Proved: There is no climate crisis

[Trimdingman]

Ozone is an allotropic form of the oxygen molecule. (I am not looking this up) Normal oxygen has two atoms held together by a double covalent bond, thus its symbol, O2. Once in a while, you get a three molecule ring. That is ozone. It is unstable, as its atoms are joined by one single covalent bond. Since it occupies more space, it has a lower specific gravity then regular oxygen, so it rises to an area in the atmosphere where the specific gravity is equal to it's own. When there is an electrical discharge, oxygen molecules in the vicinity break down into oxygen ions. They almost instantly re-form into molecules, with some ozone being produced. The whole civilized world now uses electricity, so we are producing a lot of ozone.

[stephenhawkings]

Ozone is an allotropic form of the oxygen molecule. (I am not looking this up) Normal oxygen has two atoms held together by a double covalent bond, thus its symbol, O2. Once in a while, you get a three molecule ring. That is ozone. It is unstable, as its atoms are joined by one single covalent bond. Since it occupies more space, it has a lower specific gravity then regular oxygen, so it rises to an area in the atmosphere where the specific gravity is equal to it's own. When there is an electrical discharge, oxygen molecules in the vicinity break down into oxygen ions. They almost instantly re-form into molecules, with some ozone being produced. The whole civilized world now uses electricity, so we are producing a lot of ozone.

looks like some one is learning ! pretty soon you'll be all smartified!

[fmccap]

At least some are waking up!

 

8 Dems oppose quick debate on global warming bill

The lawmakers' opposition makes it more difficult for Democratic leaders to move the bill without a threat of a Republican filibuster.

 

The budget debate is the only way to circumvent Senate rules that allow a unified GOP to stop a bill through filibusters.

 

"Enactment of a cap-and-trade regime is likely to influence nearly every feature of the U.S. economy," wrote the Democratic senators, mostly moderates. They were joined by 25 Republicans. "Legislation so far-reaching should be fully vetted and given appropriate time for debate."

 

It takes 60 votes to overcome a filibuster in the Senate, but Democrats and allied independents currently control 58 seats.

 

Under a cap and trade system, the government would auction off permits to emit greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. The auctions would raise almost $650 billion over the next decade, with the cost passed on to consumers as higher energy prices.

[Savetheplanet]

There are plenty of scientists that disagree with the man-made global warming. Not as many as the alarmists. But what are the reasons behind that?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scien..._global_warming

 

http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?idarticle=9469

 

http://newsbusters.org/node/12793

 

 

 

 

This one is funny. It is written by the alarmists trying to debunk those that oppose them.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/scien...ng-skeptic.html

Same here. You can read the underlying tone of this article.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title...arming_skeptics

 

 

But lets speak about the scientists themselves. They have to eat as we do. So how to they get money? Grants and funding from governments, some corporations and our case the United Nations. There is a lot of competition for the dollars available and the funding pot is shrinking daily. Scientific study has a close analogy to the news. Sensationalism sells. New, bigger, better, faster, and DEATH headlines all sell. We are all going to die because the seas will rise 20 meters from the ice melting. That is some scary future. No wonder so many scientists have jumped on the global warming bandwagon. Fear mongering makes money! It is a feeding frenzy the multiplies upon itself. The worst the prediction of the future, more money becomes available.

And since I brought up the United Nations, just who receives all the tax money to prevent global warming? The United Nations, an organization that supports the destruction of sovereign states and the advancement of one world government.

 

 

 

And just why are China and European Union not paying their share of this tax since they truly are the major polluters along with the United States according to the United Nations own information?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...oxide_emissions

And what is the UN going to do with billions of dollars to prevent this?

 

 

 

 

“So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself “

FDR 1933

And the fear generated by the global warming activists.

 

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

http://www.globalwarmingsurvey.com/History...rming/index.htm

 

 

 

 

 

I think one misconception is the idea that cllimate scientists have a dog in this fight, they don't. We see it in your guy's post's over and over! You guy's are conspiracy theorist's!!

If ACC were disproved tomorrow, they would be doing research on something else.

Even those who did not find jobs in climate research would find jobs doing models for hedge funds or something else that would paymore than climate research. The people who do this research do it because they think it is important.

They see that changing climate represents a variety of threats to civilization, and they want to d something about it. To question their integrity by implying that their puny salaries could buy their scientific opinion is not just flat wrong, hell, not even just laughable, it is insulting,, first, based on this study

 

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/cpst/2003PhDSurvey.pdf

 

from AGU, most of recent PhDs in geo and space sciences found employyment in the sciences, (87%).

An AIP study found that 97 of 2003 and 2004 PhDs found employment--those statistics don't leave much room for desperate job hunters willing to sacrifice their integrity for a job.

Then there's the question of motivation: Why would funding agencies want a scientist to falsify their research in favor of anthropogenic climate change. After all, most climate research funding comes from the US and other governments, and having the scientists say humans are changing the environment doesn't exactly reflect favorably on the governments' inaction on greenhouse gas emissions.

 

 

The number of true experts who doubt Earth is wrming is pretty darned close to zero. The number who think humans have nothing to do with it can probobly be counted on fingers and maybe a couple of toes thrown in. There is NO controversy in the scientific community just the normal process of consensus with some cranks who cling to dissent for their own contrarian reasons. It is the media and public who manufacture the controversy.

 

Since youguy's, are not a scientist, and since virtually ALL the experts have concluded that climate change is occurring and that we are responsible for it, don't you think that you ought to consider the possibility that they, with their decades of research and study, might understand it better than you?

 

Ya know there are parallel's between a climate scientist and a physician, they make a diagnossis and tell you what it is, what YOU do about it is up to you!!!

[Trimdingman]

looks like some one is learning ! pretty soon you'll be all smartified!

 

 

The ozone problem was that there was not enough of it. Our underarm deodorant chemicals were supposedly going up to the ozone layer and popping the ozone molecules. What I am saying is that we are producing more ozone with our electricity than we were popping with our Right Guard spray deodorant. It was another hoax/urban legend perpetrated by the envirowackos that has bitten the dust. I am not saying that the ozone layer is not getting thinner. That I don't know. I know that we are not responsible.

[xr7g428]

I think one misconception is the idea that cllimate scientists have a dog in this fight, they don't. We see it in your guy's post's over and over! You guy's are conspiracy theorist's!!

If ACC were disproved tomorrow, they would be doing research on something else.

Even those who did not find jobs in climate research would find jobs doing models for hedge funds or something else that would paymore than climate research. The people who do this research do it because they think it is important.

They see that changing climate represents a variety of threats to civilization, and they want to d something about it. To question their integrity by implying that their puny salaries could buy their scientific opinion is not just flat wrong, hell, not even just laughable, it is insulting,, first, based on this study

 

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/cpst/2003PhDSurvey.pdf

 

from AGU, most of recent PhDs in geo and space sciences found employyment in the sciences, (87%).

An AIP study found that 97 of 2003 and 2004 PhDs found employment--those statistics don't leave much room for desperate job hunters willing to sacrifice their integrity for a job.

Then there's the question of motivation: Why would funding agencies want a scientist to falsify their research in favor of anthropogenic climate change. After all, most climate research funding comes from the US and other governments, and having the scientists say humans are changing the environment doesn't exactly reflect favorably on the governments' inaction on greenhouse gas emissions.

 

 

The number of true experts who doubt Earth is wrming is pretty darned close to zero. The number who think humans have nothing to do with it can probobly be counted on fingers and maybe a couple of toes thrown in. There is NO controversy in the scientific community just the normal process of consensus with some cranks who cling to dissent for their own contrarian reasons. It is the media and public who manufacture the controversy.

 

Since youguy's, are not a scientist, and since virtually ALL the experts have concluded that climate change is occurring and that we are responsible for it, don't you think that you ought to consider the possibility that they, with their decades of research and study, might understand it better than you?

 

Ya know there are parallel's between a climate scientist and a physician, they make a diagnossis and tell you what it is, what YOU do about it is up to you!!!

 

STP, there was a time, back in the early '60's when "everyone" thought that computers would be able to solve all of our problems, big machines that could make all of the big decisions. And the more we learned about computers the more we came to realize that the computers were just able to make the same kinds of errors, only with a lot more decimal places.

 

Global warming comes in slices: Do you believe the global average temperature has increased? Do you believe this is a bad thing? Do you believe that it is at least partially caused by man? Do you believe that man can control the climate at will? Do you believe that CO2 is the cause? Do you believe that CO2 is the driving force? Do you believe that mankind's fate in a carbon restricted world is actually preferable to the alternative? Do you believe there is really enough carbon fuel left to make a difference? Of will you just buy off on all of the above to accomplish some other goal, like getting SUV's off the highway, making people live in little apartments clustered in dense urban masses? Remember, agreement on the one hand doesn't mean agreement on the other.

 

What has you confused is that you seem to believe that all scientists agree on all areas of global warming. There is much agreement that the average global temperature was rising during the 1990's. Mathematically, the increase in human habitation areas should produce some level of change. When you average ANY set of numbers, if one value increases and the others remain the same, you get an increase in the average. This is why there was so much concern about the cooling that had occurred in the '70's. So yes, you can say that there is consensus that the global average temperature was rising for a time. Now the most current measurement data show that the rising temperature trend has stopped.

 

That consensus exists is not worth a bucket of spit in science. One good experiment can defeat an entire century of theory, overnight. Consensus was that the earth was flat. Consensus was, that the earth was 6000 years old. Consensus is a consequence, not a conclusion. That the AGW crowd tries to shout down the skeptics with consensus just reinforces that this is a matter of belief, not science.

 

The global warming bandwagon has many riders, who all got on for different reasons. Some hate humanity, and wish to see us punished. Some hate big oil, and the complexity of modern life. Others might hate cars, or big houses, or large screen tv's, or even technology in general. This group seems to shout the loudest. I think you will find that the real scientists are not so quick to use absolutes and scare tactics. Their voices have now been drowned out by shouting of fanatics.

 

I did get a really good laugh at your supposition that climate scientists would be doing hedge fund models! I guess there really is a market for flawed models after all... I mean the only people who can be wrong more often that weather forecasters and still work are stock brokers and economists. They are both experts at predicting precise long term outcomes that are almost guaranteed to be completely wrong.

[macattak1]

I think one misconception is the idea that cllimate scientists have a dog in this fight, they don't. We see it in your guy's post's over and over! You guy's are conspiracy theorist's!!

If ACC were disproved tomorrow, they would be doing research on something else.

Even those who did not find jobs in climate research would find jobs doing models for hedge funds or something else that would paymore than climate research. The people who do this research do it because they think it is important.

They see that changing climate represents a variety of threats to civilization, and they want to d something about it. To question their integrity by implying that their puny salaries could buy their scientific opinion is not just flat wrong, hell, not even just laughable, it is insulting,, first, based on this study

 

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/cpst/2003PhDSurvey.pdf

 

from AGU, most of recent PhDs in geo and space sciences found employyment in the sciences, (87%).

An AIP study found that 97 of 2003 and 2004 PhDs found employment--those statistics don't leave much room for desperate job hunters willing to sacrifice their integrity for a job.

Then there's the question of motivation: Why would funding agencies want a scientist to falsify their research in favor of anthropogenic climate change. After all, most climate research funding comes from the US and other governments, and having the scientists say humans are changing the environment doesn't exactly reflect favorably on the governments' inaction on greenhouse gas emissions.

 

 

The number of true experts who doubt Earth is wrming is pretty darned close to zero. The number who think humans have nothing to do with it can probobly be counted on fingers and maybe a couple of toes thrown in. There is NO controversy in the scientific community just the normal process of consensus with some cranks who cling to dissent for their own contrarian reasons. It is the media and public who manufacture the controversy.

 

Since youguy's, are not a scientist, and since virtually ALL the experts have concluded that climate change is occurring and that we are responsible for it, don't you think that you ought to consider the possibility that they, with their decades of research and study, might understand it better than you?

 

Ya know there are parallel's between a climate scientist and a physician, they make a diagnossis and tell you what it is, what YOU do about it is up to you!!!

 

 

It all just became tainted after this "I think one misconception is the idea that cllimate scientists have a dog in this fight, they don't."

 

 

And the below is why you sound just like Al Gore and I will keep comparing you two.

 

"The number of true experts who doubt Earth is warming is pretty darned close to zero. The number who think humans have nothing to do with it can probobly be counted on fingers and maybe a couple of toes thrown in. There is NO controversy in the scientific community just the normal process of consensus with some cranks who cling to dissent for their own contrarian reasons. It is the media and public who manufacture the controversy."

 

Number of True Experts?

I know of few people that say the earth has not increased a .5 a degree or so in the last 100 years. That is not the point. Red Hearing.

Using fingers and toes analogies aims at nothing but to look at your opposition in a child like manner.

NO controversy huh? And oh, there are a few but they are just Cranks.

Then to the Media and Public being responsible.

 

I am sorry. You dont really say anything there. Just like Gore. Just 'the world has a fever and the the Real Doctors know this' type of stuff.

[macattak1]

The ozone problem was that there was not enough of it. Our underarm deodorant chemicals were supposedly going up to the ozone layer and popping the ozone molecules. What I am saying is that we are producing more ozone with our electricity than we were popping with our Right Guard spray deodorant. It was another hoax/urban legend perpetrated by the envirowackos that has bitten the dust. I am not saying that the ozone layer is not getting thinner. That I don't know. I know that we are not responsible.

 

Especially since the Ozone holes move and close up and re-open and close up and move and... Hmmmmm, almost like a planetary thermostat?

 

Peace and Blessings

[stephenhawkings]

The ozone problem was that there was not enough of it. Our underarm deodorant chemicals were supposedly going up to the ozone layer and popping the ozone molecules. What I am saying is that we are producing more ozone with our electricity than we were popping with our Right Guard spray deodorant. It was another hoax/urban legend perpetrated by the envirowackos that has bitten the dust. I am not saying that the ozone layer is not getting thinner. That I don't know. I know that we are not responsible.

your last two sentences sum it up!

 

That I don't know. I know that we are not responsible.

 

the rest of it sounds like the 70's is still fresh in your mind, disco fever! wait maybe disco fever is the new cause of global warming, or lack of disco fever is the reason behind global cooling.

[Trimdingman]

your last two sentences sum it up!

 

That I don't know. I know that we are not responsible.

 

the rest of it sounds like the 70's is still fresh in your mind, disco fever! wait maybe disco fever is the new cause of global warming, or lack of disco fever is the reason behind global cooling.

 

 

If everybody had my memory, maybe they wouldn't get sucked in again and again.

[sprinter]

I think one misconception is the idea that cllimate scientists have a dog in this fight, they don't. We see it in your guy's post's over and over! You guy's are conspiracy theorist's!!

If ACC were disproved tomorrow, they would be doing research on something else.

Even those who did not find jobs in climate research would find jobs doing models for hedge funds or something else that would paymore than climate research. The people who do this research do it because they think it is important.

They see that changing climate represents a variety of threats to civilization, and they want to d something about it. To question their integrity by implying that their puny salaries could buy their scientific opinion is not just flat wrong, hell, not even just laughable, it is insulting,, first, based on this study

 

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/cpst/2003PhDSurvey.pdf

 

from AGU, most of recent PhDs in geo and space sciences found employyment in the sciences, (87%).

An AIP study found that 97 of 2003 and 2004 PhDs found employment--those statistics don't leave much room for desperate job hunters willing to sacrifice their integrity for a job.

Then there's the question of motivation: Why would funding agencies want a scientist to falsify their research in favor of anthropogenic climate change. After all, most climate research funding comes from the US and other governments, and having the scientists say humans are changing the environment doesn't exactly reflect favorably on the governments' inaction on greenhouse gas emissions.

 

 

The number of true experts who doubt Earth is wrming is pretty darned close to zero. The number who think humans have nothing to do with it can probobly be counted on fingers and maybe a couple of toes thrown in. There is NO controversy in the scientific community just the normal process of consensus with some cranks who cling to dissent for their own contrarian reasons. It is the media and public who manufacture the controversy.

 

Since youguy's, are not a scientist, and since virtually ALL the experts have concluded that climate change is occurring and that we are responsible for it, don't you think that you ought to consider the possibility that they, with their decades of research and study, might understand it better than you?

 

Ya know there are parallel's between a climate scientist and a physician, they make a diagnossis and tell you what it is, what YOU do about it is up to you!!!

 

 

Save your breath on me. I'm no scientist, and neither are you. But I can spot an "ambulance chaser" going for the cash crop.

 

There is a solid movement that is tired of the hysterical nonsense your crowd is spewing. Even some of the democrats are getting balls and rebelling.

 

http://www.macon.com/nation/story/652070.html

[sprinter]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columni...ge-experts.html

 

Nobody listens to the real climate change experts

The minds of world leaders are firmly shut to anything but the fantasies of the scaremongers, says Christopher Booker.

 

What worries them are all the signs that when the world's politicians converge on Copenhagen in December to discuss a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, under the guidance of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), there will be so much disagreement that they may not get the much more drastic measures to cut carbon emissions that the alarmists are calling for.

 

Thus the name of the game last week, as we see from a sample of quotations, was to win headlines by claiming that everything is far worse than previously supposed. Sea level rises by 2100 could be "much greater than the 59cm predicted by the last IPCC report". Global warming could kill off 85 per cent of the Amazon rainforest, "much more than previously predicted". The ice caps in Greenland and Antarctica are melting "much faster than predicted". The number of people dying from heat could be "twice as many as previously predicted".

 

None of the government-funded scientists making these claims were particularly distinguished, but they succeeded in their object, as the media cheerfully recycled all this wild scaremongering without bothering to check the scientific facts.

 

Nothing has more acutely demonstrated this than the reliance of the IPCC on computer models to predict what is going to happen to global temperatures over the next 100 years. On these predictions, that temperatures are likely to rise by up to 5.3C, all their other predictions and recommendations depend, yet nearly 10 years into the 21st century it is already painfully clear that the computer forecasts are going hopelessly astray. Far from rising with CO2, as the models are programmed to predict they should, the satellite-measured temperature curve has flattened out and then dropped. If the present trend were to continue, the world in 2100 would not in fact be hotter but 1.1C cooler than the 1979-1998 average.

 

Yet it is on this fundamental inability of the computer models to predict what has already happened that all else hangs. For two days in New York we heard distinguished experts, such as Professor Syun-Ichi Akasofu, former director of the International Arctic Research Center, Dr Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and Professor Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute, authoritatively (and often wittily) tear apart one piece of the scare orthodoxy after another.

 

Sea levels are not shooting up but only continuing their modest 3mm a year rise over the past 200 years. The vast Antarctic ice-sheet is not melting, except in one tiny corner, the Antarctic Peninsula. Tropical hurricane activity, far from increasing, is at its lowest level for 30 years. The best correlation for temperature fluctuations is not CO2 but the magnetic activity of the sun. (For an admirable summary of proceedings by the Australian paleoclimatologist Professor Bob Carter, Google "Heartland" and "Quadrant").

 

Yet the terrifying thing, as President Klaus observed in his magisterial opening address, is that there is no dialogue on these issues. When recently at the World Economic Forum in Davos, he found the minds of his fellow world leaders firmly shut to anything but the fantasies of the scaremongers. As I said in my own modest contribution to the conference, there seems little doubt that global warming is leading the world towards an unprecedented catastrophe. But it is not the Technicolor apocalypse promised by the likes of Al Gore. The real disaster hanging over us lies in all those astronomically costly measures proposed by politicians, to meet a crisis which in reality never existed.

Edited March 18, 2009 by sprinter

[macattak1]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columni...ge-experts.html

 

Nobody listens to the real climate change experts

The minds of world leaders are firmly shut to anything but the fantasies of the scaremongers, says Christopher Booker.

 

Nice. Thank you.

 

But I have questions. I thought all scientists were moral and ethical and beyond exaggerations or out right lies? Don't they have some sort of internal mechanism that in fact made them become scientists and also in fact prevents them from bending the truth let alone lieing?!?!?!

 

That poor guy. He did not get them memo. Perhaps if he had been told that the debate is over and the time for action is almost lost he would understand so much more!

 

Peace and Blessings

[stephenhawkings]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columni...ge-experts.html

 

Nobody listens to the real climate change experts

The minds of world leaders are firmly shut to anything but the fantasies of the scaremongers, says Christopher Booker.

this goes to show that there are many opinions to such a vast topic.

i was a little suspicious when i saw heartland institute, but it wasn't all bad, it did bring up the lack of significant sea level change something i think needs more attention. but for the most part didn't look like there was much meat as far as scientific proof, or studies to back up the proposed position by the non believing peoples.

Edited March 18, 2009 by stephenhawkings

[Trimdingman]

this goes to show that there are many opinions to such a vast topic.

i was a little suspicious when i saw heartland institute, but it wasn't all bad, it did bring up the lack of significant sea level change something i think needs more attention. but for the most part didn't look like there was much meat as far as scientific proof, or studies to back up the proposed position by the non believing peoples.

 

 

Everybody should be non-believing. Belief requires a leap of faith, and the lie is usually in the gap that is leaped over.

[stephenhawkings]

Everybody should be non-believing. Belief requires a leap of faith, and the lie is usually in the gap that is leaped over.

thats why i dont believe in gravity!

[stephenhawkings]

the above was meant to illustrate the idiocy demonstrated on both sides of the arguement. the proclimate change group comes up theories some relevant like temps rising , some not like sea water rising, while the opposition or anti climate change group tends to only attack the arguments put forward with weak items like"look a faulty sensor" not coming up with any hypothesis or theories on their own to confirm their ideas. SO keep on believing in the global cooling TRIM its like a religion for you.

[sprinter]

the above was meant to illustrate the idiocy demonstrated on both sides of the arguement. the proclimate change group comes up theories some relevant like temps rising , some not like sea water rising, while the opposition or anti climate change group tends to only attack the arguments put forward with weak items like"look a faulty sensor" not coming up with any hypothesis or theories on their own to confirm their ideas. SO keep on believing in the global cooling TRIM its like a religion for you.

 

 

The non-believers' have brought forth both water vapor and sun cycles into the argument. But the UN just can't seem to figure out how you can tax the sun.

[sprinter]

Nice. Thank you.

 

But I have questions. I thought all scientists were moral and ethical and beyond exaggerations or out right lies? Don't they have some sort of internal mechanism that in fact made them become scientists and also in fact prevents them from bending the truth let alone lieing?!?!?!

 

That poor guy. He did not get them memo. Perhaps if he had been told that the debate is over and the time for action is almost lost he would understand so much more!

 

Peace and Blessings

 

 

Seems to me some of the scientist have as much integrity as our leading executives of the banking and insurance industry. Yes there is supposed to be peer review and a certain amount of built-in skepticism. Unfortunately too many are striving toward a goal pointed in one direction only and refuse to account for and eliminate any indifferent data.

[stephenhawkings]

The non-believers' have brought forth both water vapor and sun cycles into the argument. But the UN just can't seem to figure out how you can tax the sun.

TAXES TAXES TAXES they aren't going away maybe some one should start a new topic for people who don't like taxes!

 

is this now a topic on taxes, or is that just a distraction from the lack of evidence on the global cooling or man has no effect on earth side of the argument.

[Savetheplanet]

Nice. Thank you.

 

But I have questions. I thought all scientists were moral and ethical and beyond exaggerations or out right lies? Don't they have some sort of internal mechanism that in fact made them become scientists and also in fact prevents them from bending the truth let alone lieing?!?!?!

 

That poor guy. He did not get them memo. Perhaps if he had been told that the debate is over and the time for action is almost lost he would understand so much more!

 

Peace and Blessings

Why is it that the only scientists you question are ACC and evolution scientists? Do you ever take aspirin, use computers, fly in planes etc.?

I am sure you are a nice enough guy, and I don't mean to be hating on religion but I just don't know what to say to someone like you who thinks that humans have only been around 15,000 years. I mean really!

[Savetheplanet]

speaking of science, here is a guide from A to Z on the political interference from the last administration, everything from stem cell research to the FEMA trailers to breast feeding adds.

 

From a Huffington post article

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-w-delic...o_b_176339.html

 

If you go to this link you can click on any of the topics listed below for information on how siene was manipulated.

 

A: Army Science Board

Ab: Abstinence Only Sex Education Science

Ac: Arms Control Advisory Panel

Ad: All-Terrain Vehicle Danger Report

Ae: Abstinence Only Sex Education Curriculum

Ai: Airborne Bacteria

Ap: Air Pollution Monitoring

Aq: National Ambient Air Quality Standards

At: Atrazine

Aw: Asbestos Safety Warning

B: Bull trout

Ba: Breastfeeding Ads

Bc: Breast Cancer

Be: Beryllium

Bi: President's Council on Bioethics

Bt: Polar Bear Travel Restrictions

Bw: Border Wall

C: Can't Say Climate Change at Carbon Conference

Ce: EPA Climate Change Endangerment Report

Cg: Cattle Grazing

Ch: Censoring Climate Change Health Hazards

D: Distorting and Censoring Global Warming Documents

Da: NIH Drug Abuse Panel

Dr: EPA Draft Report on the Environment

Ea: Southwestern Bald Eagle

Ec: Emergency Contraception

Eo: Executive Order 13422

F: Forest Management

Fb: Forest Brochure

Fe: Fuel Efficiency

Fi: NIH Fogarty International

Fp: Florida Panther

Fs: UCS Federal Scientists Surveys

Ft: FEMA Trailers

G: Endangered Species Genetics

Gw: Manipulation of Global Warming Science

H: HIV/AIDS Education

Hc: Hurricanes

Hg: Mercury

I: Selective Approval of Global Warming Media Interviews

Ia: International AIDS Conference

Id: IRIS Database

It: Aluminum Tubes in Iraq

J: James Hansen

K: Ketek

Kr: Klamath River Basin

L: Libraries

Lb: Lead Testing of Children's Lunchboxes

Lp: Childhood Lead Poisoning Panel

M: Minders

Md: Medicare Drug Bill

Mi: Prescription Drugs Mifepristone and Misoprostol

Mm: Marbled Murrelet

Mo: Missouri River Water Management

Mr: Mountaintop Removal Mining

Ms: NASA Mission Statement

Nn: National Nuclear Security Administration Panel

Nr: Global Warming News Releases

Ns: Nerve Stimulator

O: Oil Extraction

Pb: Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards

Pd: Prairie Dogs

Pe: Pesticides

Pl: Post Disturbance Logging

Pm: Particulate Matter Pollution

Pp: Plywood Plant

Pr: OMB Peer Review

Ps:NASA Pilot Survey

Q: Air Quality Proposals

R: Red Frog

Rc: Roundtail Chub

Re: Reproductive Health Advisory Committee

Rp: Racial Profiling

Rw: Right Whale

S: Sage Grouse

Sa: Endangered Salmon

Se: Selenium

Sg: Surgeon General Muzzled

So: Sonar and Whales

Sp: Spotted Owl

Sq: Carbon Sequestration Pamphlet

St: Sexually Transmitted Disease Panel at CDC

T: Toxic Chemicals Release

Ts: Trumpeter Swans

Tr: Tabernaemontana rotensis (a plant)

V: Vetting of experts on WHO Panel

Vf: Voter Fraud

Vo: School Vouchers

Wb: Climate Change Informational Websites

Ws: Workplace Safety Panel

X: Vioxx

Z: Ground Zero

 

 

BY ISSUE AREA

 

Public Health

 

Ad: All-Terrain Vehicle Danger Report

Ch: Censoring Climate Change Health Hazards

Ft: FEMA Trailers

Aw: Asbestos Safety Warning

Lb: Lead Testing of Children's Lunchboxes

Sg: Surgeon General Muzzled

H: HIV/AIDS Education

Re: Reproductive Health Advisory Committee

Ab: Abstinence Only Sex Education Science

Be: Beryllium

Bi: President's Council on Bioethics

K: Ketek

Fi: NIH Fogarty International

V: Vetting of experts on WHO Panel

Ec: Emergency Contraception

Ws: Workplace Safety Panel

Bc: Breast Cancer

Ae: Abstinence Only Sex Education Curriculum

Lp: Childhood Lead Poisoning Panel

X: Vioxx

Mi: Prescription Drugs Mifepristone and Misoprostol

Ns: Nerve Stimulator

Ia: International AIDS Conference

Da: NIH Drug Abuse Panel

St: Sexually Transmitted Disease Panel at CDC

Ba: Breastfeeding Ads

Md: Medicare Drug Bill

 

The Environment

 

Sp: Spotted Owl

Bt: Polar Bear Travel Restrictions

Ea: Southwestern Bald Eagle

B: Bull trout

C: Can't Say Climate Change at Carbon Conference

O: Oil Extraction

F: Forest Management

Pl: Post Disturbance Logging

S: Sage Grouse

R: Red Frog

Mm: Marbled Murrelet

Fe: Fuel Efficiency

Cg: Cattle Grazing

J: James Hansen

Kr: Klamath River Basin

Mr: Mountaintop Removal Mining

Mo: Missouri River Water Management

So: Sonar and Whales

Fp: Florida Panther

Fb: Forest Brochure

Pd: Prairie Dogs

G: Endangered Species Genetics

Hc: Hurricanes

Ts: Trumpeter Swans

Tr: Tabernaemontana rotensis (a plant)

Sa: Endangered Salmon

Rc: Roundtail Chub

I: Selective Approval of Global Warming Media Interviews

D: Distorting and Censoring Global Warming Documents

Dr: EPA Draft Report on the Environment

Gw: Manipulation of Global Warming Science

Sq: Carbon Sequestration Pamphlet

Ms: NASA Mission Statement

Wb: Climate Change Informational Websites

Nr: Global Warming News Releases

M: Minders

Ce: EPA Climate Change Endangerment Report

Bw: Border Wall

 

Pollution and Contamination

 

Id: IRIS Database

Pb: Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards

Se: Selenium

Hg: Mercury

Pp: Plywood Plant

L: Libraries

At: Atrazine

Pe: Pesticides

Pm: Particulate Matter Pollution

Aq: National Ambient Air Quality Standards

Q: Air Quality Proposals

Ap: Air Pollution Monitoring

Ai: Airborne Bacteria

T: Toxic Chemicals Release

Z: Ground Zero

 

National Security and Others

 

Ps: NASA Pilot Survey

Eo: Executive Order 13422

Vf: Voter Fraud

Pr: OMB Peer Review

Ac: Arms Control Advisory Panel

Nn: National Nuclear Security Administration Panel

Vo: School Vouchers

A: Army Science Board

Rp: Racial Profiling

It: Aluminum Tubes in Iraq

Fs: UCS Federal Scientist Surveys

 

 

BY AGENCY

 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

 

Cg: Cattle Grazing

Pl: Post Disturbance Logging

 

Centers for Disease Control (CDC)

 

Ch: Censoring Climate Change Health Hazards

Ab: Abstinence Only Sex Education Science

Ae: Abstinence Only Sex Education Curriculum

Bc: Breast Cancer

H: HIV/AIDS Education

Lp: Childhood Lead Poisoning Panel

St: Sexually Transmitted Disease Panel at CDC

 

Climate Change Science Program (CCSP)

 

D: Distorting and Censoring Global Warming Documents

Gw: Manipulation of Global Warming Science

 

Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)

 

Ad: All-Terrain Vehicle Danger Report

Lb: Lead Testing of Children's Lunchboxes

 

Department of Agriculture (USDA)

 

Ai: Airborne Bacteria

F: Forest Management

Fb: Forest Brochure

Fs: UCS Federal Scientists Surveys

Sq: Carbon Sequestration Pamphlet

 

Department of Defense (DOD)

 

A: Army Science Board

Fs: UCS Federal Scientists Surveys

Id: IRIS Database

Mo: Missouri River Water Management

So: Sonar and Whales

 

Department of Education

 

Vo: School Vouchers

 

Department of Energy

 

Fs: UCS Federal Scientists Surveys

It: Aluminum Tubes in Iraq

Nn: National Nuclear Security Administration Panel

 

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)

 

Ba: Breastfeeding Ads

Ia: International AIDS Conference

Md: Medicare Drug Bill

Mi: Prescription Drugs Mifepristone and Misoprostol

Sg: Surgeon General Muzzled

V: Vetting of experts on WHO Panel

Ws: Workplace Safety Panel

 

Department of Justice (DOJ)

 

Rp: Racial Profiling

 

Department of State

 

Ac: Arms Control Advisory Panel

Wb: Climate Change Informational Websites

 

Election Assistance Commission (EAC)

 

Vf: Voter Fraud

 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

 

Ap: Air Pollution Monitoring

Aq: National Ambient Air Quality Standards

At: Atrazine

Aw: Asbestos Safety Warning

Ce: EPA Climate Change Endangerment Report

Dr: EPA Draft Report on the Environment

Fe: Fuel Efficiency

Fs: UCS Federal Scientists Surveys

Hg: Mercury

Id: IRIS Database

L: Libraries

Mr: Mountaintop Removal Mining

O: Oil Extraction

Pb: Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards

Pe: Pesticides

Pm: Particulate Matter Pollution

Pp: Plywood Plant

Q: Air Quality Proposals

Se: Selenium

T: Toxic Chemicals Release

Wb: Climate Change Informational Websites

Z: Ground Zero

 

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)

 

Ft: FEMA Trailers

 

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)

 

B: Bull trout

Bt: Polar Bear Travel Restrictions

Bw: Border Wall

E: Endangered Species Act

Ea: Southwestern Bald Eagle

Fp: Florida Panther

Fs: UCS Federal Scientists Surveys

G: Endangered Species Genetics

Kr: Klamath River Basin

Mm: Marbled Murrelet

Mo: Missouri River Water Management

Mr: Mountaintop Removal Mining

Pd: Prairie Dogs

R: Red Frog

Rc: Roundtail Chub

S: Sage Grouse

Sp: Spotted Owl

Ts: Trumpeter Swans

Tr: Tabernaemontana rotensis (a plant)

 

Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

 

Ec: Emergency Contraception

Fs: UCS Federal Scientists Surveys

K: Ketek

Ns: Nerve Stimulator

Re: Reproductive Health Advisory Committee

X: Vioxx

 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)

 

Fs: UCS Federal Scientists Surveys

Nr: Global Warming News Releases

 

National Institutes of Health (NIH)

 

Da: NIH Drug Abuse Panel

Fi: NIH Fogarty International

 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

 

Fs: UCS Federal Scientists Surveys

Ps: NASA Pilot Survey

J: James Hansen

M: Minders

Ms: NASA Mission Statement

Nr: Global Warming News Releases

 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

 

C: Can't Say Climate Change at Carbon Conference

Fs: UCS Federal Scientists Surveys

Hc: Hurricanes

I: Selective Approval of Global Warming Media Interviews

M: Minders

Nr: Global Warming News Releases

Sa: Endangered Salmon

 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

 

Eo: Executive Order 13422

Id: IRIS Database

Pr: OMB Peer Review

 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

 

Aw: Asbestos Safety Warning

Be: Beryllium

 

Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation, and Enforcement (OSM)

 

Mr: Mountaintop Removal Mining

 

President's Council on Bioethics

 

Bi: President's Council on Bioethics

Edited March 18, 2009 by Savetheplanet

[sprinter]

TAXES TAXES TAXES they aren't going away maybe some one should start a new topic for people who don't like taxes!

 

is this now a topic on taxes, or is that just a distraction from the lack of evidence on the global cooling or man has no effect on earth side of the argument.

 

 

Lack of EVIDENCE! May I suggest a good doctor for you and save. Both of you definitely have selective amnesia.

 

Do you remember this little woops? Falsifying temperature data. And what about them hockey sticks?

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columni...ezing-heat.html

 

 

As the saying goes, “garbage in, garbage out.”

 

http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.ee.2005.pdf

http://www.nowpublic.com/environment/cooki...-numbers-fudged

 

 

A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore's chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.

 

This was startling. Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China's official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its "worst snowstorm ever". In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.

Source: telegraph.co.uk

So, on the one hand, GISS tells us that October was the hottest October on record. On the other hand, unusually cold snaps were seen routinely and many new records [for cold] were set in the USA.

Quite a discrepancy! Who do we believe?

It seems there was a ghost in the machine. Or rather some of October's temperature readings were the ghosts of September past.

So what explained the anomaly? GISS's computerised temperature maps seemed to show readings across a large part of Russia had been up to 10 degrees higher than normal. But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.

Source: telegraph.co.uk

How does the computer programmer saying go? Ahh yes: "Garbage In, Garbage Out." Output is limited by the quality of the input. If you put nonsense starting numbers in, you get nonsense ending numbers back out.

What did GISS have to say of the gaffe?

A GISS spokesman ... explained that the reason for the error in the Russian figures was that they were obtained from another body, and that GISS did not have resources to exercise proper quality control over the data it was supplied with. This is an astonishing admission: the figures published by Dr Hansen's institute are not only one of the four data sets that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) relies on to promote its case for global warming, but they are the most widely quoted, since they consistently show higher temperatures than the others.

Source: telegraph.co.uk

Astonishing indeed! If GISS is the most commonly cited source on global warming, one should darn well think that they would put an emphasis on 'proper quality control.' This isn't a fly-by-night operation. This is a major department of a major agency, and one whose reports are used to decide world policy! Proper quality control should be the first thing on their minds...

It gets more surreal:

The error was so glaring that when it was reported on the two blogs - run by the US meteorologist Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre, the Canadian computer analyst who won fame for his expert debunking of the notorious "hockey stick" graph - GISS began hastily revising its figures. This only made the confusion worse because, to compensate for the lowered temperatures in Russia, GISS claimed to have discovered a new "hotspot" in the Arctic - in a month when satellite images were showing Arctic sea-ice recovering so fast from its summer melt that three weeks ago it was 30 per cent more extensive than at the same time last year.

Source: telegraph.co.uk

Of Dr. Hansen, the Telegraph article is rather sharply critical:

If there is one scientist more responsible than any other for the alarm over global warming it is Dr Hansen, who set the whole scare [train in motion] back in 1988 with his testimony to a US Senate committee chaired by Al Gore. Again and again, Dr Hansen has been to the fore in making extreme claims over the dangers of climate change ... Yet last week's latest episode is far from the first time Dr Hansen's methodology has been called in question. In 2007 he was forced by Mr Watts and Mr McIntyre to revise his published figures for US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s, as he had claimed, but the 1930s.

Source: telegraph.co.uk

If nothing else, this indicates a need for independent review (true peer review) of the science behind 'global warming.' That includes access to data sets, computer algorithms, etc. Such cooperation between peers has not been forthcoming in several past instances, not least of all the 'hockey stick graph' incident:

In the Spring of 2003, Stephen McIntyre requested the MBH98 data set from Mann. He is not a scientist or an economist, he was just curious how the graph was made and wanted to see if the raw data looked like hockey sticks too. After some delay Mann arranged provision of a file which was represented as the one used for MBH98. One of the first things Stephen discovered was that the PCs used in MBH98 could not be replicated. In the process of looking up all the data sources and re-building Mann’s data set from scratch, Steve discovered a quite a few errors concerning location labels, use of obsolete editions, unexplained truncations of available series, etc.

 

 

 

This is your global warming.

http://www.govtech.com/dc/articles/570605

 

Globally, Earth's atmosphere warmed an average of about 0.4 C (or about 0.72 degrees Fahrenheit) in 30 years, according to data collected by sensors aboard NOAA and NASA satellites. More than 80 percent of the globe warmed by some amount.

 

 

And we are presently in a cooling period. Even according to the UN, 1998 was the warmest year.

[macattak1]

Seems to me some of the scientist have as much integrity as our leading executives of the banking and insurance industry. Yes there is supposed to be peer review and a certain amount of built-in skepticism. Unfortunately too many are striving toward a goal pointed in one direction only and refuse to account for and eliminate any indifferent data.

 

Well, research jobs are getting scarce too. Got to write what the editor wants to see.

 

Peace and Blessings

[macattak1]

Why is it that the only scientists you question are ACC and evolution scientists? Do you ever take aspirin, use computers, fly in planes etc.?

I am sure you are a nice enough guy, and I don't mean to be hating on religion but I just don't know what to say to someone like you who thinks that humans have only been around 15,000 years. I mean really!

 

I don't outright trust any scientists. Just like I don't outright trust any banker or any doctor, neighbor, etc. Not because I distrust them, but because I don' just trust because. I believe in God. God created life. He put into place a celestial clock. I don't believe that None life became Life and I don't need 4.6 billion years to attempt to explain how something not alive became something alive. Might as well wait for my kitchen chair to turn into something living.

 

I am naturally a skeptic. I used to hate religion and it kept me away from God for a very long time. But when I had kids I knew I wanted to teach them something more than evolution.

 

Its the same for me. What do I say to someone that sees the blankness generating into the most basic life and then finding that this basic life with no senses needs to see, hear, feel, taste, etc. its world around it so starts sprouting randomness till it creates a brain, eye, ears, lungs, and all the other scientifically monolithic complex body parts? Its just as hard for me. Belief in one or the other. I believe God created life. I do not believe a nothing became a something.

 

Peace and Blessings