Climate Change Denier comes in from the cold: SCIENCE!!!

How does data (possibly fudged) "debunk" any claims about data being fudged?

I'm talking about uneven application of "solutions" to global warming. If one person uses jet transportation, which pollutes hundreds of times more than one automobile, why should one using an automobile be penalized, or have to answer in any way, for his car's pollution while the person using a jet doesn't have to answer? If you can't imagine any corruption being involved in ANY government action to combat global warming, I can't help you.

What's dishonest about those questions? My suspicion is, (that I"ve mentioned earlier in this thread) is that global warming advocates never feel that they themselves are part of the problem, only part of the solution by pointing accusing fingers at others, like successful businesses that they are jealous of. Or another country that's more successful then their country. It's not a "political tool" to wonder about, or have a fear of, government mandated solutions to global warming. Which, as I have pointed out and never yet been refuted, are not clearly measurable. It's not too much to ask that if any action is taken to improve the global warming problem, that each country's contribution to man made greenhouse gases be shown for all to see, so that there's no unfair/uneven application of government mandates. Global warming was not presented to the general public before the 1990's. It was introduced by Al Gore's 1992 book, Earth In The Balance". Let's see what Wikipedia has to say about it;

quote:

---

It [the book] received the Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice and Human Rights 1993 Book award given annually to a novelist who "most faithfully and forcefully reflects Robert Kennedy's purposes - his concern for the poor and the powerless, his struggle for honest and even-handed justice, his conviction that a decent society must assure all young people a fair chance, and his faith that a free democracy can act to remedy disparities of power and opportunity."

---

So you see, global warming got, and continues to get, ALL of it's attention because of politics, since implied remedies for it consist mainly of punishing the successful, to "remedy disparities of power and opportunity. I do not, as it was refuted in the year 2000, to a very comparable degree that Piltdown man was refuted in 1953.Page not found - The National CenterFred Singer is probably to global warming what Michael Behe is (was) to biology. He created the US Weather Satellite Service, was a Chief Scientist for the DOT and a climate expert. He's 90 years old now, still alive, and has undoubtedly forgot far more about the science of global warming than Al Gore ever knew. But if we google his name, we find about as many put-downs of him as we do if we google Michael Behe. Politics IS involved, isn't it? I've been shown evidence of "climategate", the lack of news coverage, the demonization of those who uncovered it, and asked you, your twin Razd, and anyone else on this thread why uncoverers of "The Wedge Document" didn't receive ANY grief as accusation of thievery as were climategate informers. Nothing but crickets chirping so far on that one. Here are a few paragraphs from the above link;

quote:

---

Homewood had in fact uncovered yet another example of the thousands of pieces of evidence coming to light in recent years that show that something very odd has been going on with the temperature data relied on by the world's scientists. And in particular by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which has driven the greatest and most costly scare in history: the belief that the world is in the grip of an unprecedented warming.

---

and

quote:

---

In recent years, these two very different ways of measuring global temperature have increasingly been showing quite different results.

---

and

quote:

---

One surprise is that the three surface records, all run by passionate believers in man-made warming, in fact derive most of their land surface data from a single source. This is the Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN), managed by the US National Climate Data Center under NOAA, which in turn comes under the US Department of Commerce.

---

The U.S Department of Commerce? Could it be..........POLITICS? And in reality, each term can be appended with, licence, regulate, restrict, prohibit. But in the 90's, in the news, it was only global warming
"Climate change" is only recent, when it was discovered that it was needed. Can't scare people nearly as easily with clashing two conflicting terms, global warming and global cooling, can we? It would if it was political! I can pin it down just fine, I've been watching news for many decades. There are no explosions going on with global warming, or climate change. There's NOTHING going on with global warming or climate change that people can actually see. It's only what they're being told, by a special interest group. And few of my questions have been answered as well. Whether they were political, or whether they were basic questions about numbers, such as measurable records broken down by country, or any accountability the scientific community, Democrats will have concerning action against global warming. They haven't taken much time, it's all out there to copy/paste. Posting charts and graphs and numbers that I have no way of knowing how accurate they are. The political army of global warming is huge, second only to the political army of evolution. As it's difficult for me to conceive of an honest global warming advocate. The calls for action to correct it, with practically no accountability for those who make political decisions, reeks of big government advocacy of nothing more than the current Democrat party. That's only an opinion. I think the same about you, and so does much of mainstream America, the ones who won't demonize Charlie Daniels for what he said.

He does NOT assert that he knows better than science - science isn't the only source of knowledge. See why I have trouble with scientific claims? They're often put forward by those with questionable reading skills.

quote:

---

Drafted in 1998 by Discovery Institute staff, the Wedge Document first appeared publicly after it was posted to the World Wide Web on February 5, 1999 by Tim Rhodes,[22] having been shared with him in late January 1999 by Matt Duss, a part-time employee of a Seattle-based international human-resources firm. There Duss had been given a document to copy titled The Wedge and marked "Top Secret" and "Not For Distribution."[23]

---

Wedge strategy - WikipediaPOSTED TO THE WWW BY TIM RHODES, MARKED "TOP SECRET" AND "NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION". Stolen. And you're coming up short on reading comprehension. Of course Homewood is now under attack! The political machine is still well funded.Still no estimates on which countries cause the most global warming? Which countries will pay the heaviest price?

You've never heard of auto emissions testing?In the late 1990's, it was in the news as being just around the corner in my area, the greater Cincinnati area. The local, liberal newspaper was all for it, their editorials and slanted news stories couldn't wait for it to start. They were explaining it all to us, sometimes interviewing "experts" in the subject. "Should all cars, even new ones, be tested?" the newspaper asks. "Oh yes, all cars must be tested for the program to work" says the expert. Then, after one year, SURPRISE, most all newer cars aren't failing the tests! The newspaper then writes editorials demanding that all cars 5 years old and newer be exempted from the tests! The pudgy fingered, no-nothings-about-cars newspaper editors obviously drive newer ones since they have no clue how to effeciently keep an older car runniing. So now they want to exempt themselves from the program, never mind that it would cost older car owners much more to get their cars tested, since the test company has to make their money. The newspaper editors found out how much fun it was to sit in line and hand over $20 for a useless test, and they didn't like it! They didn't get their wish, the program went on for everybody for 4 more years, until it ended. No explanations, no air measurements, nothing. Just millions of dollars and peoples time wasted.So many liberals are going to demand to know who is responsible for all the new hoops they will soon have to jump through to help the government combat global warming. All they have to do is look in the mirror.

Yes they are. And not a single one of the master global warming advocates in this thread have have explained it to you, after 36 hours. Imagine that. I outlined it sufficiently. If one person using a jet for personal transportation isn't questioned as unnecessary pollution, then it doesn't make sense for ANY type of much smaller personal transportation to be questioned as pollution that must be addressed by the heavy hand of government. ANY human activity involving any type of fuel can be linked to global warming, ANYTHING.

quote:

---

Our cars and trucks are a major cause of global warming.

---

Car Emissions & Global Warming | Union of Concerned Scientists From the same link:

quote:

---

Collectively, they [our cars and trucks] account for nearly one-fifth of all U.S. emissions, emitting around 24 pounds of carbon dioxide and other global-warming gases for every gallon of gas. About 5 pounds comes from the extraction, production, and delivery of the fuel, while the great bulk of heat-trapping emissionsmore than 19 pounds per galloncomes right out of a car’s tailpipe.

---

(my bold) And if it's not "burned efficiently"? As in a 10 year old car? Ban its use? Restrict its use?

The ONLY thing left to argue? There are many more things to argue.1) What benefits would a slight increase in global warming have?Page Not Found | Heartland InstituteForbiddenMore usable land, longer growing seasons, less energy required for heat, better health, better safety, etc.2) How much is the scientific community paid to promote the fear of global warming? The Cold Truth Initiative $22 billion annually, in taxpayer money! No wonder Richard Muller acts so happy about it!In the early 1900's, the Piltdown Man hoax was initiated. It lasted for about 40 years, until 1953, when 3 scientists finally examined and proved it a hoax. AND THAT WAS THE END OF IT. It was the end of it because no political careers were built on it. Science, at that time, wasn't almost fully owned by one political party, one (godless) worldview, or the mainstream news media.In the early 1990's, the global warming hoax was initiated largely by one man, a liberal Democrat politician by the name of Al Gore. By the year 2000, a lot less than 40 years, a credentialed climatologist by the name of Fred Singer examined it and proved it a hoax, but unlike 50 years earlier, political careers WERE built on it, science IS now owned by one political party, one worldview, and the mainstream news media.It now doesn't matter what any evidence shows, the global warming hoax will continue to be trumpeted by some for all it's worth, all $22 billion per year. It will buy a lot. The only hope is that with today's communication, the non-mainstream media and internet information sources, that people will slowly wake up, and demand more accountability for their tax money. Question more liberty destroying power grabs in the name of global warming.It will be interesting to see how it goes in the coming years.

The Klyoto Protocol was signed into existence. Most new cars worldwide are required to conform to increasingly stringent pollution standards. Power plants are held to increasingly stringent standards. Many things (like those outlined in message 65) are being voluntarily done. Plenty is being done. Why is it never enough? Why are there always calls from the political left to do more, to mandate more of others? If global warming was the only threat to mankind, you might have a point. But it's not, many are realistic enough to see that there are other potential problems, like economic meltdowns, terror attacks, wars, you know, things that history tells us can and have happened, and will happen again if identical mistakes are made. Then there are CURRENT, actual problems, like poverty, not only in the U.S. but around the world. History tells us that increasing productivity actually works, in reducing poverty. Redistributing income, reducing productivity, is largely what "doing something" about global warming is all about. It creates more poverty. That would be beautiful in a perfect world. But it's not a perfect world, as the leadership of Cincinnati recently proved all too well.http://www.fox19.com/...ty-trying-to-sell-350000-paperweightThey bought a really fancy, green garbage truck that was so environmentally friendly! Ooopsy, too bad they weren't prepared to actually be able to use it. People in poverty can ill afford to help inept leadership pay for a $350,000 paperweight. Watch the video, and listen to them giggle as they vote to sell it at a $100,000 loss. Unaccountable leadership tends to care like that when they waste money. No wonder the U.S. is $18 trillion in debt. Some see WASTE of the ever dwindling producers hard work as a bigger threat to society than global warming. Those things can eventually happen due to free market forces, not government mandates. "Billions of lives" - that's emotion, there's no evidence.

quote:

---

The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.

---

And there's only one thing worse, the search for a superior moral justification to give other people orders, to rule over them, and not be accountable for it if it doesn't work out. History is full of examples.

Not really according to me, but it seems to be according to the scientific studies about it, since there isn't any concrete way to distinguish between certain humans that cause it, (either by their production of products, or their consumption of products), and other humans who do nothing to cause it. My reasons for entering this thread are in my first substantial, yet brief, opening Message 8. There were no responses to that particular message, and it's very telling that of all 11, (count em, 11) of my opponents, not a single one of them has agreed with me that "doing something" about global warming involves politics and ethics, not necessarily science. What you consider to be a denial could just be more a case of priorities. Some people, (many millions actually) believe that a U.S. or worldwide financial crash could be much more costly, and much more devastating. Or a germ warfare attack throughout a significant part of the U.S. by terrorists. It's not really "misinformation" to prioritize problems in a different way than what militant global warming alarmists do. What specifically, (basically, briefly) did Gore do that you don't agree with? I posted the following link earlier, there were no comments.ForbiddenDoes something like this get any kind of thoughtful consideration by the scientific community, or is it automatically dismissed, for political reasons? Just what a "fact" is can be hard to define. There have always been plenty of scientific predictions about climate change (warming and cooling) that turned out to not be factual. Unless that fool noted so many past predictions turned out to be WRONG. The scientific community needs to learn that there are consequences to making wrong predictions. I'll try to do that when I get time. But I have no way of knowing just what his part is in the $22 Billion dollars the taxpayers provide annually for this political movement.

They have a reason to lie, the oldest reason in the world. Power and money.

What in the world does this investment guru's advertising have to do with this thread?

Many posters in this thread have indicated that "something must be done", to combat/control global warming. But there have been no examples. What suggestions do you have? Fossil fuels seem to be the target. What steps should be taken to cut back their use? Do any of your proposals NOT involve politics? Full and precise accountings will have to be a part of actions to reduce man-made CO2. What actions look attractive to you? How do you propose we deal with it effectively? How would we measure your proposals effectiveness? I don't see any way of dealing with it that won't cause far more problems than will ever be solved. So how can the problem be dealt with, without politics being involved? If there is a financial meltdown, a stop in military pay could cause most all of our soldiers, (overseas, and at our borders) to drop their guns and wander home. It could stop imports of oil to the U.S. stopping diesel trucks that deliver food to our grocery stores. Their shelves would get bare in a matter of days. How do you think the populace would react to that? A LOT more fervently than they would to a temperature increase of 1 DEGREE OVER 50 YEARS!!! HELLO!!!! IS ANYBODY HOME????I don't deny that it's real, I deny that there's anything humans can do about it. That it could be happening, regardless of its causes, and could be beneficial, isn't related to beliefs about human's ability to control it. Looks like a pretty quick, knee-jerk dismissal of it. Not very scientific. I'd like to see you list and justify actions to remedy it. My point is that "doing something about" or "putting the brakes on" global warming involves actions that ALWAYS have costs. If those actions are based on "estimates of future events" that turn out to be wrong, what assurances do we have that the incorrect estimators will pay those costs? None? Be honest, please. I know what 1 degree C. is. I know how long 50 years is. I know some history about how tyrants operate, how factions operate. I know a lot about U.S. foundings, and a lot about how much the U.S. government has grown, only in my lifetime. I also easily see how science is controlled by liberalism and atheism.

You're using a computer, it rode on a diesel truck at one time, either whole or in parts. You probably ate today, that food rode on a diesel truck at one time or another. So you're not completely innocent. What action(s) do YOU propose to "put the brakes on" global warming? Lets see your non-political propaganda on what to do about it. No, it's really priorities. I believe that a financial crisis could have an exponentially more serious consequence to human life and survival than 1 or 2 degrees in temperature over an entire generation's lifespan.(the question is bound to come) "What action do I propose to "do something" about my fear of a future financial crisis? And here's my answer - THE U.S. GOVERNMENT SHOULD STOP BORROWING MONEY. Do you have any answers to global warming that are that direct and simple?

Expenditures on global warming studies, by the U.S. and much of the world, is all over the internet. It's a big business.