Avro
-
Posts
22 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Avro
-
-
You must be one of the spoiled little rich kids in the environmental movement.
Thanks for stopping by.
Watt an amazing come back...bravo retard.
-
Yeah about 22 years ago.When the first mutterings of the consensus claptrap first showed up.
It is worthless then and it is worthless now.
Try the idea of following validated empirical science research instead.
Just request an education and I will replyand stop pretending you know the facts ya stupid ass hammer.
-
Then we have this listing to ponder over:
The '96-to-present smear of skeptic scientists
The Exxon smears and others smears made by the environmentalist camps are getting the replies they deserved.Skeptics are getting tired of their lies.
Are you for real?
-
I wasn't aware you had a point. Certainly none has been evident in your postings thus far.
That's it, run away coward.
Typical Con.
-
This has to be one of the DUMBEST post ever!
Just a sampling of people who has done climate science research.By way of the "peer reviewed" process.It is from the list you irrationally disparaged:
Roy Spencer, University of Alabama
Richard Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology2
Craig Idso, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
Sherwood Idso, USDA, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory1
S. Fred Singer, University of Virginia1
That is enough to prove your post was dead on arrival.
Talk about dumb.....have you ever really looked into the consensus.....ever?
I frickin doubt it.....I will help you if you are interested otherwise enjoy the flat earth.
Psst....btw Singer and the Idso's are not climate scientist's.
So two out of thousands.....you win....NOT.
-
Btw, any cave dwellers that get their reports on climate from a big boobed weather girl on some FOX station in Buffalo and believe she is part of any consensus on science read and weep this link.
Watt's up with that?
-
They had a lot more to complain about.
Yeah like surpluses and not fighting in Iraq.
Thanks for proving my point btw.
-
Cons have a great ability to make stuff up about the so called liberal media.
-
I wouldn't have complained about Chretien going to a hockey game, so no, it's not quite the same. The level of picayune sniveling is far higher when it's Harper doing something than when it was Chretien or Martin.
I recall many times when righties whined about what the Libs did so don't hand me that pile of steaming dong.
-
Global warming skeptics send letter to Congress urging members not give into climate ‘alarmists’
Below is the text of a letter, sent by many apparently qualified "scientists" taking issue with climate alarmism (I manually inserted links to referenced materials):
February 8, 2011To the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate:In reply to “The Importance of Science in Addressing Climate Change”On 28 January 2011, eighteen scientists sentto members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate urging them to “take a fresh look at climate change.” Their intent, apparently, was to disparage the views of scientists who disagree with their contention that continued business-as-usual increases in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions produced from the burning of coal, gas, and oil will lead to a host of cataclysmic climate-related problems.We, the undersigned, totally disagree with them and would like to take this opportunity to briefly state our side of the story.The eighteen climate alarmists (as we refer to them, not derogatorily, but simply because they view themselves as “sounding the alarm” about so many things climatic) state that the people of the world “need to prepare for massive flooding from the extreme storms of the sort being experienced with increasing frequency,” as well as the “direct health impacts from heat waves” and “climate-sensitive infectious diseases,” among a number of other devastating phenomena. And they say that “no research results have produced any evidence that challenges the overall scientific understanding of what is happening to our planet’s climate,” which is understood to mean their view of what is happening to Earth’s climate.To these statements, however, we take great exception. It is the eighteen climate alarmists who appear to be unaware of “what is happening to our planet’s climate,” as well as the vast amount of research that has produced that knowledge.For example, a lengthy review of their claims and others that climate alarmists frequently make can be found on the(see). That report offers a point-by-point rebuttal of all of the claims of the “group of eighteen,” citing in every case peer-reviewed scientific research on the actual effects of climate change during the past several decades.If the “group of eighteen” pleads ignorance of this information due to its very recent posting, then we call their attention to an even larger and more comprehensive report published in 2009, Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).has been posted for more than a year in its entirety at www.nipccreport.org.These are just two recent compilations of scientific research among many we could cite. Do the 678 scientific studies referenced in the CO2 Science document, or the thousands of studies cited in the NIPCC report, provide real-world evidence (as opposed to theoretical climate model predictions) for global warming-induced increases in the worldwide number and severity offloods? No. In the global number and severity of droughts? No. In the number and severity of hurricanes and other storms? No.Do they provide any real-world evidence of Earth’s seas inundating coastal lowlands around the globe? No. Increased human mortality? No. Plant and animal extinctions? No. Declining vegetative productivity? No. More frequent and deadly coral bleaching? No. Marine life dissolving away in acidified oceans? No.Quite to the contrary, in fact, these reports provide extensive empirical evidence that these things are not happening. And in many of these areas, the referenced papers report finding just the opposite response to global warming, i.e., biosphere-friendly effects of rising temperatures and rising CO2 levels.In light of the profusion of actual observations of the workings of the real world showing little or no negative effects of the modest warming of the second half of the twentieth century, and indeed growing evidence of positive effects, we find it incomprehensible that the eighteen climate alarmists could suggest something so far removed from the truth as their claim that no research results have produced any evidence that challenges their view of what is happening to Earth’s climate and weather.But don’t take our word for it. Read the two reports yourselves. And then make up your own minds about the matter. Don’t be intimidated by false claims of “scientific consensus” or “overwhelming proof.” These are not scientific arguments and they are simply not true.Like the eighteen climate alarmists, we urge you to take a fresh look at climate change. We believe you will find that it is not the horrendous environmental threat they and others have made it out to be, and that they have consistently exaggerated the negative effects of global warming on the U.S. economy, national security, and public health, when such effects may well be small to negligible.Signed by:Syun-Ichi Akasofu, University of Alaska1Scott Armstrong, University of PennsylvaniaJames Barrante, Southern Connecticut State University1John Boring, University of Virginia1Roger Cohen, American Physical Society FellowDavid Douglass, University of RochesterDon Easterbrook, Western Washington University1Robert Essenhigh, The Ohio State University1Neil Frank, Former Director National Hurricane CenterMartin Fricke, Senior Fellow, American Physical SocietyLee Gerhard, University of Kansas1Ulrich Gerlach, The Ohio State UniversityVictor Goldschmidt, Purdue University1Guillermo Gonzalez, Grove City CollegeLaurence Gould, University of HartfordBill Gray, Colorado State University1Will Happer, Princeton University2Howard Hayden, University of Connecticut1Craig Idso, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global ChangeSherwood Idso, USDA, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory1Richard Keen, University of Colorado1Doral Kemper, USDA, Agricultural Research Service1Hugh Kendrick, Office of Nuclear Reactor Programs, DOE1Edward Krug, University of Illinois1Richard Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology2Anthony Lupo, University of MissouriPatrick Michaels, Cato InstituteDonald Nielsen, University of California, Davis1Al Pekarek, St. Cloud State UniversityJohn Rhoads, Midwestern State University1Nicola Scafetta, Duke UniversityGary Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources StudyS. Fred Singer, University of Virginia1Roy Spencer, University of AlabamaGeorge Taylor, Past President, American Association of State ClimatologistsFrank Tipler, Tulane UniversityJames Wanliss, Presbyterian CollegeLeonard Weinstein, National Institute of Aerospace Senior Research FellowSamuel Werner, University of Missouri1Bruce West, American Physical Society FellowThomas Wolfram, University of Missouri11- Emeritus or Retired2- Member of the National Academy of SciencesEndorsed by:Rodney Armstrong, GeophysicistRichard Becherer, University of Connecticut1E. Calvin Beisner, The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of CreationEdwin Berry, Certified Consulting MeteorologistJoseph Bevelacqua, Bevelacqua ResourcesCarmen Catanese, American Physical Society MemberRoy Clark, Ventura PhotonicsJohn Coleman, Meteorologist KUSI TVDarrell Connelly, GeophysicistJoseph D'Aleo, Certified Consulting MeteorologistTerry Donze, Geophysicist1Mike Dubrasich, Western Institute for Study of the EnvironmentJohn Dunn, American Council on Science and Health of NYCDick Flygare, EngineerMichael Fox, Nuclear industry/scientistGordon Fulks, Gordon Fulks and AssociatesSteve Goreham, Climate Science Coalition of AmericaKen Haapala, Science & Environmental Policy ProjectMartin Hertzberg, Bureau of Mines1Art Horn, MeteorologistKeith Idso, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global ChangeJohn Kimberly, GeologistJay Lehr, The Heartland InstituteRobert Lerine, Industrial and Defense Research and Engineering1Peter Link, GeologistJames Macdonald, Chief Meteorologist for the Travelers Weather Service1Roger Matson, Society of Independent Professional Earth ScientistsTony Pann, Meteorologist WBAL TVNed Rasor, Consulting PhysicistJames Rogers, Geologist1Norman Rogers, National Association of ScholarsRene Rogers, Litton Electron Devices1Bruce Schwoegler, MySky Communications, Inc.Thomas Sheahen, Western Technology IncorporatedJames Spann, Chief Meteorologist, ABC 33/40 - BirminghamAndrew Spurlock, Starfire Engineering and Technologies, Inc.Leighton Steward, PlantsNeedCO2.orgSoames Summerhays, Summerhays Films, Inc.Charles Touhill, Consulting Environmental EngineerDavid Wojick, Climatechangedebate.orgBob Zybach, Ecologist1 - Emeritus or RetiredWow, there's a shock.
Signed by zero climate scientitsts.
Like going to your mechanic for a second opinion on protate cancer.
-
The situation is this: the IPCC models predicted more warming than has occurred but there is a lot of variance within the models. This means some argue the lack of warming does not actually falsify the models. On the other hand, if trends continue the models will be falsified in 5-10 years. So we are really in a limbo period where one can plausibly argue that the models are both right and wrong. On the sceptic side we also have the ocean heat content (OHC) which has also failed to rise as predicted. This is actually a more serious issue because OHC is not subject to the same amount of variability as air temperatures so it takes less time to falsify the models. Unfortunately, there is data splice in 2003 that makes comparisons before and after that date problematic so we also have about 5-10 years before the data will change anyone's mind.
In short: I would not take any bets on the planet warming as predicted given the data we have now. There is a good chance that the models overpredict the warming.
The models have grossly under predicted the warming we are going to see in the next fifty years.
-
Finally some acknowledgement in the media that the science of climate change is a secondary concern. What really matters is how we balance the risk of climate change among all of the other issues that governments have to deal with:
My own opinion is significantly reducing globally CO2 emissions is technically impossible given the need for economic development. Therefore any money spent trying to achieve CO2 reduction targets is money poured down a drain. More importantly, if money or resources are wasted on futile anti-CO2 measures it will not be available to address problems that matter more to most people.
The debate about about whether CAGW is a hoax is a distraction. For my part, even if there was compelling evidence that CAGW was really a coming catastrophe it would not change the fact that we can't do anything about it. People who think that all we need to is buy a few carbon credits are deluding themselves. The same is true for people who think that paying groteque subsidies for windmills or solar panels will make a difference. Even worse, I used to think that nuclear could make a difference but it is clear that nuclear costs are spiralling out of control and it would be impossible to built the number of nuclear facilities required to make a difference in the next 30-50 years.
The bottom line is we will be burning stuff for energy 50 years from now whether we like it or not. The only question is how much money will be wasted before politicians stop pandering to the spoiled little rich kids in environmental movement.
That has to be one of the dumbest things I have ever heard.
-
Cons fly on the tax payers dime.....good.
Libs fly on the tax payers dime.....bad.
Cons build gazebos on our dime and hide it from parliment.....good.
Libs go on shopping sprees on our dime....bad.
Cons run up a huge deficit and debt....good.
Libs run up a huge deficit and debt.....bad.
You can swap the good and bad depending on your political ideology.
-
I'm sure they went over every possible scenario...capture, trial, imprisonment, execution, disposal of body, everything had to be discussed and every political scenario played out...the final decision-confirm ID, execute and dispose of body...probably the best option but you just know all the conspiracy nuts will be on this there are conspiracy books to be written...Obama's birth certificate is now a forgery so next will be Obama faked Osama's death to win the election, you just know that will be the next wacko theory...
Yeah, Trump won't be happy until he sees Bin Ladens long form death certificate.
-
And yet they are going to bury him at sea with Islamic tradition in mind? Suuuuuuure.
Well heck, if they can find out where they can join thier brother swimming among the fishes.
The Obaminator strikes.....yes we can.....find and kill Bin Laden.
-
Yeah they claim he was buried at sea. I think it's a little odd. But what else would you do with the dead body, parade it around NYC?
Don't want to give his followers a place to worship or Martyr him.
Brilliant move.
-
It's funny, Bin Laden killed by Obama.
A a spooky black socialist Kenyan Muslim does something no Republican could.
Bush 0
Obama 1
Not only that, the CIA under Obama found the douche bag and kept it secret since August.
Can't wait to see Republican'ts struggle with this one.....isn't that right Mr. Trump?
-
The only reason that this has become a big issue is because the poor guy is dead. This situation begs the question of how many times do police use this course of action when the cameras aren't on.
I'll bet dollars to donuts that all four coppers walk with zero punishment.
They shouldn't be but they are above the law. :angry:
-
Diplomacy is the only option available to Israel that will translate into long-term peace.
Tell that to the assholes lobbing rockets into Isreal. Tell me, how do you negotiate with a government that wants Isreal wiped off the map and continues to fire missles indescriminatly into your neighborhoods?
-
Terror begets terror.
Perhaps instead of violence Hamas should use diplomacy, otherwise they had better get use to death.
May I add that most of the aid Palastinians get is from Isreal itself, why aren't Arab countires doing more to help them?
Muslims around the world unite to comdem Isreal but are strangly silent when Hamas launches rockets into Isreal.....why?
Isreal is doing the right thing.
-
There is an element of proselytizing in global warming believers. Even the term "global warming" has undergone the Leftist baptism to be renamed as "climate change".
Anyone who disputes the evidence is now called a "denier" - not like Peter - but rather like those who deny the Holocaust. Is this a reasonable way to conduct a scientific debate?
The National Post published a series of articles on the so-called "deniers" and the articles are worth a look. They're not behind a firewall.
LinkDr. Lindzen is one of the original deniers -- among the first to criticize the scientific bureaucracy, and scientists themselves, for claims about global warming that he views as unfounded and alarmist. While he does not welcome the role he's acquired, he also does not shrink from it. Dr. Lindzen takes his protests about the abuse of science to the public, to the press, and to government....
His detractors can't dismiss him as a crank from the fringe, however, much as they might wish. Dr. Lindzen is a critic from within, one of the most distinguished climate scientists in the world: a past professor at the University of Chicago and Harvard, the Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a member of the National Academy of Sciences, and a lead author in a landmark report from the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the very organization that established global warming as an issue of paramount importance.
Or how about Mann's famous hockey stick?
Link"Our committee believes that the assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade in a millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in a millennium cannot be supported," Wegman stated, adding that "The paucity of data in the more remote past makes the hottest-in-a-millennium claims essentially unverifiable." When Wegman corrected Mann's statistical mistakes, the hockey stick disappeared.I found most devastating this article:
LinkClimate modelling is the basis of forecasts of climate change. Yet this modelling, Tennekes believes, has little utility, and "there is no chance at all that the physical sciences can produce a universally accepted scientific basis for policy measures concerning climate change." Moreover, he states: "There exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies."Not surprisingly, Tennekes abhors the dogma that he feels characterizes the climate-change establishment, and the untoward role of climate science in public-policy making. "We only understand 10% of the climate issue. That is not enough to wreck the world economy with Kyoto-like measures."
The principle of global warming is perfectly sound. What is lacking is a clear understanding of how much human activities influence the atmosphere.
----
Rajendra Pachauri is the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC, working under a UN mandate, made the recent report in Paris that has attracted so much attention.
In 2005, Pachauri passed the Godwin point and compared Bjørn Lomborg to Adolf Hitler because Lomborg asks questions about global warming. Is this a way to conduct serious debate? I would expect such on this forum - but not from someone of such stature.
SlatePachauri's tactic is to insist that the United States and other highly developed nations make drastic reductions in their emissions of greenhouse gases before less developed nations (like his homeland of India) are forced to. That makes him hostile to market solutions in which U.S. companies upgrade inefficient plants overseas as an alternative to reducing carbon dioxide output in less-dirty plants in the United States.Pachauri has an interesting background. He sits on the board of State-owned Indian Oil Corporation. He is not a climatologist but rather a resource economist and furthermore, the Left accused him of being the choice of Bush and ExxonMobil for the position of IPCC chairman.
And who is Bjørn Lomborg?
LinkIn The Skeptical Environmentalist Bjørn Lomborg challenges widely held beliefs that the global environment is progressively getting worse. Using statistical information from internationally recognized research institutes, Lomborg systematically examines a range of major environmental issues and documents that the global environment has actually improved. He supports his argument with over 2900 footnotes, allowing discerning readers to check his sources.For the third time, at least, the National Post has painted a respected international academic as a climate change "denier," regardless that the scientist is no such thing.
In the most recent instance part of a 10-part series called "The Deniers" - writer Lawrence Solomon (left) justifiably lauds the work of that "Nigel Weiss, Professor Emeritus at the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics at the University of Cambridge, past President of the Royal Astronomical Society, and a scientist as honoured as they come."
But Solomon then steps way over the line of accurate journalism. He says that Weiss believes "The science is anything but settled ... except for one virtual certainty: The world is about to enter a cooling period."
Weiss was so offended by this mischaracterization that he issued a news release, saying "Professor Nigel Weiss, an expert in solar magnetic fields, has rebutted claims that a fall in solar activity could somehow compensate for the man-made causes of global warming."
“Although solar activity has an effect on the climate, these changes are small compared to those associated with global warming,” Weiss said in the news release. “Any global cooling associated with a fall in solar activity would not significantly affect the global warming caused by greenhouse gases."
The Post has not yet seen fit to acknowledge Dr. Weiss' position with a correction.
Which is not so surprising when you look back in the series. The first story in "The Deniers" series featured Dr. Edward Wegman, a professor at the Center for Computational Statistics at George Mason University. Dr. Wegman had testified before a Senate committee last year, criticizing the use of statistics in the now-famous graph known as the "Mann hockey stick." But Wegman told the committee that he and his fellow statisticians "were not asked to assess the reality of global warming and indeed this is not an area of our expertise. We do not assume any position with respect to global warming except to note in our report that the instrumented record of global average temperature has risen since 1850 according to the MBH 99 chart by about 1.2º centigrade." He's no denier.
The Post's second story featured Dr. Richard S.Tol, and claimed that Tol believes climate change, if it is occurring, will be beneficial. Per this earlier post, however, Tol also acknowledges the human causation of climate change and supports action to stop it. Again, no denier.
There are other questionable stories in this series. For example, Solomon quotes the research of Henrik Svensmark of the Danish National Space Center, as proof that cosmic rays are affecting the earth's temperature. But while Solomon implies that the sun is therefore the principal cause of climate change, Svensmark says clearly in this paper that that his work "does not imply that other factors can not affect clouds or climate."
The most committed denier in this series appears to be no scientist, but rather the writer, Lawrence Solomon.
Mitt Romney
in Federal Politics in the United States
Posted · Edited by Avro
Well of course Mathews would like Backmann, the dems want the nuttiest nut to run against Obama and she is a whole new kind of right wing nutter.
I would like to nut on her face though, she is kinda hot.....perhaps her and Palin could snowball it.