, the inspector general said. The test samples were mostly coal and water.

Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

And this has what to do with AGW?

SIGNYM

Wednesday, July 6, 2016 4:27 PM

Quote:
http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/news/2016/07/investigators-us-lab-w
orker-colorado-faked-test-results

Investigators: U.S. Lab Worker in Colorado Faked Test Results
A worker at a federal laboratory in Colorado intentionally manipulated test results for years, possibly tainting research that includes toxic metals in the Everglades, uranium near the Grand Canyon and coal in Afghanistan, investigators say. ... The manipulation occurred between 2008 and 2014 at the USGS Energy Geochemistry Laboratory in the Denver suburb of Lakewood, the inspector general said. The test samples were mostly coal and water.- KIKI

And this has what to do with AGW?- REAVERFAN

NOTHING, I think!

--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders being some sort of surrogate daddy or mommy, laying awake at night thinking about how to protect the kids. HA! In reality, they're thinking about who to sell them to so that can get a few more shekels in their pockets.