Blowing Up British Kids: Not Everyone’s Cup of Tea

Perhaps they should just go for the Hugh Grant endorsement next time.

Because when Hugh Grant speaks, people listen. /snark

No, Katy. The video worked perfectly in that it got your attention.

“Meanwhile, American belief in global warming declined. And here we remain without the comprehensive energy legislation in late 2010.”

Hmm, wonder why? Are you hiding the decline?

Al Gore is discredited. The so-called scientists behind the global warming “research” aren’t scientists at all. They are really inventive at cooking up numbers to support their religious beliefs.

Too bad the UK doesn’t have separation of church and state. That would be the church of environmentalism.

Thanks, Katy. Wistfully alone among your teammates, YOU choose (wisely) to write, “They don’t take so kindly, for example, to environmental activists blowing up schoolchildren, their innards splashed across the room like staked vampires on True Blood, to make their point.” Nice (really, no snark), more proof of vivid writing. I hope you can get equally colorful Catherine Mayer to comment here (more often!) with more thoughts on local reaction and other slasher-esque ads.
.
As annoying as many tv ads are, they capture the zeitgeist better than contemporary tv shows. What’s acceptable today may (will) not be tomorrow.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/11/outrageous-vintage-ads-th_n_456897.html
.
The phrase “don’t stab the client” cuts to the chase, so to speak. An ad can be highly memorable, like the one you posted here, Katy, but that does NOT guarantee success. The don’t-stab-client phrase comes from here about a ’70s’ Schlitz beer ad that failed –
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2008-04-06/business/0804040774_1_beer-cougar-wilderness
.
(I still remember that ad – memorable! But it ruined the company’s image. Alas, can’t find ad on youtube, links found have been pulled, wonder why, hmm…)
…but thanks for your thoughts, Katy. If you can find the ad, let us know.

Got to say that “funny” video is as twisted as you can get.

The message is: go along with the church of environmentalism or else, vividly brought to your conscious by human beings blown to bloody bits and dripping from the rest of the bullied group. This is a terrorist video.

Only a fanatic would think this is appropriate or somehow “funny.”

…thanks to wordpress limited # links allowed, here’s another reference to Schlitz ad, its youtube link dead, ad pulled –
http://www.620wtmj.com/shows/genemueller/45153932.html

Hmm, wonder why?…
.
Malinformed partisan douchebags who keep mindlessly repeating things like “Al Gore is discredited. The so-called scientists behind the global warming ‘research’ aren’t scientists at all. They are really inventive at cooking up numbers to support their religious beliefs”…and the various media outlets who treat their tirades as credible.
.
Clear enough explanation for you?

Douchebag crush.

So inform us with real science, if you have any.

So inform us with real science, if you have any.
.
Not my job to prove how wrong you are, it’s your responsibility to prove, when it comes to global warming:
.
“Al Gore is discredited.”
.
“The so-called scientists behind the global warming ‘research’ aren’t scientists at all.”
.
“They are really inventive at cooking up numbers to support their religious beliefs”
.
I say that you’re a mindless, malinformed partisan douchebag. Prove your points, and prove me wrong…If you can.

I’m assuming he is referring the CRU controversy, where a bunch of e-mails were stolen because of his “hide the decline comment.” If he had followed up on the independent investigations into the CRU, he would have found out that they determined that the CRU science was sound and the only problem was their failure to properly release information due to information requests. In other words, the CRU should have published more data, more often, but their data was correct.
·
This is yet another example of people ignoring factual information once they’ve accepted a line of reasoning with a sort of religious rancor.

Really? Where is the original raw data?

partisan wingers love to throw the terrorist charge around. No nuance, all silly.

You like blowing people up? I guess I’m not that nuanced.

ROFL I can’t believe this video is getting defended by the readership on Swampland…

Any claim you might have to being “sane” is now crock.

Uh, lmd, re: 4.2 you DO know this is an ad, not reality, right? You do know that “The Exorcist” is NOT a documentary? And that the reason vampires can’t see their reflections is because they don’t exist? So you don’t like this ad, you’re not alone. But skip your projections onto the rest of us please, thanks. You’re welcome.

4.4, you are correct. And so, what does a Hollywood movie and a fairy tale about blood suckers have to do with the global warming movement…

Oh, I see your point.

Meltdown,
.
Your a complete moron.
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
.
The anti-environmental groups eager to find any reason to claim that there is no climate change got hold of some emails which were ambiguous out of context.
.
The right wing rejoiced.
.
On Al Gore’s birthday, March 31st, the courts determined that the only problem was that the scientists were terrible at public relations and behaved arrogantly in response to questions from right wing dumb clucks like you.
.
The right wing ignored the results and keep on their conspiracy theories.
.
I am waiting for the John Beohner to say that Al Gore, Parliamentarians throughout Europe and Jillian Anderson are all aliens in a secret plot lead to an earth invasion (like the X-Files).
.
Who gains money if there is climate change?
.
Nobody?
.
Who loses money if there is climate change?
.
Every traditional (so called black – not green) energy producer in the world.
.
No religions gain any money from climate change either, moron.

“…what does a Hollywood movie and a fairy tale about blood suckers have to do with the global warming movement…”
.
The movie does grab your attention and drive you to talk about it while climate change should be driving you to do something positive.
.
Obviously English humor goes way over your head.
.
I bet Monty Python gave you nightmares.
.
It’s strange humor and not the way I think I would do things if I had anything to do with advertising, but, it is a joke, moron.

Thanks, Patrick, esp. for bring up MP. At least they could do violent humor…
.

.
and this…
.

.
IIRC, was this one of KT’s favorite movie scenes?

http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2008/08/27/memory-holes-in-the-floor/

Patrick, first, it is you’re, as in the true statement: you, Patrick, are a moron.

http://www.examiner.com/independent-in-columbia/cru-scientists-admit-they-threw-away-key-data-used-global-warming-calculations

“Scientists at the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit have admitted that they threw away much of the raw temperature data used in their predictions of global warming. The result of that action is that other scientists will not be able to verify the CRU calculations that they say show a rise in the Earth’s average temperature over the past 150 years.”

Do you know what the scientific method is, Patrick?

In order for a scientific hypothesis to be accepted it has to able to be replicated. That means that another seperate scientist or group of scientists can use your data and come to the same conclusion. Otherwise, you are a fraud.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/334/Journey-04-SCIENTIFIC-METHOD-FOR-DUMMIES

“Scientists will tell you there is nothing all that complicated about scientific method. For them, it is
no more than common sense. They learn it by example, handed down from Nobel Prize winner to
Postdocs to graduate students or medical students. It would help non-scientists if we also had it
written down. For one thing, it would greatly clarify the disputes between the forbidden sciences
and the Psi-cops. If we had a verbal statement that scientists could accept, the intellectual history
of the West might be quite different. I am going to attempt it. I begin with one basic assertion:
scientific method is pure logic. It makes no assumptions about reality. If it did, it would just be
another religion…

It is all too easy to make mistakes in scientific studies. It is reproducibility that allows us to catch hoaxes. The Piltdown man is one of the most famous. It was a cranium of a primitive man with a large brain and ape-like teeth, found In Situ, in the early years of the 20th Century. However, as fossils of early hominids began to appear in museums, they were not at all like Piltdown man. The real hominids had small brains, upright posture, and human teeth and hands. Finally, about mid- century, a closer look was taken of Piltdown man and it was shown to be a forgery, though who did it and why is unknown.”

Recently a new breed of bird has been discovered called the North American Right Wing Ostrich.
.
It primarily resides in rural areas, gathers around conservative Evangelical Churches, military bases and in some corporate boardrooms – most notably in the oil industry.
.
These creatures are known to randomly spout out patriotic sounding statements totally out of context and when you try to confront them they stick their head in the sand.
.
They feed on a diet of right wing media only and, no matter how preposterous the claim, they hear, they repeat it as if it were written in stone.
.
Known for very low intelligence, these creatures are dangerous around elections and public gathering and have even been known at times to be violent, but are most dangerous when given the opportunity to mishandle government organizations such as the Mining and Mineral Services, the Securities and Exchange Commission and The Federal Emergency Management Agency.
.
Among the many things the North American Right Wing Ostrich like to feed on is the Examiner.com.
.
“Examiner.com is a media company based in Denver, Colorado, that operates a network of hyperlocal news websites, allowing citizen journalists to share their city-based knowledge on a blog-like platform, in 238 markets throughout the United States and parts of Canada.[1][2][3][4]

“Examiner.com is a division of Clarity Media Group, with the primary investor being conservative businessman, billionaire Philip Anschutz, owner of Anschutz Entertainment Group (AEG), Regal Cinemas, and other media and entertainment companies.[1][2][5] Examiner.com claims to have 40,000 contributors,[4] commonly referred to as “Examiners”, in addition to the citizen journalists at NowPublic, a Vancouver-based website purchased by Examiner.com in September 2009.[2][6] The company has been criticized for the low compensation received by many “Examiners”, and the lack of editorial oversight, including accusations of plagiarism.[2]["
.
When reliable sources exist, they are promptly written off as a left wing conspiracy.
.
Extremely awkward and only with a right wing, these creatures are incapable of reason nor debates but just keep on flapping their right wing aimlessly.
.
After the end of McCarthyism in the 1950s, false rumors of the North America right wing Ostrich's extinction were widely spread. Due to a nourishing environment of false and tainted information, the North American Right Wing Ostrich is now undergoing a population explosion.
.
BTW: Economics uses the scientific method as well. The difference being that, unlike the natural sciences, for economics there are no experiments done for experimentation's sake. Among many other conclusions, government spending creates more jobs in a recession or slow growth economy than there would be if government spending remains constant or decreases. Cutting taxes for the wealthiest has the least impact on job growth of any possible strategy to increase employment.

You actually spent time writing that nonsense?

Here I wrote this real s l o w for you.
*
There is a method that real scientists use to “do scientific research.” It involves a method of record keeping so that IF you discover something you can reproduce it, not only you but any other scientist using the same method will have the same results. And you can prove your research, etc. Well, when you fundamentally violate that VERY BASIC rule of scientific research, your research is NO LONGER SCIENCE. NO LONGER SCIENCE. GET IT, NO LONGER SCIENCE. When you throw away your data, no one can check your work, AND YOU ARE NO LONGER A SCIENTIST. That’s what these guys did. They threw away their data, no scientist would ever do that, ever.
*

http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/2009/dec/04/the-great-global-warming-scam/
*

“For any scientific theory to move into the arena of scientific fact, the experiments that prove it out must be repeatable over and over again. That is a fundamental element of science.
*

Other scientists must be able to see the raw data from these experiments and conduct their own experiments to see if they get the same results. We still conduct experiments today that have been conducted for many years and get the same results. That is what makes it science.”
*

So, the only thing these clowns have proven is that they are not scientists. Believe me, NO ONE in the scientific community will take them seriously.

Hilarious video. If anybody is having trouble “getting” that British humor, go watch an episode of the Brit’s version of The Office. It’s far funnier and much better than our own.

“You actually spent time writing that nonsense?”
.
This coming from a reader of the the Examiner.com?
.
Keeping in mind the quality of their journalism, I was expecting you to mail me a check for that since it is far more reliable than the drivel they call news.
.
BTW: My mother is a chemist and my late father was an engineer. I was aware of the scientific method when I was, probably ten years old.
.
Then you insult us by pretending that relevant data was destroyed.

“This week, the findings of an independent investigation of the stolen emails commissioned by the university were made public. The authors of the university’s report, relying on more diplomatic language, essentially confirmed Monbiot’s version: “We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely that we would have detected it. Rather we found a small group of dedicated if slightly disorganized researchers who were ill-prepared for being the focus of public attention. As with many small research groups their internal procedures were rather informal.”

Every independent analysis of the online hack job – by the Associated Press, Pennsylvania State University, the Science and Technology Committee of the British House of Commons – has reached essentially the same conclusion. While there are concerns about how some scientists chose to communicate with each other, there is nothing in the stolen emails that undermines the scientific consensus that climate change is real and getting worse.”
.
http://blog.usclimatenetwork.org/hotline/climategate-debunked-climate-action-hotline-apr-16/
.
Let me explain this to Meltdown in a language he can easily understand.
.
Remember when you found out that there was no Easter Bunny?
.
That is because your parents were LYING.
.
They were not telling the truth.
.
They were giving you false information.
.
Well the right wing media sources like Fox do the same thing.
.
“Those of you who know I consider the science of anthropogenic global warming solid probably expect me to explain that the hacked e-mails don’t mean what they seem, and that, even if they did, it would not undercut the multiple lines of evidence showing that greenhouse-gas emissions are causing climate change. All true. But first I have to say that the e-mails reveal two tendencies that have set back attempts to show the public and policymakers that climate change is real and serious.

Many of the e-mails refer to attempts to evade requests from critics for raw data, some of which comes from national meteorological offices that, when they sent Jones the data, required confidentiality for hardly more reason than “we can, so let’s.”[...]
.
Other e-mails reflect the ugly politicization of climate science, which is unending. Climate scientists have been subject to harassment and character assassination (Google “Ben Santer” and “Wall Street Journal” to see what I mean), and just last week, Rep. James Sensenbrenner accused the researchers of “scientific fascism” and, with GOP colleagues, made the stunningly stupid demand that the EPA therefore stop regulating greenhouse emissions. It may be human nature to respond in kind; in one e-mail, a scientist wishes he could beat up a leading denier. But the scientists should be bigger than the know-nothings. Rather than “circl[ing] the wagons,” as Curry put it, respond to misinformation with physics, data, and analysis as, for instance, the RealClimate blog does.”
.
http://www.newsweek.com/2009/12/04/the-truth-about-climategate.html
.
So, let me make it clear that your source, the Examiner, knew that that this was the actual conclusion but they like to LIE.
.
“lie
–noun
1.
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2.
something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3.
an inaccurate or false statement.
4.
the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers.”
.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie
.
With billions of dollars in profits to be made, just like the cigarette companies, big oil and coal companies among others pay people to LIE.
.
And you are too dumb to know the truth.

“Believe me, NO ONE in the scientific community will take them seriously.”
.
“Experts in academia and government research centers were e-mailed invitations to participate in the on-line poll conducted by the website questionpro.com. Only those invited could participate and computer IP addresses of participants were recorded and used to prevent repeat voting. Questions used were reviewed by a polling expert who checked for bias in phrasing, such as suggesting an answer by the way a question was worded. The nine-question survey was short, taking just a few minutes to complete.

Two questions were key: have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.
In analyzing responses by sub-groups, Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 and 64 percent respectively believing in human involvement. Doran compared their responses to a recent poll showing only 58 percent of the public thinks human activity contributes to global warming.”
.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090119210532.htm
.
Believe me, Meltdown, nobody in Swampland takes YOU seriously when you make factually incorrect claims like this since you have not taken your head out of the sand.
.
Say this out loud: “I am we Todd Ed. I am Sofa King We Todd Ed.”

Patrick, I see repetition is a key for you.

Repeat this to yourself over and over until it penetrates your dream world:

I WASN’T TALKING ABOUT EMAILS. I AM TALKING ABOUT SCIENCE.

Patrick you cite a climate action network as a source?
They are as delusional as you are.

Your scientists are a bunch of dopes that wouldn’t know science if an apple the size of a large melting iceberg hit them.

They can’t even provide the data that their research is based on. But, you keep the faith baby, keep the faith. Close your eyes and repeat: I do believe in Al Gore, I do, I do, I do.

After a three-week deliberation the Oxburgh Panel concluded that climate scientists at the university’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), at the centre of the climate data fraud controversy, had not committed intentional data fraud. However, the findings of the Information Commissioner’s Office had already affirmed that Freedom of Information (FOIA) laws had been broken by the unit.

The panel of five ‘independent’ investigators concluded that the CRU’s climate data results were “subjective” and that tree ring growth, used as a climate proxy for older Earth temperatures, was “influenced by many factors of which temperature is only one”…

‘Trick’ to ‘Hide the Decline’

The much criticized ‘trick’ to ‘hide the decline’ was admitted to in the leaked CRU email written by Professor Phil Jones. Jones referred to the ‘trick’ of American climate professor, Michael Mann of Penn. State University. This involved the splicing of the actual temperature record over the declining tree ring record that hid the unreliablity of such tree ring data to discern past temperatures.

Mann’s work was subsequently discredited in an independent peer-reviewed statistical audit by McIntyre and Professor Ross McKitrick (2003).

Because the ‘trick’ was concealed in publication of tree ring graphs by the discredited IPCC in its the Third and Fourth Reports, this alleged fraudulent deceit misled many observers.

Oxburgh criticized the CRU’s approach to the temperature record as being “subjective.” To affirm the sceptic argument that cherry-picking of data had occurred the committee summed it up as, “From our perspective it seems that the CRU sins were of omission rather than commission.”

Ultimately, climate scientists were found out as poor data handlers and statisticians, as Oxburgh concludes, “it is very surprising that research in an area that depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close collaboration with professional statisticians.”

Climate Scientist Have Inadequate Statistical Skills

Thus it may be inferred that the committee affirms that the CRU has omitted to apply statistical due diligence because of their subjective approach and that the professional standards of these climate scientists require remedial revue.

The question that the committee left unanswered is; if tree rings were proven so inadequate in reflecting 20th-century temperatures, why should they be relied on to reflect temperatures in earlier centuries?

Read more at Suite101: Climate Fraud Inquiry: Scientists Did Cherry-pick Data http://www.suite101.com/content/climate-fraud-inquiry-scientists-did-cherry-pick-data-a227108#ixzz11BLhFwoz

“I WASN’T TALKING ABOUT EMAILS. I AM TALKING ABOUT SCIENCE.”
.
The science has been proven rock solid, so, if I were you, I would focus on how the scientists didn’t respond to a freedom of information act request.
.
“The panel showed that it was relatively straightforward to reproduce the CRU analysis without needing to ask Jones and his colleagues for anything.

They used data from public databanks and wrote their own computer code, which they say could be repeated by any “competent researcher”. The results were similar to those of the CRU.

Their conclusion: “A researcher can evidently produce a study which would test the CRU analysis quite precisely, without requiring any information from CRU to do so.”

To repeat, rather than reproduce, the CRU findings would require the CRU code and the list of weather stations it used to source the raw data. Such requests were made under freedom of information laws. The panel criticised the CRU response as “unhelpful and defensive”.

On specific allegations of malpractice by Jones in the handling of weather station data from China, the panel did not comment directly, but concluded more generally: “Crucially, we find nothing in the behaviour on the part of CRU scientists that is the subject of allegations … to undermine the validity of their work.”"
.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/07/climategate-scientists-main-points
.
“”And indeed much of the work which Professor [Phil] Jones has done has been replicated using different study methods in the United States, in Japan, in Russia, all of which come up with broadly the same conclusion.”

He said Professor Jones – the man at the centre of the row – did not hide data.

“The data that was available, which was coming out of the University of East Anglia and the climate research unit was published as part and parcel of his academic papers,” Mr Willis said.”
.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/01/2862503.htm
.
How many sources do you wish to refute your one or two sources saying that climate change is not real?
.
Scientists of all kinds believe climate change is real and man made.
.
” An American scientist accused of manipulating research findings on climate science was cleared of that charge by his university on Thursday, the latest in a string of reports to find little substance in the allegations known as Climategate.

An investigative panel at Pennsylvania State University, weighing the question of whether the scientist, Michael E. Mann, had ”seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting or reporting research or other scholarly activities,” declared that he had not.

Dr. Mann said he was gratified by the findings, the second report from Penn State to clear him. An earlier report had exonerated him of related charges that he suppressed or falsified data, destroyed e-mail and misused confidential information.

The new report did criticize him on a minor point, saying that he had occasionally forwarded to colleagues copies of unpublished manuscripts without the explicit permission of their authors. ”
.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04EFDD103FF931A35754C0A9669D8B63&scp=1&sq=Climategate&st=nyt
.
“Perhaps now we can put the manufactured controversy known as Climategate behind us and turn to the task of actually doing something about global warming. On Wednesday, a panel in Britain concluded that scientists whose e-mail had been hacked late last year had not, as critics alleged, distorted scientific evidence to prove that global warming was occurring and that human beings were primarily responsible.

It was the fifth such review of hundreds of e-mail exchanges among some of the world’s most prominent climatologists. Some of the e-mail messages, purloined last November, were mean-spirited, others were dismissive of contrarian views, and others revealed a timid reluctance to share data. Climate skeptics pounced on them as evidence of a conspiracy to manipulate research to support predetermined ideas about global warming.

The panel found no such conspiracy.”
.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/11/opinion/11sun2.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=Climategate&st=nyt
.
You have every scientific organization, the English Parliament, The EPA, every research University in the Western World all finding proof of climate change to be real, but, you still say it isn’t there.
.
I can’t wait till you doubt the “theory” of gravity.
.
For your family’s sake, don’t try to disprove the theory of gravity above the second floor of your home.

Repeat this to yourself over and over until it penetrates your dream world:
.
Scientists accept climate change. Courts accept climate change. Oil companies pay people to lie.
.
Say it again and again until you’ve understood it.

Well those videos will set the debate back about 50 years.
.
It really is on vogue to be ignorant; both sides show that.

I didn’t comment directly on the video before because I didn’t have speakers where I was at the time. So here’s my feeling on it.

Anyone who has an issue with this is overly sensitive. Its very clearly a piece of comedy. It looks to me like its way too long to ever put directly on tv, and if the global climate change arguments are correct (which these people suppose they are), you really are a murderer (indirectly) when you contribute to global warming.

Honestly, the amount of violent content out on the internet or in our own homes is probably on average worse than this, and generally doesn’t even serve to make a point.

Black humor = hilarious and a good message sender.

And if you don’t like it, take your book burning philosophies elsewhere.

“And if you don’t like it, take your book burning philosophies elsewhere.”
.
Oh please!! A little over dramatic don’t you think?
.
It never hurts to remain in good taste. That video is nothing more than a turn off. It didn’t even bother to refute the notion that climate change isn’t real.

That would be a pretty idiotic thing to do in a viral video.
·
“Hi, here are boring facts you’ve heard a million times that you may not believe anyway.”
·
Besides, people like drama

Well being they removed the video from their site, I’ll stick with my original post it was ignorant.
.
Viral works for the right, they are the only ones ignorant enough to go for it. The left can’t pull it off, the voter they need will not respond to it. I believe it angers them.

Hey, I lean left and it doesn’t bother me. Here’s the thing about viral. If you do something like this, and it does have some horrible things in it. You yank it as an apology, but you let the copies float, perhaps floating copies yourself through an alternate username or site. The point is to get a lot of people to see it, apologize for doing something “horrible” and still getting the attention you feel your subject needs.
·
Besides, good taste is arbitrary. Tastes change. I guarantee in 100 years that video will look tame compared to some of the other stuff out there.

Perhaps you are correct Gum but, here is my take. The environment concerns people , we get attacked because we point out things like the risks to the Snail Darter, Frogs, and things of such but fail to make the connections directly to the people it affects. Then comes along a video that blows those people up for not believing or understanding what is at stake. It just puts the Snail Darter ahead of those folks, they already believe that.
.
I don’t know seems counter productive to me. You may see it but, you already believe there is a problem. I don’t think it will any converts.

I’ve written a blog post about this ad, and the fallout it has generated.

If We Are Not Free to Disagree, We Are Not Free

Regarding those who think the ad is funny. Would you find it equally humorous if featured gays being blown to bloody pulp by religious fundamentalists? Just asking.

“And here we remain without the comprehensive energy legislation in late 2010.”
.
Could you make your bias more obvious?

http://www.speroforum.com/a/20054/German-scientists-reject-manmade-global-warming

More than 60 prominent German scientists have publicly declared their dissent from man-made global warming fears in an open letter to German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The more than 60 signers of the letter include several United Nations IPCC scientists.

The scientists declared that global warming has become a “pseudo religion” and they noted that rising CO2 has “had no measurable effect” on temperatures. The German scientists, also wrote that the “UN IPCC has lost its scientific credibility.”

This latest development comes on the heels of a series of inconvenient developments for the promoters of man-made global warming fears, including new peer-reviewed studies, real world data, a growing chorus of scientists dissenting (including more UN IPCC scientists), open revolts in scientific societies and the Earth’s failure to warm. In addition, public opinion continues to turn against climate fear promotion.

The July 26, 2009 German scientist letter urged Chancellor Merkel to “strongly reconsider” her position on global warming and requested a “convening of an impartial panel” that is “free of ideology” to counter the UN IPCC and review the latest climate science developments.

The scientists, from many disciplines, including physicists, meteorology, chemistry, and geology, explain that “humans have had no measurable effect on global warming through CO2 emissions. Instead the temperature fluctuations have been within normal ranges and are due to natural cycles.”

“Indeed the atmosphere has not warmed since 1998 – more than 10 years, and the global temperature has even dropped significantly since 2003. Not one of the many extremely expensive climate models predicted this. According to the IPCC, it was supposed to have gotten steadily warmer, but just the opposite has occurred,” the scientists wrote.

“The belief of climate change, and that it is manmade, has become a pseudo-religion,” the scientists wrote. “The German media has sadly taken a leading position in refusing to publicize views that are critical of anthropogenic global warming,” they added.

http://www.petitionproject.org/

31,487 American scientists have signed this petition,
including 9,029 with PhDs

Dona,
.
First, I thought the ad was dumb.
.
Fortunately the exploding people looked extremely fake as it was meant to. (Watch the X Files, the Sopranos – and show or movie with fake violence and this was intentionally fake looking). The random button to blow people up was, obviously not realistic. If it were meant to be taken seriously, they would be blowing up people with bombs or shooting people with guns.
.
Second, I fully believe in diversity of opinion, but, I loath distortion of facts.
.
If an honest global warming denier said “I know that scientists overwhelmingly agree that humans cause global warming, but, I do not believe in science. I just do everything on faith and want our government policies to be on faith” I would not dispute it.
.
If decided to say that chicken-pocks was caused by eating chicken just because it serves me well for some reason, all of you ought to say that science and facts are against me.
.
If you say that government spending does not add to spending and get countries out of recessions, then admit that you are disagreeing with eighty years of economic policy worldwide as well as at leat 90% of economists.
.
We can have different ideals. We can have different goals. But, we do not vote for facts.
.
If you are conservative and are willing to sacrifice future generations by using fossil fuels more than necessary and your goal is to make no sacrifice for future generations, then I can not disagree with you on facts.
.]
If you say that you hate government so much that you will sacrifice year after year of economic productively to go without increased government spending, I can not argue against facts.
.
So long as the far right agrees to tell the truth and say that they do not wish economic improvement and do not care about future ecological disaster, then that’s fine. Just don’t make up dumb things and pretend that they are facts!

is meant to be a funny means of saying climate change is serious business.

That’s not the message I got.
The message I got was “Participate in the carbon reduction program … OR DIE!!!! Hahaha! Just Kidding! No Pressure!”

Which is seriously creepy and disturbing, considering, you know, the many historical examples of real people actually being killed for not conforming to the dominant belief system.

And then on top of it, is the MANNER of their execution. They are blown up, with body parts spattered on their peers, as if to make an example of them. It’s reminiscent of a terrorist attack. Like the unbelievers are being executed in front of people to scare the rest into cooperation.

This is a deeply disturbing statement, that makes you wonder about the mentality of the people made it.

9,029 out of about Eight hundred thousand Americans who have PhDs do not believe in climate change.
.
http://conferenceboard.ca/hcp/Details/education/Phd-graduates.aspx
.
400 out of every one hundred thousand adult Americans have PhDs.
.
There are 300,000,000 Americans. 300,000,000 divided by 100,000 is 3,000. So, 289 times 3,000 is eight hundred and sixty nine thousand.
.
Since not all Americans are over the age of 25, in reality, there are about eight hundred thousand PhDs.
.
Nine thousand divided eight hundred thousand is about 1.2%.
.
So, read this, moron, using your own numbers 12 out of one thousand PhDs doubt the science of climate change.
.
German has 509 out of 100k people with PhDs.
.
There are 81,802,257 people in Germany.
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany
.
There are, approximately 400, 000 PhDs in Gemany.
.
60 out of 400,000 signed a petition.
.
That is a small fraction of 1%.
.
In other words, when you find numbers like 100,000 PhDs or even 20,000 PhDs go not believe that climate change is real or caused by human beings, then you have a case.
.
“Poll: One-Third of Americans Believe in Ghosts, UFOs”.
.
Using one of your favorite’s Fox News.
.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,305277,00.html
.
In other words, among those who have an education in the sciences, climate change is not a controversy, but, the questions if space aliens and Casper the friendly ghost exist is more likely.
.
I bet you believe in little green men from space ships, too.
.
BTW: I do not believe in either extraterrestrial life having been to earth (one hundred or more light years away – perhaps there are extra terrestrials, I have no opinion on that) nor ghosts.

Patrick uses global warming science tactics. You make a false assumption and try to make it true.

I am sure that there are many more scientists in Germany and in the US that don’t agree with the global warming religion.

” You make a false assumption and try to make it true.

I am sure that there are many more scientists in Germany and in the US that don’t agree with the global warming religion.”
.
Well, then why do 90% of all American scientists agree with climate change being real and man made?
.
You are using typical wingnut reasoning: if the facts do not exist, just say that they must exist.
.
This is known as circular reasoning.
.
“Main Entry: circular reasoning
Part of Speech: n
Definition: a use of reason in which the premises depends on or is equivalent to the conclusion, a method of false logic by which “this is used to prove that, and that is used to prove this”; also called circular logic.”
.
Since you know from sources funded by Exxon Mobil that “many” scientists doubt climate change, showing you the fact that only 10% of all scientists and only 3% of climatologists (the only important ones – for the same reason you do not ask shoe salesmen about the real estate business) you then say that I am finding only the exception and not the rule? What is your proof? Because Exxon Mobil funded sources say that “many” scientists disagree with climate change being real and man made.
.
Hence, a circle.
.
While I, by contrast, found polls of scientists, you found a very small number of scientists, who, most likely, are funded by the petroleum industry.

Meltdown,
.
Among many other things about climate change that wingnuts like you do not realize is that the technology already exists to cut about 90% of our greehouse gas emissions without reducing power usage, the number of miles driven per year nor any other dramatic changes.
.
There is one reason that it is not being done: without taking the long term costs of climate change into account, gasoline, natural gas, home heating fuel and coal are far too cheap for anybody to choose the alternatives.
.
Already there is the technology for plug in hybrids. That is a hybrid which will be plugged into the home electricity system and only use the gasoline powered engine when the car drives over about 80 to 100 miles (which is rare for the huge majority of drivers) such that one can go down to filling their tank only a few times per year.
.
Solar technology is reliable enough to create at least 80% of the electricity for homes and businesses.
.
Wind power and tidal energy (using the tides of ocean and river water already used to power most of an NYC neighborhood known as Roosevelt Island – with about 20k people) can easily cover 10% of our energy usage.
.
Existing technology could cut approximately 95% of our total energy usage, but, that would require investment in solar panels, wind turbines and electric engines. Producers of combustion engines and oil companies will go out of business from this. Solar companies are in their infancy and have no clout at all.
.
So, the sound science is being counteracted by an expensive media campaign just as the cigarette companies did twenty years ago.
.
You, unfortunately, are a total sucker for the oil companies.
.
I bet you, also, believe in space aliens landing on earth and ghosts, too.

liberalmeltdown,
.
It does absolutely no good to try and reason with Patrick.
.
If you make a statement that proves him wrong he simply changes the subject and answers a question you did not ask.
.
He will never admit he is wrong even though your question illustrates that he is wrong. He will not directly answer it.
.
After he fails to answer the question you ask he will write a ton of garbage about nothing. Then he’ll declare himself the winner of the argument and run around his computer patting himself on the back yelling I won I won.
.
Bottom line he is a Partisan-Ideologue and you cannot have an intelligent debate with him.

Yeah, I know 3x. The Global warming religion has Patrick in its grasps. He’s a fanatic.

If the research and their own models were correct. The temperatures should be rising, but they aren’t. It’s a little problem they have with their message.

And, then there is the evidence that temperatures in the middle ages were hotter.

It’s all so much BS.

Water vapor is the number one “greenhouse gas”. Thank God. The history of this planet shows that an ice age would be the real disaster.

Try planting corn in a glacier.

Really Patrick, solar can provide 80% of the power for a home? You got a source?

What’s the cost comparison?

Two points here: Patrick please read “State of Fear” by Micheal Crichton (pay special attention to the bullet points at the end) and:
.
So let me get this straight (ie the jist of the ad)… CO2 emission, one of the LEAST greenhouse contributing gases is reason enough to blow people up… as in commit murder… hrmmm…
.
What’s next, “disagree with me and off to the camp with the gas showers or the firing squad”?
.
I mean seriously wtf? Murdering people? Is this what the environmental movement has come to? Am I going to have to put SS bars on my lapel to join Greenpeace?
.
This ad makes me think it’s time for environmentalists to don some grey army digs, goosestep and yell “Ja, mein Führer! Wir töten die Menschen, die verschmutzen!” (For those without google translation or any sense of German it means “Yes my leader! We will kill the people who pollute!) to Al Gore, or just join the damn Taliban.

“Water vapor is the number one “greenhouse gas”.”
.
Looking for a question. The closest things to a question I could find is if the ad is appropriate and good.
.
Since the explosions are so intentionally fake, the device of a button being so improbable and the fact that this is dark humor common in many places including England, I find it appropriate.
.
The other was, did the stolen emails prove forging of information of destruction of raw data?
.
No, the raw data was still in tact and available. In reality, the scientists, sick of excessive scrutiny, stupidly, inappropriately and illegally (civil, not criminal punishment) did not release the raw data in a timely mano.
.
So, was it right for them to hold off?
.
No, it was not right for them to drag their feet on handing over raw data to global warming deniers.
.
Was this a conspiracy to create a false illusion of climate change?
.
Absolutely, positively not. There is no evidence of a conspiracy or a cover up. These were scientists who are very bad at public relations but very good at science.
.
When did I change the topic?
.
The three topics being, was the ad appropriate and effective in poster’s opinions? Were the hidden emails proof of conspiracy? Is climate change a fact or a “religion”?
.
In my opinion it was appropriate but not very effective.
.
The scientists inappropraitely dragged their feet on sending out raw data to climate change deniers.
.
Climate change is much, much more a settled matter among scientists than the existence of space aliens coming to earth and ghosts waling the earth among the general population.
.
Just as among non-scientists, I look at the one out of three people who believe in space aliens (rather than illegal aliens – who wash dishes and cut lawns nation wide whom we all know are very real) and ghosts as total morons, scientist look at the 10% who are climate change deniers as total morons.
.
What more do you wish to ask?

First, Michael Chriton is a biologist and science fiction writer. He is not a climatologists and his opinion of climate change, even if more articulate, is not significantly greater than any high school biology teacher in it’s weight.
.
So, even though I am sure it is a very articulate presentation, the fact that his opinion is so very rare among biologists to me carries far more weight than his words would.
.
Second, CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas which does not serve the purpose of containing the sun’s radiation as ozone does.
.
The other two are methane, nitrous oxide.
.
Relative to CO2, methane is very rare. However, it’s release into the atmosphere should be limited. I am aware that when cows eat grain or corn rather than grasses, the cow flatulence contains a great deal of CO2, but, this is not very hard to change. A change in agricultural policy about subsidies should alleviate the methane portion.
.
Since very few of us have cows around, methane is not something the public needs to worry about.
.
Nitrous oxide is used for putting the foam into industrial made whip cream. It is so rare that it has, basically, no impact on the environment.
.
Third, the ad is dark humor.
.
You may love dark humor, as many in England do, not really like it all that much (like me) or hate it (like you do). That is subjective.
.
What is not subjective is that, compared to what Hollywood can do to make death appear to be real, this was comically bad and intentionally so. It appears as people can pop like children’s balloons. Perhaps very young children will find this scary, but, I watch movies and TV show far more bloody and realistic.
.
Contrast this scene from Enemy at the Gate to the video above.
.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x32vyz_enemy-at-the-gates-sniping-scene_shortfilms
.
Enemy at the gate makes some very real looking death. It is not about people popping like balloons.
.
I have had family living in the NYC area for well over one hundred years and recently we had a tornado. Tornados in NYC are as rare as blizzards in Florida. We had an unprecedented heatwave here in New York. Usually one takes their air conditioner out of their window around September 10th. I had to use my air conditioner until October 1st and have not taken it out of my window just in case.
.
Michael Chriton, no matter how articulate, will have a hard time convincing me that this is a normal weather pattern when the facts of NYC weather are so strange the last few years and he is in such a small minority.
.
Details about climate change are debated about. However, the excessive amounts of CO2 and large amounts of methane are no doubt a preventable cause.

Climate change in addition to macroeconomics are among many examples of where I find conservatives outrageously arrogant.

I have studied and completed all of my classes in Macroeconomics so that I am aware of the facts, can explain the logistics of the facts and can grasp the numbers of them, however, do not believe that in my post college life nor as an undergraduate having never done statistical analysis could I refute or make any claim to have discovered any of these things.

As for climate change, I have only a typical college graduate’s understanding of the sciences and have a less detailed understanding.

By contrast, 3X believes that while running his company, he and meltdown stumbled across so many situations that they know more about the economy and science than tens of thousands of individuals who have spent their entire lives pouring over raw data using statistical analysis and multi-variable calculus that they know far more.

How?

I do not know of any business which running it involves pouring over thousands of pages of statistic on macroeconomic issues nor on world temperatures and CO2 levels to measure the correspondence.

To me, all I hear from 3X and meltdown is that you are omniscient but can’t back up one word you say with facts from people who are experts.

Liberals are humble while conservatives today are outrageously arrogant.

How can I argue with such extreme false pride?

I just imagine 3X, Meltdown or any of our right wingers going to the doctor.
.
The doctor says, for example, you should try to eat more vegetables.
.
No I shouldn’t! I used to be a CEO! I know what to eat!
.
I can imagine one of right wingers going to a mechanic.
.
It’s the computer chip which regulates how rich the mixture is in the fuel injector which broke down. It will cost $400 to replace and install.
.
No it isn’t. I am a retired CEO!
.
When I go to the mechanic and get told this, I do accuse my mechanic of being a professional thief. The chugging corresponded to the mixture being off. I ask him when it will be ready. If I get really bored (which I didn’t) I will look it up from the best source I can find online.
.
So, how does it work, I asked a number of years ago, when an ear nose and throat specialist told me that the reason I am prone to ear infections in my 30s is due to having partially impacted but not infected wisdom teeth.
.
I do not accuse a doctor (in that case a stranger, not my regular doctor) of being a professional thief of trying to get an oral surgeon extra work.
.
When climatologists and economists have an obvious consensus, I just wish to understand how, I do not, as the right wing does, claim that they are involved in some multinational complex conspiracy to make Al Gore a rich movie star or to get Obama re-elected (especially considering that these things pre-date these men’s careers by many, many years.)
.
I am so glad that I do not work for wingnuts. I would hate to be called a liar every time I say anything they do not wish to hear.

liberalmeltdown,
.
What many people don’t realize is that there were many people on the IPCC UN committee that were not scientist but were Environmental activist. So many of the projected outcomes have been proven inaccurate that anyone with a brain would want an independent review to verify what is true and what is not true. Mistakes such as Glaciers in the Himalayas and snow caps on Mount Kenya. In Britain they cannot even show Al Gore’s move in schools without disclaimers about some inaccuracies in the movie.
.
Like so many Liberal causes they believe “The End Justifies The Means.” Truth is not important.
.
If you don’t believe as they do they simply will call you names and try to demonize you.

Well, this is off topic since the question is if climate change is a religion or science.
.
“A “typical home” in America can use either electricity or gas to provide heat — heat for the house, the hot water, the clothes dryer and the stove/oven. If you were to power a house with solar electricity, you would certainly use gas appliances because solar electricity is so expensive. This means that what you would be powering with solar electricity are things like the refrigerator, the lights, the compute­r, the TV, stereo equipment, motors in things like furnace fans and the washer, etc. Let’s say that all of those things average out to 600 watts on average. Over the course of 24 hours, you need 600 watts * 24 hours = 14,400 watt-hours per day.

­”From our calculations and assumptions abo­ve, we know that a solar panel can generate 70 milliwatts per square inch * 5 hours = 350 milliwatt hours per day. Therefore you need about 41,000 square inches of solar panel for the house. That’s a solar panel that measures about 285 square feet (about 26 square meters). That would cost around $16,000 right now. Then, because the sun only shines part of the time, you would need to purchase a battery bank, an inverter, etc., and that often doubles the cost of the installation. ”
.
http://tlc.howstuffworks.com/home/question418.htm
.
“TLC (originally an initialism for The Learning Channel) is an American cable TV network which carries a variety of reality-based and some informational programming. Since 1991 TLC has been owned by Discovery Communications, the same company that operates the Discovery Channel, Animal Planet and The Science Channel, as well as other learning-themed networks. The channel is one of the few cable networks also legally available in Canada under its original American interpretation.”
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TLC_%28TV_channel%29
.
If households put out about $32K for solar panels, 100% of one and two story homes can be off the electrical grid.
.
Shorter wintertime days and longer summertime days would cause some fluctuation. This is why I am more pessimistic than the 100% number.
.
But, if households and commercial buildings were to get long term loans to make such improvement, mortgage payments would not be significantly more than the difference in the monthly utility bills.
.
Green buildings are a hot commodity in commercial real estate today, but, few are being constructed.
.
Since the Learning Chanel is also broadcast in Canada, I hop in your conspiracy driven world that you do not believe that this is a conspiracy of Canadians allied with Al Gore to take over America. Unless you are that twisted, then you know that my claims are correct.

An easy way to think of environmental regulations is an extension of property laws banning encroachment.
.
If a tree in my yard has limbs going into your yard, you have a right to demand that I remove the limbs of my tree extending into your yard.
.
I, also, may not borough my basement below your yard nor have any structure of my home extend over your yard.
.
So, when a landowner owns property, they own tthe ground beneath it and the air above it.
.
So, if somebody releases CO2 using fossil fuels, what are they doing in terms of land ownership?
.
They are encroaching on somebody else’s air.
.
So, with cap and trade laws, as they have been discussed, where should the money be refunded to after the CO2 charge or methane charge is applied?
.
It should be given out to each and every individual.
.
So, with 300 mil Americans if the total collected from cap and trade were, to pick a random number, 300 bil dollars, each and every individual in the United States that year (of course undocumented workers are not eligible for tax refunds, so they would not get any) would get a $1,000 tax refund except for those who do not pay income taxes who will simply get a $1,000 check. As individuals, they may choose to keep in buying more and more expensive fossil fuels, but, due to cost increases, would more often chose more efficient cars and solar panels.

“In March 2009, economic advisers from the White House told Senate staff that a proposed cap-and-trade scheme could raise between two and three times the existing $646bn (£404bn) revenue estimate.”
.
http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2257200/obama-budget-ditches-projected
.
Yes, this is an environmentalists source, but the quickest to find and it is making a quote from administration numbers.
.
But, with the number of $646 Bil, it would mean a tax refund or decrease of $2,000 per person.
.
So, a family of four would get $8,000 less in taxes and spend almost none of it back on fossil fuels if they put out $32k as a one time cost.
.
In other words, excluding maintenance, four years cap and trade reducing the tax burden would pay for the solar panels creating a net cost of $0 for energy.
.
Of course you care only about oil companies making big profits, not about households, new jobs installing and maintaining solar panels, the fact that the world’s oil supply is shrinking to dangerously low levels where the cost of drilling is growing more and more expensive nor that we rely on Saudi Arabia and other oppressive, anti-democratic governments, that oil money pays for terrorists to kill Americans nor climate change.
.
Either all you care about is the fate of Exxon Mobil and other oil companies, or you have been duped by right wing media sources who get paid big bucks to lie just as the cigarette companies used to try and sell cigarettes as harmless.

” Mistakes such as Glaciers in the Himalayas and snow caps on Mount Kenya….
.
Like so many Liberal causes they believe “The End Justifies The Means.” Truth is not important.”
.
3X,
.
It is true that some things predicted to happen within a particular time frame have not happened, but, nobody predicted tornadoes in New York City to be happening yet.
.
I can grant you that when predicting either tomorrow’s weather in a particular place and time or specifically when an impact of climate change will happen is unpredictable. However, in equally dangerous ways, weather patterns have been becoming far more chaotic and these unexpected floods, droughts and storms have caused huge property damage and long term economic damage.
.
I hope you do not call your weatherman a liar every time he is off by a few hours of when a storm will happen or the severity of the storm.
.
“In Britain they cannot even show Al Gore’s move in schools without disclaimers about some inaccuracies in the movie…”
.
“…Mr Justice Burton identified nine significant errors within the former presidential candidate’s documentary as he assessed whether it should be shown to school children. He agreed that Mr Gore’s film was “broadly accurate” in its presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change but said that some of the claims were wrong and had arisen in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration”. [...]
.
He agreed it could be shown but on the condition that it was accompanied by new guidance notes for teachers to balance Mr Gore’s “one-sided” views. [...]
.
The other three main points accepted by the judge were that global temperatures are rising and are likely to continue to rise, that climate change will cause serious damage if left unchecked, and that it is entirely possible for governments and individuals to reduce its impacts.”
.
3X,
.
England, unlike the US, has a single, national education system. All students now must watch Al Gore’s film, but with those notes given as a correction.
.
Gore did pick the most alarmist of the bunch, but, did not by any reasonable definition lie and did present facts, unlike the global warming deniers.
.
I, unlike you, do not claim to know everything about every topic under the sun due to previous employment.
.
With conflicting theories as to what will happen when with so many contributing factors involved, I know that all of the outcomes are negative, even though we can not put a stopwatch on any of these events and, therefore, I do not intend to, after spending my life working to be in a good situation to provide as a responsible husband and father economically, intend to gamble by ignoring climate change.
.
If you want to gamble your grandchildren’s future, that’s fine. Just don’t expect me to agree with you.

“When I go to the mechanic and get told this, I do accuse my mechanic of being a professional thief.”
.
Correction:
.
“When I go to the mechanic and get told this, I do NOT accuse my mechanic of being a professional thief.”

Right Wing Reactionary Scientific Study:
.
The earth is 6000 years old
Intelligent design overrides evolution
Limit stem cell research
The end times are coming
Don’t study fruit flies, bear DNA, or volcanos (nothing gained for agriculture, science, or predictive geology)
Climate change is not man made (oil and coal companies pay a lot to refute that. So it must be true)
.
Abraham Lincoln started the National Academy of Science. He should have been impeached.

Patrick,
.
“9,029 out of about Eight hundred thousand Americans who have PhDs do not believe in climate change.”
.
800,000 PhDs in environmental related sciences in the USA?
.
Patrick I think you are Nuts as usual. I doubt there are anywhere near that many real PhD Scientist in the USA. You must be counting all PhD from all disciplines most of which are none science related.
.
Also to say they all believe in Global Warming is an obvious lie. You have no idea what these people believe.

Patrick,
.
“Gore did pick the most alarmist of the bunch, but, did not by any reasonable definition lie and did present facts, unlike the global warming deniers”.
.
In an interview with a reporter in England Gore did admit that he had exaggerated the time frame for some climate related happenings such as how soon the coast of Florida would experience a significant rise in ocean water level. He said he had embellished some of the happenings to get people’s attention to the problems of Global Warming.
.
Translation Gore lied to push his beliefs related to Global Warming.
.
“Mistakes such as Glaciers in the Himalayas and snow caps on Mount Kenya….
.
It is true that some things predicted to happen within a particular time frame have not happened, but, nobody predicted tornadoes in New York City to be happening yet.”
.
The Glaciers melting in the Himalayas and the snow receding on Mount Kilimanjaro in Kenya were not time frame errors. They were mistakes made by the scientist and these activities were not happening. When the errors were discovered the scientists admitted mistakes were made in analyzing the data and their conclusions were in error.
.
I am not a denier. I am a person that feels that something this important should be proven as completely as possible.
.
With all the political smoke and all the errors that have been found and the scientist that violated scientist principals, I believe a group of true unbiased experts should review the UN Climate report and determine what is real and what is not real.
.
Anyone unwilling to do this is the true Anti-Science Person.
.
And yes Patrick I do have some experience in this area. I know you don’t like to hear that but my background is technical. My company is a Technology Company. While my degrees are not technical I attended many technical schools in the Navy and worked for four years in a technical field in the Navy. I also worked for a Technology company for nine years before I started my on company.. During that time I attended probably a dozen technical schools and programs.
.
I don’t claim to be a scientist but I do claim to have a good understanding of scientific principles and I am by nature a very analytical person.

.
.

Apr,
.
If you ever made an intelligent post I would be totally shocked.
.
I’m safe though. You’ve never made one yet.

GE the company that owns Keith Olbermann and pays the salary of guy that gets a thrill up his thigh from Obama, and also owns NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, will earn billions of dollars from green energy and cap and trade.

They also are big donors to Obama.

Since the “science” behind global warming produced models that predicted that the earth would continue to warm, and it isn’t getting warmer. I think the “science” has proven that it made a mistake.

For the last 5 years the forecasters have predicted a larger than usual amount of hurricanes. They can’t predict the weather for next week, but you believe that they “know” everything when it comes to man made climate change.

Al Gore said we would see more storms like Katrina…he’s such a fraud.

Speaking of fraud:

UN climate change panel based claims on student dissertation and magazine article
The United Nations’ expert panel on climate change based claims about ice disappearing from the world’s mountain tops on a student’s dissertation and an article in a mountaineering magazine.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7111525/UN-climate-change-panel-based-claims-on-student-dissertation-and-magazine-article.html

Now back to the hurricanes:

http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/02/global-warming-junk-scientists-even-fudged-hurricane-data/

More trouble looms for the IPCC. The body may need to revise statements made in its Fourth Assessment Report on hurricanes and global warming. A statistical analysis of the raw data shows that the claims that global hurricane activity has increased cannot be supported.

Les Hatton once fixed weather models at the Met Office. Having studied Maths at Cambridge, he completed his PhD as metereologist: his PhD was the study of tornadoes and waterspouts. He’s a fellow of the Royal Meterological Society, currently teaches at the University of Kingston, and is well known in the software engineering community – his studies include critical systems analysis.

Hatton has released what he describes as an ‘A-level’ statistical analysis, which tests six IPCC statements against raw data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric (NOAA) Administration. He’s published all the raw data and invites criticism, but warns he is neither “a warmist nor a denialist”, but a scientist…

“When you average the number of storms and their strength, it almost exactly balances.” This isn’t indicative of an increase in atmospheric energy manifesting itself in storms.

Even the North Atlantic increase should be treated with caution, Hatton concludes, since the period contains one anomalous year of unusually high hurricane activity – 2005 – the year Al Gore used the Katrina tragedy to advance the case for the manmade global warming theory.

The IPCC does indeed conclude that “there is no clear trend in the annual numbers of tropical cyclones.” If only the IPCC had stopped there. Yet it goes on to make more claims, and draw conclusions that the data doesn’t support.

Thre IPCC’s WG1 paper states: “There are also suggestions of increased intense tropical cyclone activity in some other regions where concerns over data quality are greater.” Hatton points out the data quality is similar in each area.

The IPCC continues: “It is more likely than not (> 50%) that there has been some human contribution to the increases in hurricane intensity.” But, as Hatton points out, that conclusion comes from computer climate models, not from the observational data, which show no increase.

“The IPCC goes on to make statements that would never pass peer review,” Hatton told us. A more scientifically useful conclusion would have been to ask why there was a disparity. “This differential behaviour to me is very interesting. If it’s due to increased warming in one place, and decreased warming in the other – then that’s interesting to me.”

Hatton has thirty years of experience of getting scientific papers published, but describes this one, available on his personal website, as “unpublishable”.

Your link to the Global Warming Petition meets with some skepticsm:

‘Global Warming Consensus?
‘We are often told that there is a consensus that global warming is real and human caused. Because of this, a group of global warming skeptics put together a petition to sign that indicates there is a consensus that the evidence is weak or nonexistent for anthropogenic global warming. So, here we have competing consensus claims on the same issue. What is a skeptic to think? To find out, read on…’
“Robinson asserts not just that his collection of 31,072 signatures on a petition has refuted the claim of “settled science” and “overwhelming consensus” among scientists with regard to global warming, but that “The very large number of petition signers demonstrates that, if there is a consensus among American scientists, it is in opposition to the humancaused global warming hypothesis rather than in favor of it.”2 Not only has Robinson failed to substantiate either of his assertions, he is misleading the American public by implying that his petition fairly represents relevant expert opinion…”
“In conclusion, through his Global Warming Petition Project, Arthur Robinson has solicited the opinions of the wrong group of people in the wrong way and drawn the wrong conclusions about any possible consensus among relevant and qualified scientists regarding the hypothesis of human-caused global warming. His petition is unqualified to deliver answers about a consensus in which the public is interested.”

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-11-12/

I don’t like the video. It’s overkill.

“800,000 PhDs in environmental related sciences in the USA?”
.
Whatever you did in work, reading comprehension, apparently, was not on the list since I said something distinctly different.
.
Meltdown said that nine thousand people with PhDs – not PhDs related to any form of science (so PhDs in philosophy, nursing, history, psychology…etc, etc were on his list).
.
His statement was that educated people who had to defend a PhD thesis doubted climate change was soundly argued.
.
In all specialties, there are, by what I could best figure using the facts that I found and showed you, about 800,000 total PhDs in America.
.
With reading comprehension issues as you have, you now understand why I call you Mr Magoo.
.
“You must be counting all PhD from all disciplines most of which are none science related.”
.
Meltdown’s numbers were of all PhDs in all fields and I said that I was comparing all PhDs to all PhDs – comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges
.
“Also to say they all believe in Global Warming is an obvious lie.”
.
The survey I cited above said that in a survey, 87% of science related PhDs believed both that climate change is real and caused by people, Mr. Magoo.
.
So, stop spouting out your favorite word “liar” every five seconds. I can imagine if you do this at home your wife, children, in-laws and grandchildren must be eager to shove a sock in your mouth for how often you use that word.
.
I can imagine you saying at 6:03 PM to your wife when she puts dinner on the table “You LIED! You said dinner would be on the table by six O’clock! You Liar!”
.
So, stop calling people liars and start paying far more attention to what people are saying and writing.

“With all the political smoke and all the errors that have been found and the scientist that violated scientist principals,”
.
Name specifically what methods used in the measurement of climate change is incompatible with the scientific method.
.
“..I believe a group of true unbiased experts should review the UN Climate report and determine what is real and what is not real.”
.
How many additional studies do you need?
.
I am not against additional studies in the least – I strongly support it, however, since this has been studied since 1967 when Al Gore was a nineteen year old and before my parents were even engaged I have every reason to suspect that it will come to the same conclusion. I, also, have every reason to suspect, since the studies go back to 1967, that you will still want more before you believe the facts.
.
“I don’t claim to be a scientist but I do claim to have a good understanding of scientific principles and I am by nature a very analytical person,’
.
I come from a family where we were all encouraged to become scientists, but, the closest they got was a math teacher. My mother is a chemist and my father was an award winning engineer. In high school and college I took science classes. During the 1980s before enough evidence was in, I had heard a great deal about the concept of global warming. However, at that time skeptics were the overwhelming majority of scientists. Over the next 20 something years, however, the evidence has grown stronger and stronger.
.
If taking introductory classes in the sciences and being around people with a technical background are your credentials, 3X, outside of the specifics of the product or service you provided (which has nothing to do with climate change) we are equals in our experience.
.
I am sure you know that Hugo Chavez (not exactly Stalin, but dictatorial and unfit to serve Venezuela) the anti-democratic aristocracy of Saudi Arabia, oppressive anti-democratic dictators in the middle east including Iran as well the ones who fund terrorism make their money off of oil sales.
So, in addition to ending tornadoes in NYC and many other ecological events, ending our dependence on fossil fuels will help this country.
.
The best proposal I have ever heard is for cap and trade in an environmental economics class I took at Harvard.
.
One version of that includes how to minimize the distortion on the economy by having the proceeds of such tax, dollar for dollar be refunded on a per capita basis to the citizens. Such that, using the numbers I had located, each household would get, approximately a $2,000 tax decrease per person and all non-taxpayers (those who earn too little to pay tax) will receive a check either at the end of the year or quarterly. With this, all individuals would be able to chose which method is best – energy efficient appliances, solar panels on their roofs, hybrid cars – to avoid paying for higher prices on fossil fuel related charges.
.
It is, absolutely true that all additional costs due to cap and trade would be passed onto consumers. However, with a refund of those taxes, all consumers can handle those costs, but, a trucking company which switch to bio-diesel (unlike ethanol proven to be easy and cheap to produce) will have the competitive advantage as will stores which buy the majority of their electricity from their landlords who put solar panels on top of the building rather than using fossil fuel based grid electricity.
.
Yet, you are opposed to this because about 3% of climatologists are not a part of this consensus.
.
Hence, you are a very anti-science ideologue.

“UN climate change panel based claims on student dissertation and magazine article
The United Nations’ expert panel on climate change based claims about ice disappearing from the world’s mountain tops on a student’s dissertation and an article in a mountaineering magazine.”
.
Untrue!
.
“The Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN-Monthly) data base contains historical temperature, precipitation, and pressure data for thousands of land stations worldwide. The period of record varies from station to station, with several thousand extending back to 1950 and several hundred being updated monthly via CLIMAT reports. The data are available without charge through NCDC’s anonymous FTP service.

Both historical and near-real-time GHCN data undergo rigorous quality assurance reviews. These reviews include preprocessing checks on source data, time series checks that identify spurious changes in the mean and variance, spatial comparisons that verify the accuracy of the climatological mean and the seasonal cycle, and neighbor checks that identify outliers from both a serial and a spatial perspective.

GHCN-Monthly is used operationally by NCDC to monitor long-term trends in temperature and precipitation. It has also been employed in several international climate assessments, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 4th Assessment Report, the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, and the “State of the Climate” report published annually by the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. ”
.
Weather anomolies including flooding, droughts, floods, decreased temperature and increased temperature can be found on this map made by NOAA.
.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/get-file.php?report=global&file=map-blended-mntp&year=2010&month=8&ext=gif
.
“More trouble looms for the IPCC. The body may need to revise statements made in its Fourth Assessment Report on hurricanes and global warming. A statistical analysis of the raw data shows that the claims that global hurricane activity has increased cannot be supported.”
.
Also an unfounded statement of yours.
.
” WASHINGTON — Top researchers now agree that the world is likely to get stronger but fewer hurricanes in the future because of global warming, seeming to settle a scientific debate on the subject.

But they say there’s not enough evidence yet to tell whether that effect has already begun.

Since just before Hurricane Katrina hit Louisiana and Mississippi in 2005, dueling scientific papers have clashed about whether global warming is worsening hurricanes and will do so in the future. The new study seems to split the difference. A special World Meteorological Organization panel of 10 experts in both hurricanes and climate change — including leading scientists from both sides — came up with a consensus, which is published online Sunday in the journal Nature Geoscience.
“We’ve really come a long way in the last two years about our knowledge of the hurricane and climate issue,” said study co-author Chris Landsea, a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration top hurricane researcher. The technical term for these storms are tropical cyclones; in the Atlantic they get called hurricanes, elsewhere typhoons.”"
.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35506750/ns/us_news-environment
.
“GE the company that owns Keith Olbermann and pays the salary of guy that gets a thrill up his thigh from Obama, and also owns NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, will earn billions of dollars from green energy and cap and trade.

They also are big donors to Obama.”
.
“Last cycle, GE gave $2.2 million to Democrats, $1.1 million to Republicans. ”
.
http://refugeesunleashed.net/about24039.html
.
Sorry, Meltdown, GE, as many large businesses do, hedge their bets by donating to both sides. GE, correctly suspecting that Democrats were going to win gave more to Democrats in 2008 than Republicans, but, with huge defense contracts at stake, pay both sides as much as possible.
.
Technically you did not lie, but if pundits are taking orders, then Olberman is taking two orders from Obama and one order from John Beohner.
.
Once again, Meltdown, you have all right wing sources bending the facts.

“Apr,
.
If you ever made an intelligent post I would be totally shocked.
.
I’m safe though. You’ve never made one yet.”
.
Although people’s age is none of my business, Apr is not dramatically younger than you are and, like you, has life experiences far longer than mine.
.
Unlike you, she has very varied life experiences from what she tells us.
.
Yet, you claim to hate people tossing mud at one another, yet toss this at somebody who is old enough to be your baby sister – not young enough to be your niece.
.
So far, 3X, using outside sources, I have not seen you win one debate. So, you remarking on unintelligent remarks is really the Edsel calling the Minivan Rusty.

Sorry, I was not good at showing the most appropriate links in two cases.
.
I found a source which quoted this, but not the original source.
.
“General Electric, the parent company of NBC, CNBC, and MSNBC, has given more than $1.75 million this cycle, including $1,097,423 to Democratic candidates and committees and $651,413 to GOP candidates and committees.

Last cycle, GE gave $2.2 million to Democrats, $1.1 million to Republicans.”
.
http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/244174/campaign-donations-we-are-different-somehow
.
Yes, that leftist fact came from… National Review (not leftist by anybody besides John Birch Society or Nazi Party standards).
.
I, also, failed to include this link from US News:
.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35506750/ns/us_news-environment
.
Your concept of Keith Olberman taking orders from Democrats is absurd and just a reaction to how Fox “News” donates only to Republicans and is, for all practical purposes, of the far right of the Republican Party.
.
If throwing stones from glass houses were a sport, right wingers would be Olympic quality.

Since 1999, General Electric gave more money to Republicans than Democrats.
.
http://www.campaignmoney.com/General_Electric.asp?pg=31
.
GE’s PAC is somewhat Republican leaning as well.
.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/expenditures.php?cycle=2006&cmte=C00024869
.
So, get your facts from good sources, Meltdown.

Patrick my friend you miss the point.
.
The book is just an entertaining read, the bullet points at the end however, which are researched and footnoted point out pretty clearly that most of the people involved in the climate change debate (either for or against it) have an agenda going in and therefore cannot be trusted to be objective, simple as that. Al Gore is an obvious example of this.
.
Should we try to be nicer to the planet? Yes. Try to limit polluting and cutting down the rainforests? Yes. Should we bankrupt ourselves doing this NOW like the world might end by 2020 if we don’t. No.
.
The reason is simple, here in the U.S. we still have managed to hold a technological edge over other countries and we are still the most powerful nation on earth. There are companies right here in the US right now working on capturing CO2 emissions and storing them or using them to make other products like bio-fuels. If we strangle our economy with over-regulation and taxes they will go out of business and then who will work on improving that technology?
.
“Since very few of us have cows around, methane is not something the public needs to worry about.”
.
Actually we do, because there are millions of cows, sheep and other farm animals in the United States that produce quantities of methane, which is enough more powerful in terms of it’s greenhouse capabilities that it is something to monitor. Though as Ron Paul famously said “We haven’t figured out how to put a box on a cows a**hole.”
.
N2O is better used for inhalation as an anesthetic than whipping creme, and it’s not as rare as you think. It’s cheap and plentiful. Just go to a Disco Biscuits concert and you can buy a big balloon full of it for $5 from the nitrous mafia. It’s also in almost every can of whipped creme, and you can even buy large tanks of it for a $150-$400 depending on the size of the tank.
.
Now you can call this dark humor, and trust me I have a very dark sense of humor. However I don’t find this amusing at all because of the obvious undertone it carries. That undertone is “If you disagree with us, or just can’t find the time to do what we ask you or we decide we just don’t like you then, should be killed”.
.
It’s a “comedic” way of stating what George Bernard Shaw (the God of all Progressives) said in the 1920′s when he asked scientists to come up with a “…humane gas… to liquidate the undesirables in society… quickly and painlessly”. By which he meant anyone who didn’t produce as much as they consumed by his method of measurement. He went further, and suggested that every few years everyone should be brought before a government board to “…justify your existence…”.
.
Just a few years after he made this plea to “improve” society via mass murder the Germans found a very interesting use for a chemically stabilized variant of hydrogen cyanide manufactured by Deutsche Gesellschaft für Schädlingsbekämpfung mbH for pest control… That gas was called by the trade-name Zyklon B.
.
I don’t know about you, but personally I am loath to go down a road that has been tried before and ended up with mass murder at it’s end every single time, and while I agree that we should be more eco-friendly I am not about to follow or laugh along with left-wing lunatics hell bent on a world wide socialist government, who are apparently willing to kill children to get what they want.
.
Anyone who is willing to even suggest killing people simply for disagreeing with them is 1) a lunatic and 2) dangerous. These people intertwine a message about saving the planet with a very dangerous far left ideal about how it should be done. Just ask the founder of Greenpeace, he ended up out on his butt when radical socialists and Communists hijacked his organization after they realized that they could use Greenpeace’s message of saving the planet to lure unsuspecting young people into following their maniacal political message.

Sasquach,
.
You bring up some important points.
.
First, we are in agreement on “Try to limit polluting and cutting down the rainforests? Yes. Should we bankrupt ourselves doing this NOW like the world might end by 2020 if we don’t. No.”
.
Above I explain just using an article I found that for $32,000 per four member household, we can get – in what I guess is a best case scenario – 100% of home energy from the sun and for somewhat more for commercial space, all of out energy for everything.
.
$8K per person per lifetime is not exactly expensive, but, I just grabbed those numbers from one article.
.
The goal of cap and trade is to make a public problem about private decisions back into a private cost. That is, if the cost to the planet caused by one gallon of gasoline being used is $5, have the individual pay the $5 tax to bring the total price up to $7 per gallon. Also, refund the tax on a per capita basis. So, if bio-diesel (still considered sound unlike ethanol) cost $4 per gallon, being good to the environment is also saving the individual money.
.
Right now, it is my best interest that everybody else in the world drives hybrids and does all of the best things for the environment while I take a free ride by not being taxed on my gasoline and drive past everybody else in an eco-friendly bus in a big, comfortable Escalade.
.
If the tax gets refunded on a per capita basis and all Americans get exactly the same amount, I would be paying a fortune for the gas on the Escalade while, for buying a plug in hybrid running on bio-diesel, you would be driving past me laughing all of the way to the bank.
.
“Actually we do, because there are millions of cows, sheep and other farm animals in the United States that produce quantities of methane, which is enough more powerful in terms of it’s greenhouse capabilities that it is something to monitor. Though as Ron Paul famously said “We haven’t figured out how to put a box on a cows a**hole.”"
.
Okay, one thing I do like about Ron Paul is that he has a good sense of humor.
.
I, specifically meant for a TV ad.
.
“Chewing her cud on a recent sunny morning, Libby, a 1,400-pound Holstein, paused to do her part in the battle against global warming, emitting a fragrant burp.

Libby, age 6, and the 74 other dairy cows on Guy Choiniere’s farm here are at the heart of an experiment to determine whether a change in diet will help them belch less methane, a potent heat-trapping gas that has been linked to climate change.

Since January, cows at 15 farms across Vermont have had their grain feed adjusted to include more plants like alfalfa and flaxseed — substances that, unlike corn or soy, mimic the spring grasses that the animals evolved long ago to eat.

As of the last reading in mid-May, the methane output of Mr. Choiniere’s herd had dropped 18 percent. Meanwhile, milk production has held its own.
The program was initiated by Stonyfield Farm, the yogurt manufacturer, at the Vermont farm that supply it with organic milk. Mr. Choiniere, a third-generation dairy herder who went organic in 2003, said he had sensed that the outcome would be good even before he got the results.

“They are healthier,” he said of his cows. “Their coats are shinier, and the breath is sweet.”

Sweetening cow breath is a matter of some urgency, climate scientists say. Cows have digestive bacteria in their stomachs that cause them to belch methane, the second-most-significant heat-trapping emission associated with global warming after carbon dioxide. Although it is far less common in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide, it has 20 times the heat-trapping ability.[...]
.
Ms. Laurain maintains that even if the feed costs more, it yields cost savings because the production of milk jumps about 10 percent and animals will be healthier, live longer and produce milk for more years.The methane-reduction results have been far more significant in France than in the Vermont pilot — about 30 percent — because the feed is distributed there not just to organic farms, where the animals already eat grass for at least half the year, but also to big industrial farms. ”
.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/05/us/05cows.html
.
Yes, a good cap and trade would include cows and, in that case, the tax should be refunded in part to subsidize the better feed.
.
“N2O is better used for inhalation as an anesthetic than whipping creme, and it’s not as rare as you think. It’s cheap and plentiful.”
.
I remember people talking about “whip its” – a balloon full of nitris – and how an overdose caused the windpipe to close causing suffocation if the user did not get immediate medical assistance. However, if it is subject to cap and trade, it would be far more expensive and, as my aunt did at home, you can make whip cream with heavy cream and a blender. I am sure that, if it is not that easy on an industrial scale, a suitable substitute will be found or, at worst, we will pay more for whip cream (not going to bankrupt us).
.
”
It’s a “comedic” way of stating what George Bernard Shaw (the God of all Progressives) said in the 1920′s when he asked scientists to come up with a “…humane gas… to liquidate the undesirables in society… quickly and painlessly”.”
.
Shaw was not at all influential as FDR, Truman, JFK and (to a lesser extent due to his starting the Vietnam War) LBJ are the heroes (not “God”s) of progressive/liberal thinking in America. Like conservatives in America, our foreign influences are few and far between for the same reason (we are a long trip from every other developed democracy except Canada).
.
Shaw left Marxism behind by the 1930s:
.
“He included an attack on Lysenkoism in a brief letter to Labour Monthly, in which he wrote: “Marxism seems to have gone as mad as Weismannism; and it is no longer surprising that Marx had to insist that he was not a Marxist.”[68]”
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Bernard_Shaw#Politics
.
Eugenics was not on the political left, but a super right wing theory of the German super nationalist, the Nazis.
.
Communists were very anti-eugenics, but worked people to death since they were the other extreme in believing that freedom was an idea which gets taught and keeping people who could teach others about freedom away from the population would extinguish the idea of freedom and democracy.
.
You’re an intelligent man, you can look up the fact that the Nazis murdered social democrats and liberals while originally allied with conservatives.
.
I don’t want to spend all of my day in The Swamp, but, I assure you that Stormfront, the modern neo-Nazis in America and, if they existed now, the German Nazis would be climate change deniers. They would say that it is a “Negro and Jewish” plot.
.
So, with that in mind, Sarah Palin’s “lock and load” remarks (since they were not intended to be funny but a violent metaphor) would be far more dangerous and fascist like that this dumb ad.
.
Just as Bill Clinton is dissimilar to Stalin very, very far to Clinton’s political left, Republicans are not the same as fascists, but, the most extreme do have a long history of anti-government violence such as Joe Stack and Timothy McVeigh among others.
.
Polite, interesting and informative as usual Sasquach.
.
It’s too bad other conservatives here don’t understand how to politely debate as you do.

NewsBusters: Exploding Children in Eco-Group’s Video Fails to Upset Liberal News Media
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/julia-seymour/2010/10/07/exploding-children-eco-groups-video-fails-upset-liberal-news-media

Thanks for your article, Katy. To the rest, no one should site wikipedia as a definitive source. That’s like taking opc-3 thinking it will cure all your ailments.