LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksFunny guysOriginally Posted by goosebump
Someone will end up the winner... It aint you guys.
Funny guys
Someone will end up the winner... It aint you guys.
Sadly WUC, it looks like it will be you, me, mutant rats and the cockroaches left when the "World economic meltdown etc..." happens, for I too am pretty self sufficient. And when it is just my clan and yours left I'm afraid our friendship here will count for nothing and I will see to it that you and your kin are wiped off the face of the earth forever, so I can claim my rightful place as ruler of all the earth and at the same time feed my family. Tax slavery might be better that the fate I have planned for you. *Licks lips*
That's an aaawful lot of trouble you went to there just for an excuse to sleep with your sisters....
Actual morality is doing what is right regardless of what you're told. Religious morality is doing what you're told, regardless of if it's right.
Wait, stop the presses. Wakeupcall isn't married?
Pathetic.
More pathetic. Look at these 'people' - they are disgusting rats.
Climategate: Mountain or Molehill?
Yes, exactly.I only ran across that connection, because I've been following a side debate concerning how actual temperature measurements at thousands of locations around the world over the last century have been tabulated. The barely civil online point-counterpoint between an anonymous blogger at The Economist and the proprietor of a well-known climate skeptic website gives a flavor for this complex topic. Along the way I was surprised to learn how frequently the actual temperature readings are adjusted, interpolated, and in some cases discarded. This involves many assumptions that I'm not qualified to question, though I am left with the conclusion that recent temperature trends fall into much the same category as the pre-measurement historical temperatures reconstructed from proxies such as tree rings. In other words, the familiar temperature trend graphs reflect mainly analysis, not primary data. That puts us all in the position of having to trust that this analysis was done properly and neutrally, and unfortunately that is precisely the trust that the leaked emails have undermined.
Exactly.I consider myself mainly a Warner in Stewart's terms, having consistently expounded the risks of climate change both in this blog and elsewhere, but I am still willing to give both sides of the argument a fair hearing. I want to see Climategate addressed openly and objectively. If the science turns out to be flawed because of bias and improper manipulation, we need to know that and correct the flaws. If the actual science is unaffected, but the means by which it has been conducted requires reform, then we need to address that as well, because if we don't the public's confidence in its findings won't be high enough to act on them. And I'd rather see this hashed out in an open scientific forum held by a body such as the AAAS and involving many disciplines outside climate science as a true jury of peers, than to see it resolved by litigation, which is where this all could be headed if scientists respond by shrugging it off or circling their wagons.
Full article:
The Energy Collective | Climategate: Mountain or Molehill?
Good article.
Indeed...The tea cup is worthy of Thor: Scientists dissent on consensus
On May 1 2009, the American Physical Society (APS) Council decided to review its current climate statement via a high-level subcommittee of respected senior scientists. The decision was prompted after a group of 54 prominent physicists petitioned the APS revise its global warming position. The 54 physicists wrote to APS governing board : “Measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th - 21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today.”
The petition signed by the prominent physicists, led by Princeton University's Dr. Will Happer , who has conducted 200 peer-reviewed scientific studies. The peer-reviewed journal Nature published a July 22, 2009 letter by the physicists persuading the APS to review its statement. In 2008, an American Physical Society editor conceded that a “considerable presence” of scientific skeptics exists.
In addition, in April 2009, the Polish National Academy of Science reportedly “published a document that expresses skepticism over the concept of man-made global warming.” An abundance of new peer-reviewed scientific studies continue to be published challenging the UN IPCC climate views. (See: Climate Fears RIP...for 30 years!? - Global Warming could stop 'for up to 30 years! Warming 'On Hold?...'Could go into hiding for decades,' peer-reviewed study finds – Discovery.com – March 2, 2009 & Peer-Reviewed Study Rocks Climate Debate! 'Nature not man responsible for recent global warming...little or none of late 20th century warming and cooling can be attributed to humans' – July 23, 2009 )
Well now, isn’t this amazing. It appears that not only is Climate Science NOT settled, a very large and significant majority of the scientific community thinks otherwise.
A March 2009 a 255-page U. S. Senate Report detailed "More Than 700 International Scientists Dissenting Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims."
2009's continued lack of warming, further frustrated the promoters of man-made climate fears. See: Earth's 'Fever' Breaks! Global temperatures 'have plunged .74°F since Gore released An Inconvenient Truth' – July 5, 2009
In addition, the following developments further in 2008 challenged the “consensus” of global warming. India Issued a report challenging global warming fears ; a canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed 68% disagree that global warming science is “settled”;
A Japan Geoscience Union symposium survey in 2008 reportedly “showed 90 per cent of the participants do not believe the IPCC report.” Scientific meetings are now being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists. The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists' equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. [See: Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: '2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC' & see full reports here & here
In a final coup d'état, Climate Depot exposes this little gem: UN IPCC's William Schlesinger admits in 2009 that only 20% of IPCC scientists deal with climate. You read that correctly, the IPCC Climate report was largely supported by scientists with zero climate science background.
Apologies for the delay - couldn't comment until I had the chance to read your link.
As it stands, the link was interesting insofar as it demonstrates an interesting correlation between carbon levels and global mean temperatures. What I fail to see is how, besides relying on DeMarchi (is that the right name? - closed the link and I've too slow a connection to wait for it to reopen!) who ruled out other factors but theorised that the air clarity could affect temperature, he has proved that carbon is a driver in global temperatures.
Unless I am missing something, this proves no causality but I'd be interested in more info.
Interesting read if noting else.
(Just no youtube videos please if it can be avoided - cannot open them on my connection.)
Slow connection in this day and age, it could only be Ireland
Will carbon tax be used to make better internet infrastructure? Cutting down on paper and petroleum based inks? Nope...
Tell me about it - and whats worse is this slow connection is infinitely better than the zero connection we had until recently!Slow connection in this day and age, it could only be Ireland
Will carbon tax be used to make better internet infrastructure? Cutting down on paper and petroleum based inks? Nope...
Only in Irelands smart economy.
Reply With Quote