Talk-Polywell.org

The Left wing media is the most dangerous thing this country is facing. They are a THREAT to our lives, our property and our future. I think their activites will eventuate in more dead people than anything the terrorists can do.


http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2009/0 ... -gore.html


David

Sorry you think climatology = left-wing. It is not equivalent outside US.

If you want to study weight of evidnce then you put a few 100 "GC" papers against 10K "GW" papers. But quantity is not the point. If you read carefully the GC papers they ar either speculative, not GC (as the recent Nature paper suggesting a PDO linked relatively slower warming over next 5 years, but then a much steeper warming), or just plain wrong with errors in argument or facts that are refuted by subsequent work.

Best wishes, Tom

tomclarke wrote:Sorry you think climatology = left-wing. It is not equivalent outside US.

If you want to study weight of evidnce then you put a few 100 "GC" papers against 10K "GW" papers. But quantity is not the point. If you read carefully the GC papers they ar either speculative, not GC (as the recent Nature paper suggesting a PDO linked relatively slower warming over next 5 years, but then a much steeper warming), or just plain wrong with errors in argument or facts that are refuted by subsequent work.

Best wishes, Tom

On the contrary, there is growing commentary in Australia that global warming is a left wing cult as well.

Additionally, ClimateAudit has repeatedly shot holes in both the statistical methods of GW papers and their arguments, as well as their consistent refusals to release their data sets, open their software.

Realclimate.org is IMHO the most laden down with ad hominem attacks against critics.

from:

http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/po ... Q3ZWUzMmE=

This graph, courtesy of atmospheric scientist John Christy, shows how climate models and reality diverge. The red, purple, and orange lines are model forecasts of global temperatures under different emission scenarios. The yellow line shows how much warming we are supposedly “committed to” even if CO2 concentrations don’t change. The blue and green lines are actual temperatures as measured by ground-based (HadCrut) and satellite (UAH LT) monitoring systems.

What’s really rather remarkable, is that since 2000, the rates at which CO2 emissions and concentrations are increasing have accelerated.

I think this is all the evidence we need to show what a dangerous game humans are playing when they burn fossil fuels. The destruction of the climate is obvious. We have perfectly good models and the climate is not following them.

On top of that we seem to have reached a tipping point where adding more CO2 to the atmosphere causes it to cool. Not even our very best scientists predicted this. The only way to slow it down is to enact huge taxes on burning stuff. Right now.

Intlibber -

There is a strong (almost religious) and certainly political section of opinion in any country which is anti-GW. But outside US (mostly anyway - not sure about China etc) this is a small minority opinion.

Have you followed carefully, on any specific single issue, through the challenge from skeptics, replies by climate scientists, and counter-challenge, counter-reply etc? It takes a long time but is revealing.

Best wishes, Tom

tomclarke wrote:Intlibber -

There is a strong (almost religious) and certainly political section of opinion in any country which is anti-GW. But outside US (mostly anyway - not sure about China etc) this is a small minority opinion.

Have you followed carefully, on any specific single issue, through the challenge from skeptics, replies by climate scientists, and counter-challenge, counter-reply etc? It takes a long time but is revealing.

Best wishes, Tom

Last I hear 60% of Brits think AGW is a wallet extraction scheme. Nice small minority in Britain.

I don't think I want proof, because then a lot of us would be dead. I think there are an infinite number of ways our climate could arrange itself, and only a couple of those are conducive to the survival of our civilization. I think there is a high probability that dumping large amounts of greenhouse gases will in fact change something. That changes how much energy the earth's climate has to work with. You can argue if that's temperature (GW), sea level, the amount of ice we have, or if we simply have any water to grow crops with. Maybe it is arrogant for someone to say they know how the earth works. But what is it to sit back and say that we should just leave things continue as they have because we don't know for sure that anything bad will happen?

The politics of climate change aside, I think you're even more deluded if you think that the "Left" controls the media in this country...

joedead wrote:The politics of climate change aside, I think you're even more deluded if you think that the "Left" controls the media in this country...

Well, they only admitted that being left they gave Obama a 5% advantage.

But you know we have been down that road. Only something like 80% or 90% of reporters vote Democrat.

And then there is the game of "name that party". Google it some time.

The right may own it but the left controls it.

===

OH, yeah. CO2 is an effect of climate not a cause.

The right may own it but the left controls it.

Left, Right- both sides have their hands so deep in each other's pockets it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to blame one "side" for general public ignorance.

It's no conspiracy theory. The media's got more left bias than right.

kcdodd wrote:I don't think I want proof, because then a lot of us would be dead.

I think there is a high probability that dumping large amounts of greenhouse gases will in fact change something. That changes how much energy the earth's climate has to work with.

Maybe it is arrogant for someone to say they know how the earth works. But what is it to sit back and say that we should just leave things continue as they have because we don't know for sure that anything bad will happen?

All of that is fine, but its all faith. Not religious faith, but faith nonetheless.

The West has cleaned itself up about as much as is practical. The developing world is not going to clean itself up if that means slower growth and more time stuck at Second World standards of living. We are now roughly at the plateau that people will tolerate, and short of radical policies, any further improvement waits on the developing world acquiring enough wealth to invest in their own clean ups.

Radical changes and reduction in standards of living to prevent an unsubstantiated theoretical "maybe" does not hold up. All women should walk around in Level III tactical body armor, MP4 submachineguns in hand, since they might be raped? Insane.

Duane

kcdodd wrote:I don't think I want proof

kcdodd, could you check your private messages?

joedead wrote:

The right may own it but the left controls it.

Left, Right- both sides have their hands so deep in each other's pockets it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to blame one "side" for general public ignorance.

I am not trying to be insulting, but do you know the difference ?

Your statement reminds me of what obama said about the Russian invasion of Georgia. " Both sides need to excersize equal restraint. "

George Will pointed out that one side is the INVADER, and the other side is being INVADED. The two are not morally equivilant.


How can the two sides be equal when 80%-90% of Journalists vote Democrat ? It's like asking NAZI's to report on Israel. (That's closer to the truth than most people would admit. )


If you look at history, the left has a habit of piling up bodies by the millions.


David

ravingdave wrote: If you look at history, the left has a habit of piling up bodies by the millions.

While they accuse the right of not caring about the pee-pul.