SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Win Smith who wrote (75652)12/2/2009 12:08:14 PM
From: Sully-3 Recommendations  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 90947
 
I'm fairly sure you won't read the entire Time Magazine article RE: 'Another Ice Age' I posted to you since it will do significant harm to your "particular religiousity".

You see the huge difference between you & the conservatives here is that we aren't emotionally attached to our POV's. We form our reality based opinions by evaluating all sorts of credible evidence & let the facts lead us to our conclusions.

And if new information comes along that conflicts with our opinions we change our opinions.

Folks like you don't. That's why you are often so dead wrong about your political views.



To: Win Smith who wrote (75652)12/2/2009 12:18:46 PM
From: Sully-4 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 90947
 
Fire, or ice?

By William Rusher
TownHall.com
Thursday, July 20, 2006

The New York Times's headline read, "America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise." Well, what's so new about that? The Times has been having an historic fit about global warming for years, hasn't it?

Yes, but that particular headline ran in the good gray Times on March 27, 1933 -- 73 years ago. What's more, the Times changed its mind dramatically on the subject 42 years later, in 1975, when it startled its readers on May 21 with

    "Scientists Ponder Why World's Climate is Changing; A
Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable."

Nor has the Times been the only major periodical to blow hot and cold (if you will forgive me) on the subject of the global climate. On Jan. 2, 1939 TIME MAGAZINE announced that


<<< "Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right ... weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the TIME being is growing warmer." >>>


Yet TIME scooped The New York Times by nearly a year when, reversing itself, it warned readers on June 24, 1974 that,


<<< "Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of ANOTHER ICE AGE." >>>


Today, of course, TIME has changed its mind again and joined the global-warming hysteria. On April 3 this year, it announced that



<<< "By Any Measure, Earth is At ... The Tipping Point. The climate is crashing, and global warming is to blame." >>>


The last major attack of hysteria, in the mid-1970s, focused on the peril of global cooling, and was especially severe. Fortune MAGAZINE declared in February 1974 that


<<< "As for the present cooling trend a number of leading climatologists have concluded that it is very bad news indeed.
It is the root cause of a lot of that unpleasant weather around the world and they warn that it carries the potential for human disasters of unprecedented magnitude." >>>


Fortune's analysis was so impressive that it actually won a "Science Writing Award" from the American Institute of Physics.

But the prize for sheer terrorizing surely belonged to Lowell Ponte, whose 1976 book "The Cooling" (a predecessor of Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth," though from the opposite point of view) asserted that



<<< "The cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people in poor nations." >>>


If countermeasures weren't taken, he warned, it would lead to


<<< "world famine, world chaos, and probably world war, and this could all come by the year 2000." >>>


All of the above quotations, and many more, can be found in a wonderful new booklet
by R. Warren Anderson and Dan Gainor of the Business & Media Institute, a division of the Media Research Center in Alexandria, Va. (Full disclosure: I am the avuncular and largely indolent board chairman of the latter.) Entitled "Fire and ICE," it quotes alarmist predictions of both global warming and a new ICE AGE dating back to 1895. The authors identify no less than four swings of scientific opinion, with considerable overlapping, from global cooling (1895-1932) to global warming (1929-1969) to global cooling (1954-1976) and now back to global warming (1981 to the present). The booklet can also be read for its sheer entertainment value. (I particularly liked the anecdote about the penguin found in France in 1922, which was widely viewed as an "ice-AGE harbinger," though wiser heads concluded it had probably escaped from the ship of Antarctic explorer Sir Ernest Shackleton.)

The booklet notes sensibly that

    "Most scientists do agree that the earth has warmed a
little more than a degree in the last 100 years. That
doesn't mean scientists concur that mankind is to blame.
Even if that were the case, the impact of warming is
unclear."

And in its wisest paragraph it concludes,

    "This isn't a question of science. It's a question of
whether Americans can trust what the media tell them
about science."

But if you're looking for a new career, here's a hint:

    "Global warming is a good business to be in for government
funding. More than 99.5 percent of American climate change
funding comes from the government, which spends $4 billion
per year on climate change research."

townhall.com



To: Win Smith who wrote (75652)12/2/2009 1:33:57 PM
From: greenspirit3 Recommendations  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 90947
 
I give you the book, give you the author and give you the scanned image of the pages and you still cannot accept the facts. Incredible....

Then you post a clip from a different author and assert some kind of rant has occurred. Typical sloppy research and fact checking from one of Dale Baker's View from the hard left dogmatic posters.

Are you now claiming Stephen Schneider was not a believer in Global Cooling in the 70's?

If so, why don't you read this link and watch the video the University of Stanford went apoplectic about being released to the public.

climatedepot.com

Then read these links for further education in the matter. If the actual video and written words won't educate you, nothing will. Religion is a matter of "faith" and "belief" minus facts I suppose.

climatedepot.com

This link is for thread amusement.
algorelied.com



To: Win Smith who wrote (75652)12/2/2009 1:47:22 PM
From: longnshort2 Recommendations  Respond to of 90947
 
Pseudoscience cesspool
By Paul Driessen

As frigid Copenhagen prepares for the latest five-star global-warming conference, newly released e-mails by crisis-promoting scientists have exposed a cesspool of intimidation, data alteration and fraud.

Their views, data and models are central to reports by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the Kyoto Protocol and proposed successors, and also U.S. cap-and-trade bills.

However, the Climategate e-mails reveal an unprecedented, systematic conspiracy to stifle discussion and debate, conceal and manipulate data, revise temperature trends that contradict predictions of dangerous warming, avoid compliance with Freedom of Information requests, and pressure scientific journals and the IPCC to publish alarmist studies and exclude dissenting analyses so as to manufacture "consensus."

As people the world over are learning, East Anglia University Climate Research Unit (CRU) chief Phil Jones, Pennsylvania State University climatologist Michael E. Mann (of Hockey Stick graph infamy), IPCC lead author Kevin Trenberth, IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri, White House science adviser John P. Holdren, and other climate-crisis leaders have been implicated in this growing scandal.

They, the White House and many in the mainstream media remain in denial, attempting to downplay or obfuscate the collusion and junk science. But the scope, depth, gravity and depravity of the conspiracy are incontrovertible.

These activists built their careers and reputations on conjuring data sets, computer models, scenarios and reports - all claiming that modern civilization's use of hydrocarbons is about to destroy the planet and all financed by much more than $100 billion in U.S., British, European Union and other taxpayer money.

Realist climate experts have long smelled a rat. Now, finally, the rat has been flushed from its sewer. The stakes are infinitely higher than a James Bond baccarat or Texas Hold 'Em card game.

This bogus, biased "science" is being used to justify expensive, intrusive, repressive, abusive treaties, laws and regulations. For developed nations, the new rules would undermine economies, destroy jobs, close down companies and entire industries, impoverish families and communities, roll back personal freedoms and civil rights - and enrich the lucky few whose lobbyists and connections may enable them to corner markets for renewable-energy technologies, carbon offsets and emissions trading.

For the most destitute people on the planet, the stakes are literally life or death. These people - 750 million in Africa alone - do not have electricity, cars, modern homes, jobs or hope for a better future. They die by the millions from malnutrition and lung, intestinal and insect-borne diseases that would be reduced dramatically with access to dependable, affordable energy.

But the alarmists' bogus, biased "science" is being used to justify building a climate wall between these desperate people and the modern, energy-rich world, perpetuating misery, disease and death.

Mr. Jones, Mr. Mann, Mr. Trenberth, Mr. Pachauri and many others implicated in this growing scandal should do the honorable thing and resign their posts. If they refuse, they should be put on paid administrative leave until every aspect of this scandal can be investigated thoroughly. Dismissal, fines, jail or other appropriate action should follow. None of them should be allowed to represent their governments or organizations in Copenhagen.

Institutions that received climate-alarm grants should be disciplined and removed from future grant conduits if they knew about these actions - or would have known had they exercised due diligence.

The entire IPCC and peer-review process must be repaired. The alarmists and self-appointed censors who have corrupted the system must be replaced with scientists who will ensure honest inquiry and a full airing of all data, hypotheses and perspectives on climate science, economics and policy.

President Obama should cancel his trip to Copenhagen, his plans to lobby for a new climate treaty, and his intention to commit the United States to slashing its carbon dioxide emissions to a job-killing 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020.

Most important, the United States, Britain and all other responsible nations should slam the brakes on every proposed "climate crisis" treaty, agreement, bill, regulatory proposal, "endangerment" finding, and endangered species action. We must get to the bottom of this scandal and determine which data and claims are honest and accurate - and which are bogus, fraudulent and unfounded - before moving forward.

Something is indeed rotten in Denmark, and East Anglia. It is time to clean out the climate cesspool and bring integrity, transparency and accountability back to science, law, government, universities and public policy.

Paul Driessen is senior policy adviser for the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), which is sponsoring the All Pain No Gain petition against global-warming hype.

washingtontimes.com



To: Win Smith who wrote (75652)12/2/2009 2:28:36 PM
From: Sully-  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 90947
 
Liar, Liar: The World's Not on Fire

PJTV [video]

pjtv.com