Global Warming

[Century 25]

Quote by: xyzer Century25...You don't even address the issue...Which is..... does the Executive Branch have to make reports that reflect the views of other political or non political entities? Put more simply...that refelect the views of airheads like Boxer or Gore? Ever hear of "Executive Priviledge"? Whose business is it what Cheney is alleged to have added or deleted during his staffing of the report? Certainly not the NYT or Century25. Executive policy decisions are just that! They reflect the views of the Executive Branch and those who serve in it.

The issue, after all, is global warming. As for EP.. ha-ha, Bush/Cheney & company are our employees.. and should answer to our wishes.. not Halliburton/Chevron.. yada.. yada.. yada.. LLC's all.

The science is there, and very nearly the entire modern world is aware of human caused/accelerated global warming. Even Bush & Cheney know.. but Bush is too stupid to smoke it past (most of us) - thus Cheney & Rice are the practised liars left to..? ignore? us..

All else aside.. it is stupid & expensive to be held captive to 19th century technology. We could be living so very much better.

[xyzer]

rez, asked that I answer the simple question...What is the greenhouse affect?

As has been posted and amplified many times the greenhouse gas CO2 has a blocking effect on the earths reflection of the suns heating. Pooey and I have discussed this many times on this thread. This blocking retains some of tjhe suns warmth and is claimed to be the cause of the warming period during the last century?

If you and century are really interested, I suggest you peruse and absorb the facts in this treatise.Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide - Global Warming Petition Project

Its a bit long and very detailed but if you really want the truth about climate warming here it is with charts and graphs. Signed by a host of scientists and ignored by the media and other Gorelike sheep in the political and media elites? Pooey keeps insisting that the IPCCs synthesis of climate facts is correct and cant be disproved...this disproves it and is a reputable study. Plus it is accompanied by charts and graphs which will make it less complex. I don't think these graphs and explanations are "complex jargon"

Here is the abstract...

A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th and early 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects upon Earth's weather and climate. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon use and minor greenhouse gases like CO2 do not conform to current experimental knowledge. The environmental effects of rapid expansion of the nuclear and hydrocarbon energy industries are discussed.

What you don't seem to realize is that there is another side to the climate story, a side that is not reported in the media? Even though there has been an increase in human produced CO2 since the middle of the last century the earth has begun cooling in the begining of this century?

[xyzer]

century..

The issue, after all, is global warming. As for EP.. ha-ha, Bush/Cheney & company are our employees.. and should answer to our wishes.. not Halliburton/Chevron.. yada.. yada.. yada.. LLC's all.

You brought up this side issue and I guess don't understand what Executuve Privledge is?

It means that the Pres and Vice Pres are public servants but they have a right to research and discuss issues with their staffs in private without revealing to Congress or you whether Cheney picked his nose or broke wind during the discussions? The same applies to the governor of your state and any other entity of government. Their private discussions are they own business! What they say in public is our business. Don't you realize that Waxman and other political headhunters in Congress are just doing these investigations for political leverage?

[Thanatos]

Quote by: xyzer century.. You brought up this side issue and I guess don't understand what Executuve Privledge is? It means that the Pres and Vice Pres are public servants but they have a right to research and discuss issues with their staffs in private without revealing to Congress or you whether Cheney picked his nose or broke wind during the discussions? The same applies to the governor of your state and any other entity of government. Their private discussions are they own business! What they say in public is our business. Don't you realize that Waxman and other political headhunters in Congress are just doing these investigations for political leverage?

Should Bill Clinton have been able to cover everything suspicious up with executive privilege? Or is there an important legal distinction between Presidents and kings?

Xyler, out of curiosity what do you do for a living? Why do you defend these people?

[xyzer]

Whaaaaaaaat?

Should Bill Clinton have been able to cover everything suspicious up with executive privilege? Or is there an important legal distinction between Presidents and kings?

Surely you jest Thanatos? There is a definite difference between perjury and editing. And a difference between criminal acts(perjury) and private discussions of how to present official positions on official business? Perjury is defined in the constitution as an impeachable violation of the office of the presidency??

I think this subject. is covered on another thread so I wont say more about it here?

Stick to the issue of global warming and take time to educate yourself about the climate warming myth..I posted a reference for you learners...

[Century 25]

Quote by: xyzer century.. You brought up this side issue and I guess don't understand what Executuve Privledge is? It means that the Pres and Vice Pres are public servants but they have a right to research and discuss issues with their staffs in private without revealing to Congress or you whether Cheney picked his nose or broke wind during the discussions? The same applies to the governor of your state and any other entity of government. Their private discussions are they own business! What they say in public is our business. Don't you realize that Waxman and other political headhunters in Congress are just doing these investigations for political leverage?

I don't see how you can consider Cheney's subterfuge - Subterfuge:

"An artifice or expedient used to evade a rule, escape a consequence, hide something, etc."

- anything other than.. subterfuge.

Maybe what shotgun Dick does in his private life, that does not affect our well being.. sure, that is a "side issue" - who cares about why Dick shot his 'friend' & fellow.. 'hunter' - let alone his nose picking

The far reaching effects of global warming on our lives, though, is of paramount importance to all of us. All of the world. Bush & Cheney are illiterate as far as science goes. But worse, they only represent their special interest clientele.. not we, the people.

[xyzer]

Thanatos posts...

Xyler, out of curiosity what do you do for a living? Why do you defend these people?

I'm not defending anyone? Just trying to put facts in their proper perspective and add logic to the discussion.
Some of what I read on this site and its threads is a distortion of facts and logic and it bothers me. I feel compelled to counter it.

This bit of nonsense is one of the latest? century posts...

don't see how you can consider Cheney's subterfuge

I don't see how anyone can suggest Cheney is trying to deceive the public after accusing him of all sorts or imagined irregularities? If he "speaks with false tongue" how can he be fooling anyone? Is that logical? To me this criticism isnt factually based and its illogical.

I've prepared "position papers" on some subjects and its common to check with several people concerned(particularly the bosses) to achieve some sort of consensus before publishing the paper/opinion. In that proces some ideas are cut and other added. That's part of the process.

I'm reminded of some of the responses on climate change I read here. I ask for specific references about issues and am routinely told, " I already answered that", or "it was covered in the IPCC report"...Go figure?

[Century 25]

xyzer states:

I don't see how anyone can suggest Cheney is trying to deceive the public after accusing him of all sorts or imagined irregularities? If he "speaks with false tongue" how can he be fooling anyone? Is that logical? To me this criticism isnt factually based and its illogical.

It's easy to shrug off I suppose.. especially when so few of us ever catch the valid bits of data scattered among the shit-storm of media "noise" spewed forth via the corporate-owned media.

Yes, Cheney was caught with his pants down. Again. Yawn.. pffft..

[xyzer]

Really?

Yes, Cheney was caught with his pants down. Again

Pants up or down he was only adding his two cents(opinion) to the position paper. The author and the president then had an opportunity to use or not use his opinions? I repeat to accuse him of some terrible deed is ridiculous if not childish. It belongs on the playground of your local school.
I dont think you realize how "staffing" of position papers is accomplished in the bureasucracy that is D.C. The final product has passed through various offices and personages on its way to the President. In the process additions and deletions are common.

[xyzer]

Back to the IPCCs Human Caused Global Warming myth...and the outright fraud of some of the data thats been used on this site, as well as peddled in the international news over the past few years. It has been amplified by various cranks and yoyos to include human caused warming as even responsible for increased kidney stones?

CFP: The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax

It turns out that many of the claims of the IPCC which have been questioned, have been exagerated? Or politicized to make a case? Pooey made a great deal over the claim that thousands of scientist agree with the IPCC summaries...it turns out to be untrue? Downright deception and fraud?

You will have to read the text of this article to realize how badly duped the world has been by the IPCCs claims..The numbersof scientific reviewers and the obvious political agenda shaping of those in charge of the IPCC reports?

A total of 308 reviewers commented on the SOR, but only 32 reviewers commented on more than three chapters and only five reviewers commented on all 11 chapters of the report. Only about half the reviewers commented more than one chapter. It is logical that reviewers would generally limit their comments to their areas of expertise but it’s a far cry from the idea of thousands of scientists agreeing to anything.

Weve read consistently that thousands of scientists agree with the report?

An example of rampant misrepresentation of IPCC reports is the frequent assertion that ‘hundreds of IPCC scientists’ are known to support the following statement, arguably the most important of the WG I report, namely “Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.” In total, only 62 scientists reviewed the chapter in which this statement appears, the critical chapter 9, “Understanding and Attributing Climate Change”. Of the comments received from the 62 reviewers of this critical chapter, almost 60% of them were rejected by IPCC editors. And of the 62 expert reviewers of this chapter, 55 had serious vested interest, leaving only seven expert reviewers who appear impartial.

Is this the peer review that Pooey and other believers call for in scientific research?
I dont think so. It turns ou a political entity in the UN has tried to dupe us.

[xyzer]

Here is another recent paper concerning the issue.
APS Physics | FPS | Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered

Its tough reading but this segment stands out...

LOBALLY-AVERAGED land and sea surface absolute temperature TS has not risen since 1998 (Hadley Center; US National Climatic Data Center; University of Alabama at Huntsville; etc.). For almost seven years, TS may even have fallen (Figure 1). There may be no new peak until 2015 (Keenlysideet al., 2008). The models heavily relied upon by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had not projected this multidecadal stasis in “global warming”; nor (until trained ex post facto) the fall in TS from 1940-1975; nor 50 years’ cooling in Antarctica (Doran et al., 2002) and the Arctic (Soon, 2005); nor the absence of ocean warming since 2003 (Lyman et al., 2006; Gouretski&Koltermann, 2007); nor the onset, duration, or intensity of the Madden-Julian intraseasonal oscillation, the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation in the tropical stratosphere, El Nino/La Nina oscillations, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, or the Pacific Decadal Oscillation that has recently transited from its warming to its cooling phase (oceanic oscillations which, on their own, may account for all of the observed warmings and coolings over the past half-century: Tsoniset al., 2007); nor the magnitude nor duration of multi-century events such as the Mediaeval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age; nor the cessation since 2000 of the previously-observed growth in atmospheric methane concentration (IPCC, 2007); nor the active 2004 hurricane season; nor the inactive subsequent seasons; nor the UK flooding of 2007 (the Met Office had forecast a summer of prolonged droughts only six weeks previously); nor the solar Grand Maximum of the past 70 years, during which the Sun was more active, for longer, than at almost any similar period in the past 11,400 years (Hathaway, 2004; Solankiet al., 2005); nor the consequent surface “global warming” on Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and even distant Pluto; nor the eerily- continuing 2006 solar minimum

Thus the authors see the earths climate stability in a chaotic state, influenced by a myriad of natural factors over which we humans have no control...
The IPCC models predictions failed in the first seven years after they were made? It cooled, all the while global economies kept growing and using more fossile fuels. And it looks now like we are in for additional cooling whether we cut energy use or not?

[PBJLover]

People have been saying that we are upsetting the earth and this is its natural way of reacting. So what make me happy is...you guessed it PEANUT BUTTER AND JELLY. I have a great idea...WE feed the earth peanut butter and jelly so when can become one with the planet again.

[Matt W]

This isn't a chat room. Either contribute, PBJLover, or don't post.

DO NOT RESPOND IN THIS THREAD TO THE PRECEDING MESSAGE. Please contact a member of the staff privately if you have any questions.

[xyzer]

Here is the latest in the growing rebellion against the "False Prophets", human energy use is causing global warming...
DailyTech - Myth of Consensus Explodes: APS Opens Global Warming Debate

The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming. The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science. The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming "incontrovertible."

In a posting to the APS forum, editor Jeffrey Marque explains,"There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution."

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Here is the latest in the growing rebellion against the "False Prophets", human energy use is causing global warming... DailyTech - Myth of Consensus Explodes: APS Opens Global Warming Debate

Apologies for my absence, I can't stand long to debate but may I point out that you obviously did not see the addendum;

After publication of this story, the APS responded with a statement that its Physics and Society Forum is merely one unit within the APS, and its views do not reflect those of the Society at large.

At the bottom of the article. So no, the APS as a whole has not changed its stance.

[Miazato]

In my humble opinion it is very hard for me to believe that burning tons of fossil fuels, clear-cutting massive amounts of forests and putting tons of pollutants into the oceans and streams isn't having a negative effect on the earth's environment. Why would this NOT have an adverse consequence on the atmosphere's temperature?

[Nono]

Because our whole industrial system is based on fossil fuels. The entrenched interests are, well, entrenched. And they have humungous influence.

So all we can do is pretend that there's somehow some sort of doubt about it and pretend it maybe ain't happening.

[Century 25]

Quote by: xyzer Really? Pants up or down he was only adding his two cents(opinion) to the position paper. The author and the president then had an opportunity to use or not use his opinions? I repeat to accuse him of some terrible deed is ridiculous if not childish. It belongs on the playground of your local school.

Sure. That is the Bush/Cheney (or visa-versa) regimes desire.. scoff & tsk-tsk.. to give their "simple folks" opinions on serious world problems.

I say it is they that belong on the playground. How about one of the "playgrounds" they continue to support? You know the ones.. where 12 year-old girls sew & stitch, etc.. for the outsourced, polluting factories that would never be permitted to operate here..?


I

dont think you realize how "staffing" of position papers is accomplished in the bureasucracy that is D.C. The final product has passed through various offices and personages on its way to the President. In the process additions and deletions are common

Yes, just like when the Clinton admin. left a detailed report warning of bin Laden's gang working on plans to use aircraft in a terror hit upon the military-industry syndicate in America.. Remember? One of Bush's handlers tossed it into the trash.. said "we got it covered" - yeah.. just like the global warming.

We all know (most of us) that the Bush syndicate is "staffed" at the top, by Bush & Cheney & Rice. They are all oil people. They object to anyone desirous of cutting back on their filthy, polluting & ancient oil industry.

Xyzer, you are either snowed by their rhetoric.. or are in denial. When Gore delivered the bad news.. and it is bad.. many people simply went towards the slippery slope down into denial. It is easy to "just ignore" something not imminent. Maybe it will go away. Not..!! It is similar to grief. When you get the bad news time has run out for your whole future, you first "deny" it. Then will come anger.. and mourning.

At any rate.. we didn't get "staffed" by the Cheney?Bush bunch. We got stiffed.

[Matt W]

Let's stay on-topic, please.

DO NOT RESPOND IN THIS THREAD TO THE PRECEDING MESSAGE. Please contact a member of the staff privately if you have any questions.

[xyzer]

Welcome back Pooey! It's been rather lonesome during your absence.

Here is another recent discussion of the new flare up in the theory. No pun intended!
American Thinker Blog: The American Physical Society Owes Lord Monckton an Immediate Apology

What I think is truly amazing in this reference is the letters to the editors which accompany it. They run from the usual illogical and nonsensical comments suggesting Monckton is in the pay of Exon to referring to the potential number of Hurricanes that WE Might Encounter in the near future ostensibly because we aren't doing enough about global warming?

When encountering actual measured data which entirely contravenes the IPCC models, some people still cling to their positions. The truth is ignored and as Churchill said when we stumble on to the truth they just ignore it and go on looking ?

Here is the edited copy of the paperAPS Physics | FPS | Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered

Which shows the APS is obviously in the tank! Not really an organization interesed in scientific progress so much as agenda driven.

I don't want to brag but if one bothers to check my past posts on this thread you will see they agree with Moncktons on the obvious natural influences on climate change and their overwhelming influence compared to humans paltry influence.