Major Scientific Study Says Global Warming Is Natu

Non-Phish General
#41

THNKFRSTPAL:

I appreciate that we disagree on this, but I think it demeans the real issues when you launch into patronising rants against me. So where I learned about climate change is somehow indicative of the quality of information I’ve got. My ‘establishment’ affects my opinion. You know nothing about where I learned about climate change or my ‘establishment’. Attacking what you perceive as my sources is uninformed and reflexive. It seems to me that you assume a lot about me just because of my disagreement with you.

Did you check the signatories of that ‘slick document’ ? I happen to put an element of trust in bodies such as the Royal Society and the National Academy of Sciences when it comes down to science. In terms of scientific consensus I don’t think any organisations are operating with the level of professionalism or independance from influence than these bodies - maybe you know different.

As for Consensus - It isn’t 100%, it never can be, there will always be dissenting voices. Climate denial comes in many forms, from those who have purely financial / political motives to scientists who have looked at the evidence and come to their own conclusions. The consensus reflects a majority opinion and at the moment that majority is pretty high.

I expect you won’t agree with this, because you think the FACTS speak for themselves, but I don’t think they do. there are so many different facts regarding climate change, so many observations and experiments stacked against so much differing historical data that it takes a cool head and reasoned assessment to determine any conclusions.

You have come to one conclusion - I have come to another. I have not been able to look at every single peer-reviewed paper regarding climate change (who has?) but I have read around the subject. You seem to have a bias against ‘Elite Scientists’ so I guess that allows you to disregard their work. I choose to disregard work based on it’s actual merits, not who it came from. I have got time for these new studies but seen in the context of the large body of work that already exists, I still favour the conclusion that climate change is man-made.

#42

^ maelzoid…

You obviously need better sources… possibly a local free newspaper. Yep.

#43

There’s a vacant-eyed man who stands in the middle of town handing out flyers he photocopied himself. I’ve always found him to be fairly reliable. He certainly debunked that whole 9/11 hoax quite effectively, not to mention that laughable evolution nonsense.

#44

I happen to put an element of trust in bodies such as the Royal Society and the National Academy of Sciences —I’m sure they have YOUR best interests in mind

The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years

ok, well, since you can’t debunk this historical fact then I guess, you’ll agree to disagree with FACT…sounds good

9/11 debunking, who’s talking about 9/11?

9/11 was perpetrated by Osama Bin Laden who hates freedom. We really need to stay in iraq for another 30+ years and build more military bases and invade more countries, not to mention spy on americans, destroy the bill of rights, and give up SOME freedoms for security from the EVIL cave dwellers. Barack Obama will protect us, him and his wife who sits on the council on foreign relations.

Cave dwellers hijacked planes and rammed them into buildings using little more than box cutters and fake bombs. It doesn’t matter that those that trained the hijackers at the florida schools mentioned that they were terrible pilots…yep it was those evil radical islamists who hate America. the troops are protecting our freedoms over there so we don’t fight them here didn’t you know? it also doesn’t matter that jet fuel doesn’t burn hot enough to melt steel or that the World Trade Center was the first building in the history of the world to collapse from fire damage. It also doesn’t matter that the NATIONAL INSTITUTE IF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY have no idea how the twin towers fell such as they did…nope. it was the EVIL TERRORISTS.

It doesn’t matter that the U.S. government has staged attacks in the past to justify war, read GULF OF TONKIN, USS LIBERTY, PROJECT NORTHWOODS. nope. doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter that there were military operations going on at the exact same time, on the exact same day, with the exact same targets, just coincidence I guess…It doesn’t matter that 9 of the 15 hijackers were found ALIVE in Europe, ope nothing to see hear…move along…

yep, the evil terrorists are out to destroy our freedom… re: 3 million plus dead in Iraq. oh maybe the numbers aren’t that high after all maybe it’s ONLY 500,000 dead, is that morally justifiable for you?

no WMD’s, no connection to 9/11, but we attacked them anyway.

doesn’t matter that the Bush family and the Bin Laden family have been doin business for years, or that prescott bush funded the nazi’s

nope, none of that matters and it’s all just hearsay anyway…

9/11 inside job…all facts point to NO, NO, NO…

go back to sleep everyone, nothing to see here, the air is fine to breathe after 9/11 , reopen the schools and get the emergency workers down there effective right away, the scientists say the air is fine. “I’m from the government, I’m here to help”, oh, by the way we’re going to tax you for your carbon footprint and you can only have two children because, well, humans are a virus on the beautiful planet earth. carbon dioxide is bad, bad , bad, it doesn’t matter that plants breathe it or that they grow stronger or bigger when there is more of it. nope. carbon dioxide is the problem, and we all know that humans exhale carbon dioxide.

Just keep hoping for the best and playing the guitar. It’s all very explainable you see. Obama 08, he will end the war (yeah right)

#45

Is this sarcasm? Or do you have any faith in these societies? I can’t tell.

Whether or not this is a fact or not is completely debatable and scientists are debating it in the public forum of peer-reviewed papers. While I won’t deny the figures that you have stated - these may well be facts - I do question whether they fall within known natural cycles. Now you can keep saying it is a fact but that doesn’t make it so - it is still a disputed interpretation of many different observations and evidence.

But it seems you have your mind made up.

This thread was launched by your original quoting of a scientific paper that ‘shatters’ myths about climate change - that should have been a story of the year - have you even read this paper?

http://uk.wrs.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geum91dm1HzHUBkoxLBQx.;_ylu=X3oDMTFiaXIwZ3MxBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA1VLMDI2M18yNjMEbANXUzE-/SIG=124iv1ud8/EXP=1198442485/**http%3A//icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf

Interesting stuff - but at no point in the paper does anyone say that human activity has had zero effect on climate change.

In fact, the ultimate conclusion of this paper states that data from satellite observations do not match a number of well-used models for climate change.

A solid bit of scientific study? Yes.

A valid contribution to the climate change debate? certainly.

A myth-shattering, story of the year that has been suppressed by elite scientists? I think not.

All this is a solid piece of research reported on an online blog

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2007/121107_global_warming.htm

and then augmented with quotes from some of the contributing scientists (some of which are unattributed and certainly not in the published paper) and bolstered with outright lies. to wit:

“The report dismisses attempts to reverse global warming by reducing carbon emissions as ineffective and pointless.”

The report does no such thing.

How quick you are to condemn my views, how quick to start hitting caps lock, as if that makes your opinion more valid. How quick you are to rely on a report from an internet blog which quite clearly has an anti-establishment bias.

How slow to go to the source material and read it yourself.

As for 9/11 - that is debated hotly in another thread and I have gladly contributed there. Thanks for taking the bait though.

#46

If it’s really a debate why are all the mainstream news outlets not giving voice to “the other side” why did the USA sign on to a global carbon tax this month? if it’s a debate that is.

the fact of the matter is “your” side is NOT treating it like a debate, that’s my point. no mainstream media is putting the other side out there, and when they do touch on the subject they make “our” side out to be loony, when that is simply NOT THE CASE.

your baiting me? great, I didn’t know you were so subversive, now I do.

9/11 in another thread? well wyh don’t you debunk the THE OTHER STAGED ATTACKS IN US HISTORY? staged attacks where americans died, do you get that? do you fully comprehend the magnitude of this information man, seriously…

no 9/11 debunker EVER tackles these key issues, EVER. why? because there historical fact.

jeez, I only want to get to the bottom of the greatest lies of our lifetimes, it seems your happy consuming and entertaining yourself, thinking everything is just fine. Well tell that to the Iraqi people will ya?? tell them there families have to die because 9/11 happened and the troops are just protecting us…have fun enabling the elite to murder and deceive some more…

Do you know who prints your money? Do you know who owns the federal reserve? Do you know who actually funded WWII and who funded the MAO dictatorship in CHINA? yep, the same folks who print your money and use your tax dollars to drop bombs on people. but you could care less about that couldn’t you…nice and comfy now are you? good, back to sleep young child, back to sleep.

Have fun giving away your freedoms, paying carbon taxes, and fighting the terrorists…chump

#47

http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/bloomberg-global-warming-47121403

#48

The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years

this is NOT debatable dude, the above is fact…please show me the link where one of “your scientists” say’s this particualr figure is untrue or in some sort of debate, please…

you can’t

#49

the dreaded quadruple post!!!

banned, sam I am, banned

#50

where’s the so-called debate you keep talking about?

http://www.talkclimatechange.com/2007/12/09/bali-climate-summit-latest-two-years-for-a-decision/

looks like a decision has already been made to me

#51

How about you show a link that says that is true - and don’t give me no prison planet bullshit link. I want a peer-reviewed article, or at least something from an accredited source.

You have a go at me about where I learn about climate change but it seems your sources are totally illegitimate. I have proven that your original post in this thread is totally bogus - I did this by finding the original article and pointing out the difference between it and the so-called truths accredited to it by other parties.

Now you may think that prison-planet.com is more reliable than the Royal Society and the NAS but it’s going to take a lot more than 5-post diatribes to convince me, especially when some of the evidence you do use is proven to be at best misguided, and at worse outright lies.

I’m not responding to the 9/11 stuff right now - as I said, there’s already another thread. This subject is large enough that I don’t need to be firing off in all tangents rebutting all things. I need a little focus here.

#52

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

No love for the IPCC?
Don’t believe a word the Royal Society say?
The NAS are a bunch of liars?
Add ‘Science’ to your list.

I have tried to formulate a reasoned argument - I have proven that your sources are illegitimate and yet you still call me ‘chump.’ Name-calling - really, you can do better than that.

#53

Triple post.

I’m still waiting to see that fact of yours reported legitimately.

But going back to your original post. Although Prison Planet was the source, much of its content can be traced back to a press release issued by the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) and specifically the SEPP president, Fred Singer - also one of the authors of the aforementioned report.

http://science-sepp.blogspot.com/2007/12/press-release-dec-10-2007.html

This went via the Canada free press and was at some point mis-quoted into the grand myth-shattering story you proclaim at threads start.

But who are SEPP?

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=65

Is that the same SEPP who have received $20,000 from… ExxonMobil?

Surely not.

Because I’m sure ExxonMobil have our best interests at heart - I’m sure they’ve got no vested interest in pushing the idea that consuming oil is not damaging the environment.

#54

How are my articles “bogus” because the mpeople writing them aren’t on the globalists payroll? You have proven nothing nor have provided links rebutting the facts that “my” articles pointed out. What exactly is an “accredited source”, do you mean professionals? That is what I have provided. Every article I posted was written in an even handed way, whereas your articles never even mentioned the opposition argument. The establishment you love and trust so much are bought and paid for, always have been, always will be. Things are getting worse in real life, I want to get to the bottom of why things aren’t getting better. What I’m finding is LIES, LIES and more LIES. It was the “accredited” sources you speak of that chanted “WMD’S” when there were none. It was your “accredited” sources that reported that the air in lower manhattan was safe to breathe when it wasn’t. Again, It was your “accredited” sources that demonized the Grateful Dead movement in the beginning. It was your “accredited” sources that said Saddam might have been linked to 9/11. It’s your “accredited” sources that won’t show the coffins coming home of our brave troops.

Your “accredited” sources are nothing but shills for the corporate elite who don’t give a shit about you or your family or America.

I do apologize for name calling but damnit!!!, At least look up the lies and find other sources and studies that don’t sit right with you.

#55

They would never lie about 9/11
They would never lie about the Iraq war
They would never lie about Global Warming
They would never lie about WMD’s
They would never lie
no
of course not
They are looking out for “us” at least the American people, right?

WRONG

#56

Thnkfrst you make some good sense sometimes but then come on with stuff like this that clearly indicates hash on the membrane. 9/11 wasn’t a scam by the gov’t to go to war in Iraq. It was the catalyst that generated the chain of events you list below that first statement. The threat of radical islam is not a myth nor is it a lie coming from washington.

I recently picked up a Michael Crichton novel “State of Fear” that is all about this global warming myth and the politics behind it as well as the collective state of mind that generates the fear of impending disaster. Such a state of mind is based in the primal need for survival. I’m really interested to learn more about this.

You should read it thnkfrst and then we can discuss… provided you put down the pipe son :stuck_out_tongue:

#57

btw man I’m only baiting you with the pipe remarks don’t take offense. However I find you’re 9/11 insinuation degrading. I don’t want to turn this thread into a 9/11 conspiracy debate thread but if you truly feel 9/11 was a US gov’t set up then I really don’t know what to say to you. I guess the polite thing to say is we would have to agree to disagree.

#58

i wish it wasnt so hard to figure out the TRUTH anymore. no one is willing to tell it because of politics…that is dumb

#59

There is no debate about 9/11 here folks. All I’m saying is the US government said they had no prior knowledge of the attacks and they did. PERIOD. That means they initially LIED. That’s not a conspiracy at all. The US government said the air around manhattan was safe to breathe and reopened the schools. The US government now admits they LIED and KNEW the air wasn’t safe to breathe, but that they wanted to reopen wall street. All of these things are common knowledge not consipiracy knowledge.

As far as Global Warming is concerned, I have provided MANY MANY MANY links from scientists and highly educated people close to the situation, that, to me is an “accredited” source.

#60

Goldphish, that book is dead on. Packaged as fiction. With facts that are spot on NON-FICTION.

You think the ELITE can do the global warming FEARMONGERING, but don’t think they can fund a few cave dwelling terrorists into flying planes into buildings??

hmmmmmmm… 2+2=4