MOST GEOSCIENTISTS REJECT GLOBAL WARMING THEORY

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2 ... theory.php

"MOST GEOSCIENTISTS REJECT GLOBAL WARMING THEORY
The argument from authority is the only argument climate alarmists are willing to make these days–when is the last time you saw one of them sharing a podium with a climate realist?–so this survey, reported by James Taylor of Forbes represents a significant nail in the alarmist coffin:"...

Really?... So says "powerlineblog"?....

Welllll, then it must be true... lol And I'll bet the Heartland Institute, (a/k/a The Koch Brothers), and the Club For Growth, ad nauseum agree too...

:rofllol :woo hoo:

I trust Forbes over the unpaid interns of the Huffington Post.
People actually pay to subscribe to Forbes.
HuffPo? You get what you pay for...

You do love that "unpaid interns" crap, don't you?... lol

Unfortunately, I didn't mention any sources for HuffPo... But I'm sure the powerlineblog has some top-notch scientists.... lol

Speaking of "unpaid interns"...Interesting thing about "PowerLineBlog":

Power Line is an American political publication, providing news and commentary from a conservative point-of-view. It was originally written by three lawyers who attended Dartmouth College together: John H. Hinderaker, Scott W. Johnson, and Paul Mirengoff.

Mirengoff left the blog shortly after writing a January, 2011 post on a Tucson memorial service honoring those who died as the result of shootings at a Gabrielle Giffords rally; in his post he criticized the inclusion of Native American rituals. The post was later removed, but days later Mirengoff left the blog, and in announcing his exit thanked Hinderaker, Johnson, and the readers for the opportunity of participating in the blog.[1] When Mirengoff left the site, Hinderaker and Johnson recruited Steven Hayward to replace him. On Apr 20, 2012, Mirengoff rejoined the site, saying "My return to blogging coincides with my retirement from the practice of law. With all that extra time on my hands, I hope to be a better, more productive blogger this time around."[2] The site is published by Publir, founded by Joe Malchow, another Dartmouth College graduate

I guess those conservative, unpaid interns, er "lawyers" from Dartmouth are SO much more reliable as "scientific sources" than the multiple sources at HuffPo...

:rofllol :woo hoo:

Please thank Exxon for the title of this thread. Fortunately the 97% of scientists who disagree with it are a lot more believable.

LadyJazzer wrote: You do love that "unpaid interns" crap, don't you?... lol

Unfortunately, I didn't mention any sources for HuffPo... But I'm sure the powerlineblog has some top-notch scientists.... lol

Speaking of "unpaid interns"...Interesting thing about "PowerLineBlog":

Power Line is an American political publication, providing news and commentary from a conservative point-of-view. It was originally written by three lawyers who attended Dartmouth College together: John H. Hinderaker, Scott W. Johnson, and Paul Mirengoff.

Mirengoff left the blog shortly after writing a January, 2011 post on a Tucson memorial service honoring those who died as the result of shootings at a Gabrielle Giffords rally; in his post he criticized the inclusion of Native American rituals. The post was later removed, but days later Mirengoff left the blog, and in announcing his exit thanked Hinderaker, Johnson, and the readers for the opportunity of participating in the blog.[1] When Mirengoff left the site, Hinderaker and Johnson recruited Steven Hayward to replace him. On Apr 20, 2012, Mirengoff rejoined the site, saying "My return to blogging coincides with my retirement from the practice of law. With all that extra time on my hands, I hope to be a better, more productive blogger this time around."[2] The site is published by Publir, founded by Joe Malchow, another Dartmouth College graduate

I guess those conservative, unpaid interns, er "lawyers" from Dartmouth are SO much more reliable as "scientific sources" than the multiple sources at HuffPo...

:rofllol :woo hoo:

Yes, there are biased sources. Most sources are probably biased.

There is one good way to at least separate some more serious sources from all the crap out there. And that is to check if they at least offer a link to their source?

Of course LJ put no effort into checking the info, and just took the lazy approach to attack the messenger instead. But she did spend effort into researching the attack on the messenger. But the messenger did provide links which you could follow.

Here is the source article...

http://oss.sagepub.com/content/33/11/1477.full

Now I know LJ won't bother to read it, and I'll provide her canned reply to it right now...

It's just a load of crap from engineers and geologists paid for by the oil industry.

There, I made it easy for her...

And hey, I do believe humans contribute to greenhouse CO2 levels. But I'll at least read about the information provided first. Who knows, you might learn something new...

hillfarmer wrote: Please thank Exxon for the title of this thread. Fortunately the 97% of scientists who disagree with it are a lot more believable.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2 ... sensus.php


"Andrew Monfort of the Global Warming Policy Foundation in the UK has the skinny on this fat claim, in a new paper, “Consensus? What Consensus?”

Recent reports that 97% of published scientific papers support the so-called consensus on man-made global warming are based on a paper by John Cook et al.

Precisely what consensus is allegedly being supported in these papers cannot be discerned from the text of the paper.

An analysis of the methodology used by Cook et al. shows that the consensus referred to is trivial:

• that carbon dioxide (CO2) is a greenhouse gas

• that human activities have warmed the planet to some unspecified extent.

Almost everybody involved in the climate debate, including the majority of sceptics, accepts these propositions, so little can be learned from the Cook et al. paper.

The extent to which the warming in the last two decades of the twentieth century was man-made and the likely extent of any future warming remain highly contentious scientific issues.

Blazer Bob wrote: Recent reports....

"Recent reports..." Really?... "Recent reports" from whom?.....From Where?..... The same Dartmouth unpaid-bloggers, er, "lawyers" at PowerLineBlog? the Heartland Institute, (a/k/a The Koch Brothers)? The Petroleum Institute? The Club For Growth?....., ad nauseum

I love how the game is played:

A) "There is no global-warming"...
This is particularly fun every year at winter time. The usual winter conditions and snow merely prove their point; “It’s snowing…(ha-ha-ha..So much for “climate-change”). And in the summer time when glaciers and ice-shelves are melting and breaking off. Of course, when you provide the evidence to show that the glaciers and polar caps are melting, that the eco-system, both oceanic and land-based, is totally messed up, then they move to:

"Well, I'll admit that the warming is happening, but it's not man-made or the result of CO2...It's just a normal cycle."

C) “Well, I’ll admit that it could-be/maybe man-made, but since we can’t do anything about it….”

Recycle to A)...

(It must be tough to remember which cycle-of-denial they are currently in...But the show must go on.)

How about this one? Why is the temperature from 20 years ago the proper one? There is no perfect temp for the Earth and life has thrived even during the ice ages.

Does it really matter? I don't think so.

Our reaction, even if it is happening, would not be extreme enough to make a difference. If it is not happening, then clearly there is nothing to be done.

Your job is to use the energy to the best of your ability to make your life better, or someone else will.

The most major domestic energy use regulations, the energy codes in the building code already reserve the energy for the wealthy, it is written right into the code by the way they measure it.

Those that push for energy restrictions will have an effect on the poor and not a good one. The poor in the US will give up energy and the rich in the us and those in other countries will feel the benefit.

Now if the greenies were really willing to give up 99.999999% of their use, then perhaps we could start talking realistically. But the reality is that we do not have enough sustainable energy to even have places like this. There would be so many higher priorities. Even our ability to have this fake debate depends on us wasting energy.

There is no amount of regulation that will curb global warming. At that point, use it or loose it.

Even the amount of energy it would take to have a global police force enforcing the limited use of energy would be more energy than we can sustain. That is part of why we are in the many of the messes we are in...wasted energy on wars....just wait, we are about to start another one.

So, I agree with LJ in some regards, there is global warming, this is a game, but I say the only way to win is to ignore the debate.