# Finally.



## Dave_1 (Nov 11, 2009)

Owl Gore sued by over 30.000 Scientists for Global Warming *fraud */ John Coleman

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ

Owl Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth'? -- *$30,000* utility bill

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=...&id=5072659

What a hypocrite!


----------



## BrotherBart (Nov 11, 2009)

When and where was the suit filed Dave? I would like to follow it.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Nov 12, 2009)

"He knows warm fronts like I know cold cuts."    




ROTFLMAO


Matt


----------



## Dave_1 (Nov 13, 2009)

BrotherBart said:
			
		

> When and where was the suit filed Dave? I would like to follow it.



Saw this while visiting youtube but didn't have time to dig further into it.

B_i_l & I are trying to get several years ahead in our wood supply.

And we are cutting for 3 households, his daughter included.

We got permission from a guy that recently had a large tract harvested. 

He is going to burn the tree tops up in about 2 weeks, weather permiting.

If you cut you know from experience that such is intensive & back breaking.

So when we get home it is supper, a little tv, & sack time.

We intend to go at it until he puts a match to the tract.

Then I'll go looking for that suit.

Meantime, enjoy. :lol:  

Owgore Slammed By Congress!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNzBRiAyn8o&feature=related


----------



## jebatty (Nov 13, 2009)

Oh how a human likes to revel over the misfortunes or troubles in someone else's house when the human's own house is in great need of repair. Why do we find satisfaction in the troubles of another? Greed and more greed is no fun; greed and more greed hurts someone. Let's get our own house in faultless order before criticizing the house of another.


----------



## colebrookman (Nov 13, 2009)

jebatty said:
			
		

> Oh how a human likes to revel over the misfortunes or troubles in someone else's house when the human's own house is in great need of repair. Why do we find satisfaction in the troubles of another? Greed and more greed is no fun; greed and more greed hurts someone. Let's get our own house in faultless order before criticizing the house of another.


Amen Brother Jim, Amen!!
Ed


----------



## Dune (Nov 13, 2009)

The number of scientists working for Exxon_Mobil alone far exceeds the number quoted in the "suit" . Nevermind the rest of the oil, coal, and chemical companies. B.S. like this makes me sick. If you are so busy that you can't even supply evidence of your own acusations, surely you have better things to do.


----------



## Duetech (Nov 14, 2009)

There is ample evidence that global warming is a farce. Simply get a record of of global temperature records for the last 100-50 years and compare. Ice corings from the arctic and antarctic divulge periods in global history where the CO2 content of the atmosphere far exceed anything listed since the dawn of the industrial age and the end of the world did not occur. That alone should tell us that the so called dangers of global warming are at least a misinterpretation if based on CO2 content. The fact that sulphur-dioxed and dust particle emmissions released in to the atmosphere due to seismic occurrence emmisions and its influence on weather patterns was missing and known results of sun spot activity influencing weather patterns was not included in the anaysis screams of a narrow approach to acheive the conclusion being supported by "Global Warming" theorists. That 30,000 would sue is ample indication that the claims of both parties needs to be scrutinized before any legislation is implemented. Such legislation needs to be scrutinized to see what effect it will have on global conditions as well. The green house condition so feared by many of the GW's was at one time, via the claims of evolution, the very hot bed where man evolved. What are they afraid of? The second evolution of man? If so hopefully he/it will be smarter. (Or is that it?)


----------



## Dune (Nov 14, 2009)

Cave2k said:
			
		

> There is ample evidence that global warming is a farce. Simply get a record of of global temperature records for the last 100-50 years and compare. Ice corings from the arctic and antarctic divulge periods in global history where the CO2 content of the atmosphere far exceed anything listed since the dawn of the industrial age and the end of the world did not occur. That alone should tell us that the so called dangers of global warming are at least a misinterpretation if based on CO2 content. The fact that sulphur-dioxed and dust particle emmissions released in to the atmosphere due to seismic occurrence emmisions and its influence on weather patterns was missing and known results of sun spot activity influencing weather patterns was not included in the anaysis screams of a narrow approach to acheive the conclusion being supported by "Global Warming" theorists. That 30,000 would sue is ample indication that the claims of both parties needs to be scrutinized before any legislation is implemented. Such legislation needs to be scrutinized to see what effect it will have on global conditions as well. The green house condition so feared by many of the GW's was at one time, via the claims of evolution, the very hot bed where man evolved. What are they afraid of? The second evolution of man? If so hopefully he/it will be smarter. (Or is that it?)



Not True! We are suffering levels of CO2 in the atmosphere that have never been reached before. The argument is over. The corperate naysayers have admitted they were wrong, you didn't get the memo.


----------



## Gooserider (Nov 14, 2009)

jebatty said:
			
		

> Oh how a human likes to revel over the misfortunes or troubles in someone else's house when the human's own house is in great need of repair. Why do we find satisfaction in the troubles of another? Greed and more greed is no fun; greed and more greed hurts someone. Let's get our own house in faultless order before criticizing the house of another.



I'm sure this was addressed to Mr. Gore, who has made a great career out of telling us all the things we are doing wrong; while most of us have been primarily focused on minding our own business, but deriving a certain amount of pleasure when a hypocrite gets called on it...

Gooserider


----------



## Later (Nov 15, 2009)

I'm still shaking my head from the ice age worry that many the scientists in the 70's warned me about. 

What ever happened with the ozone hole?

The fact is we don't know fully the impact of CO2 on climate - and if any potential effects are good or bad or inconsequential. The only thing that I am sure of is my distrust of the motives of folks that are positioned to enrich themselves because of a crisis. 

A number of years ago I had the opportunity to talk with a researcher who spent many years studying the south pole. He described a valley in Antarctica that he explored that had no snow, but many petrified trees. Perhaps we have been warm before.


----------



## JustWood (Nov 15, 2009)

Wunder how much CO2 was uncontrollabeLEE emitted into the atmussfeer by hundreds or mayB thousands of VoLCANE O's  and or hundreds of thousnds or millions of meat/plant/algae slurping DINO's  which farted much,,, to the Dlight  of unenetertained cavemen/women   I bet Saturday nites on the back deck by the "grill" overlooking the valley/lake   were interesting


----------



## DBoon (Nov 15, 2009)

Well, we're not going to know with 100% certainty for many years into the future if the climate change proponents are right or wrong.   If they are right and we did nothing, then we are likely in some deep trouble.  

There is a lot of emotion around this issue, and most people have already made up their minds, so I won't try to change any opinions.  But I'll tell you what my opinion is and why I think that way.  You can take that for what it is worth.  

I think of this issue like a fire insurance policy for my house.  I'm sure that I could find some people who will tell me that they don't have fire insurance for their house, and that I don't need it either.   Or I could find some "experts" who can tell me that fire insurance for my house doesn't make very good economic sense since the chance of a fire in any given year is so small.  I bet if I searched long enough on the web I could find people talking about how fire insurance is just a conspiracy for big insurance companies to profit from us little guys, and maybe even find some white papers or articles asserting this.   

And yet, I choose to buy fire insurance for my house.  $500 a year for $100,000 of insurance to ensure that if a fire were to occur, I wouldn't be financially ruined and would be able to rebuild my house.  Most people have seen enough evidence of house fires and know of someone who had a house fire to know that it can happen and that it is best to prepare for it.  

The amounts being discussed to mitigate carbon dioxide buildup in the atmosphere can be thought of as "insurance".  Sure, it's a waste of money if the climate change proponents are wrong.  But if they are right, the ramifications are pretty unimaginable.


----------



## Gooserider (Nov 15, 2009)

DBoon said:
			
		

> Well, we're not going to know with 100% certainty for many years into the future if the climate change proponents are right or wrong.   If they are right and we did nothing, then we are likely in some deep trouble.
> 
> There is a lot of emotion around this issue, and most people have already made up their minds, so I won't try to change any opinions.  But I'll tell you what my opinion is and why I think that way.  You can take that for what it is worth.
> 
> ...



The problem is that the "insurance payments" as proposed by the global warming folks are more on the order of $50-100 thousand (or more) for the same $100K worth of coverage - in other words, the premium is greater than the loss it's "protecting" us against...  The economic damage done by the various "Cap & trade" and other such programs is likely to be as bad if not worse than the highly unlikely "worst case" warming scenario.  In addition, this economic damage will make the problem worse by diverting money away from research into technological solutions, or even just upgrading the technology of emerging nations - despite the fact that EVERY technology we have ever invented has gotten cleaner over time...

Gooserider


----------



## Dune (Nov 15, 2009)

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,631262,00.html
http://www.zapworld.com/node/672
http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-science-beyond-the-worst-climate-change-case
http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/7642
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18925393.700-worst-case-global-warming-scenario-revealed.html
http://www.nowpublic.com/environment/global-warming-data-beyond-worst-case-scenario
http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/17805
http://news.scotsman.com/ViewArticle.aspx?articleid=2742781
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/ice_melt_010117.html


----------



## mainemac (Nov 15, 2009)

Dune said:
			
		

> The number of scientists working for Exxon_Mobil alone far exceeds the number quoted in the "suit" . Nevermind the rest of the oil, coal, and chemical companies. B.S. like this makes me sick. If you are so busy that you can't even supply evidence of your own acusations, surely you have better things to do.



What he said.
Get over it. Lets start working on the solution.
Solar Wind Tidal Nuclear Wood Stoves


http://www.magarchive.umaine.edu/issues/v8i4/brink.html

This article details a researcher who has spent his career in the arctic studying ice samples and climate change, but I guess someone with an internet connection knows more than he does.

A perfect analogy of Big Oil's response was Big Tobacco response to the link between lung cancer and 
"Smoking is good for you, you relax when you smoke." "Lung cancer does not necessarily come from smoking"
How many times did I used to hear that  "My aunt Sally smoked 3 packs per day  and is alive at 85???"

Bottom line:  Data wins.


----------



## flyingcow (Nov 15, 2009)

Data can be easily twisted to suit ones needs. I think the global warming scare is a big farce. A lot of money can be on either side of the fence. Do i know more than the experts? I dunno. but i do seem to recall the Titanic was built by experts, how'd that turn out?


----------



## mainemac (Nov 15, 2009)

Statistics can be manipulated. Agreed.
You are free to believe or not believe anything you like.

Did you read the thread?

You should if you have not had a chance. It is pretty good.
It is about a University of Maine professor who has spent decades taking ice core samples proving that we have never seen 
such a high and rapid increase in CO2 and Temperature. This rise in CO2 and temperature  just happened to correspond to the industrial revolution in England and later America and the world.


Re the 'farce' do you have evidence that there is some collusion between geologists botanists biologists and a benefactor?
I imagine a secret tape of them in Switzerland getting paid off by ........? the Solar Industry/? "Big Wind"?? 
and being exhorted to keep churning out propaganda ??


Here is the thread again if you like
http://www.magarchive.umaine.edu/issues/v8i4/brink.html


----------



## Later (Nov 15, 2009)

Over the past 400,00 years the earth has experienced warming levels equal to today's about every 10,000 years. Separated by periods of increased glaciation. Further back, from 400,000 to nearly 800.000 years ago the periods of warming were longer in duration but not as warm as today. The bottom line is there is a lot of "stuff" that effects warming or climate change or whatever we call it now.

However, if my company was posed to earn billions of dollars from the "fight" against climate change, I'd be happier than a pig in slop right now.


----------



## Gooserider (Nov 16, 2009)

As one example of interesting timing about a "discovery" - the infamous "Ozone Hole" over the Antarctic...

First discovered during the 1957 International Geophysical Year - essentially the first time anybody looked with instruments with the ability to find it...  Theory developed to explain it, that covered known data, hole not found to be a big problem, weather patterns don't permit one to develop in the Arctic, pretty much end of story for anyone not specializing in that field...

NASA rediscovers - publicizes as "CRISIS! Much more money needed for research" - just before Congressional hearings over NASA (Needs Another Seven Astronauts) incompetence, and expected budget cuts....

 :coolhmm: 

Secret conspiracy evidence is lacking, but there is certainly a very large degree of correlation between the "science" and the politics of those that are paying for it...  Remember, the Pol's can't make any money, get any [del]bribes[/del] campaign contributions, or do much speechifying on stuff that is not a "crisis" or a "problem" that requires them to "DO SOMETHING" about it...

(Remember, Congress has been "doing something" about health care since 1914 (if not earlier) - and people wonder why there is a health care crisis???)

Gooserider


----------



## rowerwet (Nov 16, 2009)

I'm still saving my Y2K supplies, now that swine flu is gonna wipe us all out I think I might need them after all, then when the starving hordes from the population bomb start roaming the countryside I won't have to worry as the next ice age will wipe them out before I run out of ammo! come on 2012!
beam me up scotty, there's no intelligent life running anything down here!


----------



## Jags (Nov 16, 2009)

Hmmmm....personally, I wouldn't mind it being a few degrees warmer on average.  Just sayin....


----------



## Hakusan (Nov 16, 2009)

I think this thread is in the wrong section of the forum. Try throwing it in the ash can with some of the other garbage. It is not even conversation.


----------



## rowerwet (Nov 17, 2009)

Dave_1 said:
			
		

> Owl Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth'? -- *$30,000* utility bill
> 
> http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=...&id=5072659
> 
> What a hypocrite!


the funniest thing is that back during the election that gore "won" discovery channel or another did a show on bush's house in Texas, he had geothermal, solar, and wind running his ranch house and used very little carbon generating power. as far as I know this was the only mention of who was the real "green" candidate as far as putting his money into it.


----------



## btuser (Nov 18, 2009)

The big push for climate change legislation is coming from Europe.  Why?  Because the end of the polar ice caps means the end of the Gulf Stream which means the end of European Summers.  They will be stuck in an ice age for centuries.  What's going to happen to us?  A little dust bowl, some extra hurricanes, and just a few cities will be slightly under water.   Southern NH is going to be just fine.   

China doesn't care.  
India doesn't care.  
Africa doesn't care.  
South America doesn't care.  
Australia doesn't care.  
I don't care.

As near as I can figure the beach will be about 20' closer to my house.


----------



## staplebox (Nov 18, 2009)

I'm all for conservation, as long as it's cheap and saves me money.  

See my friends below..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONd-Yk48R8E


----------



## emurphy@eclumber.com (Nov 18, 2009)

I watched a documentry not too long ago. I believe it was on the little Ice age. They basically said, that the warming and cooling cycle has, and continues to happen. Alot of it come from the ocean currents. 
I'm not very smart on this stuff, but they said the gulf stream carries warm ocean water north which interns melts the ice in the arctic. when enough ice melts, the ocean temp cools and the current stops. which causes northern climates to cool causing ice to build again.  When enough ice is formed the cooler water starts to flow south which cause the warmer southern water to move north which warms the northern climate again. 

As said, I'm not that smart on this stuff, but it seems like elementary school to me. 

PS. I also learned on one of those shows that rotting trees and debris from forest contribute more CO2 to the atmosphere than man ever could, which is why before the modern evelution there were high levels.  I thought they said the levels where higher then than now.

But quite honestly in my opinion Gore is a pompas jerk. So I'm likely to find fault, and an excuse to disagree with anything he says.


----------



## Hakusan (Nov 19, 2009)

murph said:
			
		

> I watched a documentry not too long ago. I believe it was on the little Ice age. They basically said, that the warming and cooling cycle has, and continues to happen. Alot of it come from the ocean currents.
> I'm not very smart on this stuff, but they said the gulf stream carries warm ocean water north which interns melts the ice in the arctic. when enough ice melts, the ocean temp cools and the current stops. which causes northern climates to cool causing ice to build again.  When enough ice is formed the cooler water starts to flow south which cause the warmer southern water to move north which warms the northern climate again.
> 
> As said, I'm not that smart on this stuff, but it seems like elementary school to me.
> ...



The planet's climate changes. It always has. That is not the problem. The problem is the rate of change. Right now the climate is changing relatively quickly. Some of that change can be attributed to natural causes, but not all of it. Humans are contributing to that change--this is the big problem for the anti-global warming side, they cannot point clearly to a natural cause that would account for the all the change (all they have is it might be this or that, but have no data to show it). 

Does it matter where the CO2 comes from? Trees decay and release CO2. New trees grow and absorb CO2. This cycle can produce a zero gain in CO2. Burn a coal or oil deposit. How long before that carbon is returned into the ground? The problem is more complex than simply CO2, there are other gasses in this equation. There are also problems of the acidification of the oceans as these gases are absorbed into the water.

So it gets hotter faster. What's the big deal? Since we are wood nuts, how fast does a forest travel? (They do travel as climate changes.) It the change in climate happens faster than forests can move north, they can be in real trouble. Insect populations are controlled by frosts and winters. If the winters do not kill enough of the population, the larger population can go from a annoyance to a threat to the forest (this is happening in the US right now). Slight changes in water temperature can radically change fish and amphibian populations in rivers. Unlike humans who can go to L. L. Bean, many other species can be inhibited or promoted with small change to their environment. The Green CO2 group will tell you planet benefit for more CO2 and so it is good, what they don't tell you those plants tend to be weeds and can overrun an environment. They also forget to mention that increased CO2 levels only increase plant growth in the short term. 

I guess the question is whether we have any responsibility when we pollute our planet. I think we do. And if you don't think humans can have a global impact, come to Maine and live on fish caught in our beautiful lakes and rivers. It will not be long before you will have mercury poisoning. And this is after we have "cleaned" things up. 

Al Gore is not a scientist. He is not doing the research. Do you hate/love opera music because Alec Baldwin introduces it on the radio?


----------



## Dave_1 (Feb 13, 2010)

US Chamber Challenges EPA CO2 Endangerment In Federal Court

http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-ma...llenges-epa-co2-endangerment-in-federal-court


----------



## Dune (Feb 13, 2010)

Really? This tired P.O.S. thread and all the ignorance it exposes is still around? Moderators!


----------



## kenny chaos (Feb 13, 2010)

Dune said:
			
		

> Really? This tired P.O.S. thread and all the ignorance it exposes is still around? Moderators!




Shut-up Dune.


----------



## Dune (Feb 13, 2010)

kenny chaos said:
			
		

> Dune said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks Kenny.
Somewhat less creative response than I would havce expected from you though.


----------



## mike1234 (Feb 13, 2010)

It's funny, I've never seen this before at this level - if you disagree with global warming you are ignorant, or stupid, or uninformed or ....  whatever, pick your word.  Just by saying "the debates over," that makes it over?  There are 2 sides to this, AND NOT EVERY PHD OR EXPERT THAT SAYS GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT TRUE IS EMPLOYED BY EXXON, that's just a way to not have to debate about it ("your experts are bought, mine aren't").  In fact, if global warming is proven untrue, how many experts do you think will loose billions in research money?  Al Gore's whole reason to live goes away if it is untrue (ok a little overboard, not live, but to be on TV, to make money).  And NOT EVERY PHD OR EXPERT WHO SAYS GLOBAL WARMING EXISTS IS EMPLOYED BY THE UN.

I would think all of you wood burners would understand this.  It's easy to make this kind of argument:  OWB's pollute, they smoke, they are dirty.  So all of you Tarm owners, all of your Garn owners, all of you woodstove owners your stoves are dirty, they pollute.  You can't tell me they don't, I've seen that OWB down the street, I've smelled it, I've gotten the calls from neighbors, I've read the posts on this forum.  *The debate is over*, we are banning your tarm, your garn, and your woodstove.

The only ignorant ones are the ones who won't do any more research, who say it's over, on either side.

And I love running for a Mod because someone disagrees with you, that is too cute.  Mod = Mom??   :coolgrin:


----------



## kenny chaos (Feb 13, 2010)

Dune said:
			
		

> [Shut-up Dune.



Thanks Kenny.
Somewhat less creative response than I would havce expected from you though.[/quote]




I did have a diddy workin' but gave up on a loss for a rhyme to "pie-hole." :lol:


----------



## Dune (Feb 13, 2010)

mike1234 said:
			
		

> It's funny, I've never seen this before at this level - if you disagree with global warming you are ignorant, or stupid, or uninformed or ....  whatever, pick your word.  Just by saying "the debates over," that makes it over?  There are 2 sides to this, AND NOT EVERY PHD OR EXPERT THAT SAYS GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT TRUE IS EMPLOYED BY EXXON, that's just a way to not have to debate about it ("your experts are bought, mine aren't").  In fact, if global warming is proven untrue, how many experts do you think will loose billions in research money?  Al Gore's whole reason to live goes away if it is untrue (ok a little overboard, not live, but to be on TV, to make money).  And NOT EVERY PHD OR EXPERT WHO SAYS GLOBAL WARMING EXISTS IS EMPLOYED BY THE UN.
> 
> I would think all of you wood burners would understand this.  It's easy to make this kind of argument:  OWB's pollute, they smoke, they are dirty.  So all of you Tarm owners, all of your Garn owners, all of you woodstove owners your stoves are dirty, they pollute.  You can't tell me they don't, I've seen that OWB down the street, I've smelled it, I've gotten the calls from neighbors, I've read the posts on this forum.  *The debate is over*, we are banning your tarm, your garn, and your woodstove.
> 
> ...



Your response implies that you read the entire thread. 
If you had, you would have noticed that the moderator asked the O.P., Dave1 for details as to the when and where of the suit. 
Dave1 never bothered to reply, and in fact months and months later, posted another link about another weak and frivilous suit by an organization so rabid that many legitimate businesses have quit in protest of their neoconistic policies.
Meanwhile, if you had read the thread you would have seen other requests for moderation. This thread belongs in the ashcan, from whence it will eventualy be excised into nonexistance. 

The really funny thing is that you and others still beleive that there is a debate at all. There is not.
It is like the japanese soilders found on deserted islands that didn't beleive the war was over.

By the way, your analogy compairing global climate change to a neiborhood debate about outdoor boilers holds no water whatsoever.


----------



## mike1234 (Feb 14, 2010)

Yes, read the whole thing.  Yes saw that the lawsuit stuff was not responded to.  Saw that those who don't like the debate, afraid it is starting to look like common sense is starting to prevail want to stop the debate.  To the ash can with it.

Sure my argument holds water, try and argue it.  You'll say you can prove with science that it's not true.  I'll say, sorry the debate is over.  You'll say, but there are those who disagree, I'll say, sorry the debate is over.  You'll say there are other explanations for the so called facts I present, I'll say the debate is over.  You'll say wait, the polar bears are growing in number and the seas have not risen at all, and there is no proof whatsoever that climate change really exists, and I'll say, damn your right.  

You really aren't worth arguing with Dune, you'll never be open minded enough to think it though totally.  You might be a smart guy, but for whatever reason you are blind to at least 1/2 the facts on this.  You may be right though, for me and you at least, the debate is over. 



			
				Dune said:
			
		

> mike1234 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Dune (Feb 14, 2010)

mike1234 said:
			
		

> You really aren't worth arguing with Dune, you'll never be open minded enough to think it though totally.  You might be a smart guy, but for whatever reason you are blind to at least 1/2 the facts on this.  You may be right though, for me and you at least, the debate is over.


Great semi-polite insult. I really like that. So much more class than Kenny's response. Too bad you don't want to debate this, I may have enjoyed that.  Thanks.


----------



## Dave_1 (Feb 14, 2010)

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been *no * global warming since 1995

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...email-row-admits-data-organised.html?ITO=1490


----------



## Dune (Feb 14, 2010)

Dave_1 said:
			
		

> Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been *no * global warming since 1995
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...email-row-admits-data-organised.html?ITO=1490



O.K., that link proves you read british tabloid journalism. Thanks, that does answer some questions.


----------



## Dave_1 (Feb 14, 2010)

*World may not be warming, say scientists*

snip

“The temperature records can*not* be relied on as indicators of global change,” said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC." 

snip

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026317.ece

*Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995 *

snip


"Meanwhile colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has *refused * Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers." *[Hmmmm]*

snip

http://beltwayblips.dailyradar.com/story/climategate-u-turn-as-scientist-at-centre-of-row/


----------



## Dune (Feb 14, 2010)

(Hmmmm) Read all of the entire articles linked to in post 14 and 15 of this thread.  (Hmmmm)


----------



## Dave_1 (Feb 15, 2010)

*Now climate-change scientists say ozone hole stops global warming*

*"*IT WAS once regarded as one of the biggest environmental threats to the planet. Now there is mounting *evidence * that the ozone hole above the Antarctic has been *protecting * the southern hemisphere against global warming.

The bizarre side-effect of ozone depletion has been studied by scientists at the University of Leeds.

The ozone hole, caused by chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) released into the atmosphere, is now steadily *closing*, but the research has suggested this could actually *increase * warming.

Scientists discovered brighter summertime clouds had formed over the area below the hole, which reflect more of the sun's powerful rays.

"These clouds have acted like a mirror to the sun's rays, reflecting the sun's heat away from the surface to the extent that warming from rising carbon emissions has effectively been cancelled out in this region during the summertime," said Professor Ken Carslaw, who co-authored the research.

Furore over other global -warming 'truths' that have turned out to be *less * than scientific

When the ozone hole seals, he expects an acceleration in warming in that region, he added*...."*

snip

http://news.scotsman.com/uk/Now-climatechange-scientists-say-ozone.6012558.jp


----------



## Dave_1 (Feb 15, 2010)

Daily Mail: SPECIAL INVESTIGATION: *Climate change emails row deepens as Russians admit they DID come from their Siberian server*

snip

*"*In the words of one, David Rind from the US space agency Nasa, it ‘looks like there were years around *1000AD *that could have been just as warm’.*"*

snip

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ns-admit-DID-send-them.html?printingPage=true.

Hmmm, *1,000 A.D..* that would be about the time that Eric the Red discovered "*Greenland*" 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_the_Red


----------



## kenny chaos (Feb 15, 2010)

What is really odd is the number of people who think they are qualified
to discuss or even to have an opinion on such a matter.
Most of us are still burning wood to try and warm the cave.
Go fix a door knob or something.


----------



## Dave_1 (Feb 22, 2010)

*The world’s largest private sector coal business, the Peabody Energy Company (PEC) has filed a mammoth 240-page “Petition for Reconsideration,” a full-blown legal challenge against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
*

*"*The petition must be answered and covers the entire body of leaked emails from ‘Climategate’ as well as those other ‘gate’ revelations including the frauds allegedly perpetrated under such sub-headings as ‘Himalayan Glaciers,’ ‘African Agricultural Production,’ ‘Amazon Rain Forests,’ ‘Melting Mountain Ice,’ ‘Netherlands Below Sea Level’ as well as those much-publicized abuses of the peer-review literature and so called ‘gray literature.’ These powerful litigants also draw attention to the *proven criminal conduct by climate scientists* in refusing to honor Freedom of Information law (FOIA) requests.... *"*

snip

http://www.climategate.com/worlds-b...rings-us-government-to-court-in-climate-fraud


----------



## yanksforever (Feb 22, 2010)

jebatty said:
			
		

> Oh how a human likes to revel over the misfortunes or troubles in someone else's house when the human's own house is in great need of repair. Why do we find satisfaction in the troubles of another? Greed and more greed is no fun; greed and more greed hurts someone. Let's get our own house in faultless order before criticizing the house of another.



AMEN You couldn't have said it better.


----------



## mike1234 (Feb 22, 2010)

Sorry Dune, the "you'll never be open minded enough to think it through totally" was not meant as an insult, I just think it's true that there is no chance of you looking at both sides of this issue.  I didn't intend it as a semi-polite insult, although it does kind of come off that way.  Sorry about that.



			
				Dune said:
			
		

> mike1234 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Eastern Sierra Wood Burner (Feb 22, 2010)

The science is not under debate for those that passed science class.


----------



## Jags (Feb 22, 2010)

Eastern Sierra Wood Burner said:
			
		

> The science is not under debate for those that passed science class.



There are many Scien-tists that would debate you on that stance.


----------



## Eastern Sierra Wood Burner (Feb 22, 2010)

Its really important too debate the economics not the science because over 95% of the experts have been convinced for a long time. There will always be a very small percentage that will never see the light. All measures too address global warming are an effort to clean up our planet. The important debate should be the economic impact and what most people are willing to sacrifice in the short term to help in the long run.


----------



## Jags (Feb 22, 2010)

Eastern Sierra Wood Burner said:
			
		

> Its really important too debate the economics not the science because over 95% of the experts have been convinced for a long time.



Don't go back too far now.  Back just 25-30 years ago they were convinced of global cooling.  Ahhhh...but I am sure we have gotten ALOT smarter since then.

Don't get me wrong, I think being good stewards of our planet is VERY important.  And we as humans have done a pretty crappy job of it.  Just don't throw the "We can't possibly be wrong THIS time" argument out there.  It could happen again.


----------



## mike1234 (Feb 23, 2010)

The science is not settled just because you say it's settled, or Al Gore says it settled.  95% is a number you picked out of the air, it's not a fact, which is like most numbers global warmers like to throw around.  
In fact (define fact) the numbers are much more like 55/45.  (I just made those up, but if we are just throwing fictitious numbers out there, I figured what the heck). 



			
				Eastern Sierra Wood Burner said:
			
		

> Its really important too debate the economics not the science because over 95% of the experts have been convinced for a long time. There will always be a very small percentage that will never see the light. All measures too address global warming are an effort to clean up our planet. The important debate should be the economic impact and what most people are willing to sacrifice in the short term to help in the long run.


----------



## WoodMann (Feb 23, 2010)

Eastern Sierra Wood Burner said:
			
		

> Its really important too debate the economics not the science ...........


Yeah- gotta wonder who stands to make the most money sensationalising this thing, eh..........


----------



## Dune (Feb 28, 2010)

mike1234 said:
			
		

> The science is not settled just because you say it's settled, or Al Gore says it settled.  95% is a number you picked out of the air, it's not a fact, which is like most numbers global warmers like to throw around.
> In fact (define fact) the numbers are much more like 55/45.  (I just made those up, but if we are just throwing fictitious numbers out there, I figured what the heck).
> 
> 
> ...



Actualy it's 86/16, the vast majority believe climate change is real. The remainder are clearly paid shills.


----------



## Gooserider (Feb 28, 2010)

Dune said:
			
		

> mike1234 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Depends on which set of paid shills you are listening to, and how that set has cooked the numbers...  

Far as I'm concerned, we could significantly reduce the amount of global warming if we could just put gags on all the politicians and pseudo-scientists (from both sides) that are busy bloviating about it...

Gooserider


----------



## Dave_1 (Mar 2, 2010)

*Head of 'Climategate' research unit admits sending 'pretty awful emails' to hide data*

"Scientists at the heart of the Climategate row were yesterday accused by a leading academic body of undermining science's credibility.

The Institute of Physics said 'worrying implications' had been raised after it was revealed the University of East Anglia had *manipulated * data on global warming.

The rebuke - the strongest yet from the scientific community - came as Professor Phil Jones, the researcher at the heart of the scandal, told MPs he had written 'some pretty awful emails' - but denied trying to suppress data. 

The Climategate row, which was first revealed by the Daily Mail in November, was triggered when a hacker stole hundreds of emails sent from East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit.

They revealed scientists plotting *how to avoid* responding to Freedom of Information requests from climate change sceptics.

Some even appeared to show the researchers discussing how to manipulate raw data from *tree rings* about historical temperatures.

In one, Professor Jones talks about using a 'trick' to *massage * figures and *'hide the decline'*.... "

snip 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1254660/Climategate-expert-tells-MPs.html


----------



## WoodMann (Mar 2, 2010)

The truth comes out. Looks like Al Gore's gravy train is gonna get derailed B4 it leaves the station.............


----------



## Later (Mar 3, 2010)

It's starting to look like there are "paid shills" on both sides of this issue. Gotta remember that both sides are betting trillions of $$$$ that they win, not that they are right but just win.


----------

