This is hte liberal way. If they don't agree with our point of view, lets just make it impossible for them to speak.

Now some (or at least one) wants to decertify those who do not agree with those who tout Global Warming.

Not to mention the fact that they want to end talk radio.

http://climate.weather.com/blog/9_11396.html

Well duh. If you don't act like a scientist, you shouldn't call yourself one. And if you're a meteorologist, you really should be informed on something as basic as global warming. Jeez.

Not to mention the fact that they want to end talk radio.


Did you add that just in case anyone still took you seriously? :)

Well duh. If you don't act like a scientist, you shouldn't call yourself one. And if you're a meteorologist, you really should be informed on something as basic as global warming. Jeez.
i'll start thinking of meteorology as a science when a meteorologist can tell me more about what the weather is going to be like in 6 hours than i can find out from calling my cousin in Chicago.

This is hte liberal way. If they don't agree with our point of view, lets just make it impossible for them to speak.

Now some (or at least one) wants to decertify those who do not agree with those who tout Global Warming.

Not to mention the fact that they want to end talk radio.

http://climate.weather.com/blog/9_11396.html

Did you have an arguement you wanted to present, or did you just want to vent about liberals again?

Did you have an arguement you wanted to present, or did you just want to vent about liberals again?

You mean complaining about the ever-nebulous "liberal" boogeyman isn't enough?

It has sustained the Rush Limbaugh show for over 20 years.

Try as I might, I didn't see anything in that article that remotely resembled "Let's decertify anyone who doesn't agree with global warming!"

It said that good meteorologists have the responsibility to educate themselves on the subject. Certainly not the same.

Well, first things first.......

Did you add that just in case anyone still took you seriously?

Were you not the one who has been whining about polite, civilized, intelligent or whatever debate? Was that little crack you just came up with polite, civilized or intelligent? You want to tell others to "grow up" you'd better do some growing yourself, I think. Geez, when I go and slam someone who made what I think is a silly post, at least I don't go whining about civility when they slam me back, dammit.


Well duh. If you don't act like a scientist, you shouldn't call yourself one. And if you're a meteorologist, you really should be informed on something as basic as global warming. Jeez.

So if you don't believe in a certain way, you are "not" a scientist? Sounds a bit like censorship is creeping about, dammit. Gee, in the 70s scientists thought the world was on the brink of an ice age, NOW not only is global warming happening, but the predictions scientists made are true, true, true and if you question the current dogma, you'll be stripped of your scientific credentials. Gee, what other "true" theories got shot down over the centuries? It got scientifically proven that man would never fly, rocks don't fall from the sky (meteorites), communism was supposed to be good for mankind, animals don't evolve, the sun revolved around the earth, on and on. Point being that "scientific" dogma gets proven wrong at an almost monotonous rate. If a group of "scientists" can't handle debate on their pet global warming theories and have to resort to threatening to strip credentials of people who question global warming (which is what happened) then the whole global warming thing is so much trash. REAL scientists WORK to PROVE their theories and can let the facts and their research speak for themselves. Without the threat of stripping of credentials of those who don't toe the line, dammit.

Darkfantasy,

If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval.

That quote was lifted from Dr. Heidi Cullen's blog which gmsisko was referring to as a threat to weatherpeople who don't toe the line of the global warming thing. What do you think it sounds like to you, dammit.

Gee, in the 70s scientists thought the world was on the brink of an ice age, NOW not only is global warming happening...

I'm not an expert, but I'm going to try to explain things I've read about... Global warming would effectively cause an ice age, Darth, because so much polar ice melting would flood the oceans with fresh water, disrupting streams that bring warm water and air to temperate climates. These climates, such as most of the U.S., would then become frozen tundras, and we'd all have to move to the tropics, which would then be temperate.

And I agree with you about dharma's comment. He's quick to start the mudslinging, but if anyone does it back, he's suddenly a saint and an advocate for "civil discourse".

Darkfantasy,



That quote was lifted from Dr. Heidi Cullen's blog which gmsisko was referring to as a threat to weatherpeople who don't toe the line of the global warming thing. What do you think it sounds like to you, dammit.

Sorry, didn't see that part... Was that on the page he linked to?

Edit: And what does that mean, exactly? "If a scientist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change"? That doesn't sound like "If a scientist doesn't believe in global warming" to me.

And I agree with you about dharma's comment. He's quick to start the mudslinging, but if anyone does it back, he's suddenly a saint and an advocate for "civil discourse".

I didn't read his comment but I was probobly a bit out of line with that sarcastic comment.

However, in comparison to some of the things said to me on here, it was very, very tame.

So if you don't believe in a certain way, you are "not" a scientist? Sounds a bit like censorship is creeping about, dammit. Gee, in the 70s scientists thought the world was on the brink of an ice age, NOW not only is global warming happening, but the predictions scientists made are true, true, true and if you question the current dogma, you'll be stripped of your scientific credentials. Gee, what other "true" theories got shot down over the centuries? It got scientifically proven that man would never fly, rocks don't fall from the sky (meteorites), communism was supposed to be good for mankind, animals don't evolve, the sun revolved around the earth, on and on. Point being that "scientific" dogma gets proven wrong at an almost monotonous rate. If a group of "scientists" can't handle debate on their pet global warming theories and have to resort to threatening to strip credentials of people who question global warming (which is what happened) then the whole global warming thing is so much trash. REAL scientists WORK to PROVE their theories and can let the facts and their research speak for themselves. Without the threat of stripping of credentials of those who don't toe the line, dammit.
The greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide has been proved a gazillion times in labs. That's why meteorologists who don't believe in it shouldn't be called meteorologists. Same with biologists who don't believe in evolution, or geologists who believe that the Earth is shaped like a cube. Science doesn't have the luxury of allowing opinions, there are only facts. If global warming can be refuted, then refute away, but right now the evidence points to it. Hypotheses are fine, but you can't ignore data and still call yourself a scientist.

Geez, when I go and slam someone who made what I think is a silly post, at least I don't go whining about civility when they slam me back, dammit.


You just did whine about civility. Damnit.

The greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide has been proved a gazillion times in labs. That's why meteorologists who don't believe in it shouldn't be called meteorologists. Same with biologists who don't believe in evolution, or geologists who believe that the Earth is shaped like a cube. Science doesn't have the luxury of allowing opinions, there are only facts. If global warming can be refuted, then refute away, but right now the evidence points to it. Hypotheses are fine, but you can't ignore data and still call yourself a scientist.

What happens when you have both sides of the argument with data suggesting their point of view? Who is right? Is it automatically awarded to the global warming side because Al Gore lost last time and we don't want him to be too sad and lose again?

What happens when you have both sides of the argument with data suggesting their point of view? Who is right?

The one who's data leads to conclusions and predictions which are testable, repeatable and provable using scientific method.

The problem with the anti-global warming crowd is that they are incredibly small and motivated by nothing but partisan politics.

You are the one who keeps bringing Al Gore and politics into a scientific question about climate change.

Fact: No one has proven that Man is causing "global warming"

Fact: The sun is hotter today than it was 100 years ago.

(did man cause the sun to heat up?)

Fact: It snows in Texas.

Fact: No one has proven that Man is causing "global warming"
Gravity and evolution haven't been proven either.
Fact: The sun is hotter today than it was 100 years ago.
Tell me, how does one measure the heat of the Sun in 1907?
(did man cause the sun to heat up?)
No, only George Bush did it.
Fact: It snows in Texas.
It has always done that. There are mountains in Texas.

Fact: No one has proven that Man is causing "global warming"
No, because it's impossible to definitely prove cause and effect in a system with so many variables. That's why there have been laboratory experiments that prove that elevated carbon dioxide levels cause the atmosphere to retain more heat. And carbon dioxide levels are much higher today than they used to be.
Fact: The sun is hotter today than it was 100 years ago.
Then why should we be increasing greenhouse gas levels now? That seems like a really stupid idea.
Fact: It snows in Texas.
Good for it? It also snows on top of mountains, but that doesn't really prove anything.

The sad thing is that there are like 5 of these threads and as soon as evidence to support global warming gets posted up, the thread is abandoned and another one is created.

Well duh. If you don't act like a scientist, you shouldn't call yourself one. And if you're a meteorologist, you really should be informed on something as basic as global warming. Jeez.

The above has to be one of the absolutely dumbest statements ever posted in Allforums.

Borg seems to think that only those who come to the conclusion that Global Warmng is a dire theat and is primarily caused by people are scientists. I hate to be the one to have to break this to you, Borg, but scientists don't always agree. In fact they sometimes vehemently disagree.

Those who disagree with the GW alarmists are no less scientists than those who agree with it.

The one who's data leads to conclusions and predictions which are testable, repeatable and provable using scientific method.

The problem with the anti-global warming crowd is that they are incredibly small and motivated by nothing but partisan politics.

You are the one who keeps bringing Al Gore and politics into a scientific question about climate change.

I take back my previous post. Borg's wasn't the dumbest post I have read on Allforuims. It was only tied for dumbest with dharmabum's post.

The list os SCIENTISTS who disagree with the Global Warming crowd is growing, a phenomenum one would not expect to find if they were simply partisan whackos. Many of the scientists who disagree on the Global Warming issue are at least as distinguished as those who are advancing the theory that we caused it and it will destroy us all. Those on the pro-Global Warming side receive much more in the form of grant monies than the opposition and are seemingly much more motivated by the amount of grant money they can receive. Al Gore and politics became part of the problem when he wrote his poorly researched and even less honestly written book and injected politics into the situation.

The above has to be one of the absolutely dumbest statements ever posted in Allforums.

Borg seems to think that only those who come to the conclusion that Global Warmng is a dire theat and is primarily caused by people are scientists. I hate to be the one to have to break this to you, Borg, but scientists don't always agree. In fact they sometimes vehemently disagree.

Those who disagree with the GW alarmists are no less scientists than those who agree with it.

You quoted him as saying that scientists should be informed on global warming, and then said that was the "dumbest thing ever posted". I don't get it. Scientists shouldn't be informed??

Frogger, The anti-global warming crowd is out numbered by about a million to one. They are comprised of precisely what you described, partisan wackos.
A lot of them didn't give a crap about global warming until Al Gore had the audacity to get behind what he feels is an important issue. For that reason and that reason alone, there is a tiny minority of very loud, hard core dittohead types who will never have anything good to say about anything they consider "liberal".

Nooooo!

The dumb part was implying that those who don't agree with the GW crowd aren't really scientists.

The problem with the anti-global warming crowd is that they are incredibly small and motivated by nothing but partisan politics.

Well, that and huge injections of Corporate cash.

__________________________________________________ _

Rightwingers......lol. What a strange mindset they have. They are convinced that global warming and tobacco’s link to cancer are "junk science", but that creationism needs to be taught in schools.

Do the research, Freethinker. The cash infusions to the pro-Global Warming is a man made catestrophe crowd are much greater than those to the no it isn't crowd.

Your saying the opposite doesn't make it so. Do the research.

Borg seems to think that only those who come to the conclusion that Global Warmng is a dire theat and is primarily caused by people are scientists.

No........I think you'll find Borg's point to be that if you have a group of 3300 scientists, and 3250 of them on one side agree that global warming is occuriing, while the other 50 (who are being funded by various energy industry corporations such as ExxonMobil.) on the other side do not agree that global warming is occuring, it is very clear which side has vastly more credibility.

Frogger, The anti-global warming crowd is out numbered by about a million to one. They are comprised of precisely what you described, partisan wackos.
A lot of them didn't give a crap about global warming until Al Gore had the audacity to get behind what he feels is an important issue. For that reason and that reason alone, there is a tiny minority of very loud, hard core dittohead types who will never have anything good to say about anything they consider "liberal".

Oh please, you want to talk about retarded posts? This one takes the cake:

First off, the anti-global warming crowd IS NOT outnumbered "a million to one" or anywhere CLOSE to that. There are multitudes of credible scientists who think global warming is bunk. I would say its probably around 50-50, with many hacks and biased idiots on both sides.

And second, again here you are trying to say "they disagree with ANYTHING they say because they are liberal"... gee, i guess SCIENTIFIC DATA and THEORIES have NOTHING to do with it, it's all just because he's liberal right? LMAO, we have quite a painter here in dharmabum.

Well, that and huge injections of Corporate cash.
.
Al Gore knows all about getting corporate cash for his global warming crusade... reguardless of what happens it is my opinion he will manipulate data, take faulty surveys, and purposely perform expirements that will give him the results he wants, and maybe doesn't cover the whole story, ALL in order to keep that cash cow rolling. Like i said before, global warming will stick around because Al Gore says it will, and coincidentally he is profiting enormously from it.


Rightwingers......lol. What a strange mindset they have. They are convinced that global warming and tobacco’s link to cancer are "junk science", but that creationism needs to be taught in schools.

I'm a rightwinger, and i don't think creationism should be taught in schools.. and i think tobacco does cause cancer...

nice try though

Do the research, Freethinker. The cash infusions to the pro-Global Warming is a man made catestrophe crowd are much greater than those to the no it isn't crowd.

Frstly, i find that hard to believe, and I would not know how to go about finding out.

Secondly, even if it were so, it probably has a great deal to do with the fact that the scientists who have hard data demonstrating global warming is occuring outnumber the *global warming is not occuring* crowd by 50 or more to 1.

Taken on a *dollars provided to each scientist* basis, I find your claim specious and irrational, for the simple fact that I cannot figure out what motivation there would be for anyone with a pre-detemined outcome in mind to fund a scientist in order to have some <cough cough> control over that scientists findings...UNLESS said funding is provided by a corporation or company that stands to lose billions if global warming is proven to exist and to be in part attributable to the actions of certain industries (i.e., the petrochemical industry) or companies operating within those industries.

Secondly, even if it were so, it probably has a great deal to do with the fact that the scientists who have hard data demonstrating global warming is occuring outnumber the *global warming is not occuring* crowd by 50 or more to 1.


I think we are confusing issues...

Don't confuse scientists who say we are in a "warming period" with people like Al Gore who say that humans are killing the planet. Saying and acknowleding we are in a warming period does not mean a person believes in global warming. Global warming is pretty much the belief that our fossil fuels are the leading causer in the destruction of the earth, the heating of the earth, and the cause of more hurricanes.

Global warming activists argue in such a way that the temperature and CO2 levels will never go back down.

Scientists who say were are in a warming period see that cycles happen, just like periods with women LOL. They might acknowledge that our fossil fuels TECHNICALLY do have an "effect".. but a very minor one. I heard someone on local radio yesterday give the top ten reasons the earth is warming and Co2 levels are rising, and humans burning fossil fuels came in as #8... i'll have to see if i can get a source link for that.

Don't confuse scientists who say we are in a "warming period" with people like Al Gore who say that humans are killing the planet.

(a) Prior to this I have not mentioned Al Gore.

(b) Do you have proof of Al Gore saying "humans are killing the planet"....? (not holding my breath)

a) i used him as an example

b) a slight exaggeration.. VERY slight, i could get quotes, they wouldn't be worded exactly the same, but they'd be close

January 12, 2004
The global warming fraud
Daily Mail, January 12 2004
Daffodils are on sale in some of our shops unseasonably early. Such evidence that spring seems to be arriving before winter has departed, along with excessively hot summer temperatures, has convinced many that global warming is well under way.
Unease that something funny is happening to the weather is reinforced by constant reports claiming imminent environmental doom, such as the article in Nature magazine last week claiming global warming will cause more than one million species to die out over the next fifty years.
In another article in the journal Science the government’s Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir David King, claims global warming is an even more serious threat to the world than terrorism. He maintains that the ten hottest years on record started in 1991, that global warming is causing the ice caps to melt and the seas to rise, and that mankind’s activities in producing carbon dioxide have been proved to be the cause. With all due respect to Sir David’s eminence, every one of these claims is utter garbage. What science actually tells us is that we just don’t know whether global warming is happening and, if it is, why. Much of the research behind this theory is specious, anti-historical and scientifically illiterate. If the world’s climate is indeed warming up beyond normal patterns, this could be due to natural reasons rather than the actions of mankind. It is not true that the seas are generally rising. Some are; some aren’t. The claim is based on the atypical North Atlantic, ignoring the seas around Australia where levels have remained pretty static. Indeed, around parts of New Zealand and elsewhere they are falling. What’s more, there’s no correlation between rises in climate temperature and sea levels. During the ‘Little Ice Age’ in the Middle Ages, sea levels rose; and between 1900 and 1940, when temperatures rose, sea levels actually dropped.
The ice-caps tell a similar story. Some are melting; some are not. The Larsen ice shelf in the Antarctic is breaking up, but most of the Antarctic ice is increasing. Then there’s the claim that the climate is now the hottest on record. But this statistical record only goes back a few centuries, if that. Yet there’s plenty of other evidence that the climate in Europe was warmer than now by at least 2 degrees in 1100, when vines grew in Northumberland and farmers settled in Greenland. Since this was followed by the Little Ice Age which lasted until about 1880, it’s hardly surprising — and surely a cause for rejoicing — that since then the climate has warmed up by about 0.6 degrees, well within normal patterns. As for the presumed villain of the piece carbon dioxide, this makes up such a tiny fraction of the atmosphere that even if it doubled it would make little difference to the climate. And like sea levels, it doesn’t correlate with climate change. Historically, it has increased hundreds of years after the climate has warmed up. Between 1940 and 1975, when industrial activity — which produces carbon dioxide —rose rapidly, the climate actually cooled. Far from being proved, the claim of man-made global warming is a global fraud. Instead of being drawn from observable facts, it is based on computer modelling which churns out wholly artificial — and eminently manipulable — visions of the world.
Computers can only process the information fed into them. This is an inadequate procedure, not least because climate change is affected by billions of variables which are beyond any computer programme. The sea level ‘rise’, for instance, omits the full influence of certain crucial natural meteorological changes. And if the disaster scenarios of global warming are fed into the computer as a premise, it is hardly surprising that it will then ‘predict’ the disappearance of species as a consequence.
In other words, if you feed rubbish into a computer, you get rubbish out.The claim that there’s a scientific consensus behind global warming is also utterly bogus. In 1992, more than 40 atmospheric scientists said the theory was highly uncertain and warned against using theoretical climate models which they said were not supported by existing records.
In 1997, dozens of meteorologists, geologists, atmospheric scientists and other experts said global warming was based solely on unproven scientific theories and imperfect computer models.
In 1998, 18,000 scientists signed the Oregon petition which again criticised this ‘flawed’ research, said historic evidence showed that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide was environmentally helpful, and predicted that the 1997 Kyoto agreement to reduce industrial emissions would keep the developing world trapped in poverty. One of the world’s most eminent meteorologists, Professor Richard Lindzen, has also protested that while the science behind the Kyoto protocol was suitably equivocal about global warming, the document’s highly politicised summary — the part actually being used to force reduced industrial activity onto the western world — was written instead by government representatives, who had conjured up ‘scary scenarios for which there is no evidence’.
Indeed, global warming has little to do with science and everything to do with politics. Those scientists who endorse the theory command the lion’s share of government-funded research grants. Since the global warming prediction emerged in the late 1980s, climate science funding has gone through the roof.
Scientists know, however, that they won’t get funded unless their research confirms global warming. Too many enormous reputations would go down the plug otherwise; too many political agendas depend on the theory. So global warming has become big business.This is ironic. For it is yet another variation of left-wing, anti-American, anti-west ideology which goes hand in hand with anti-globalisation and the belief that everything done by the industrialised world is wicked. The agenda to cripple this world is revealed by highly questionable assumptions made by climate modellers about likely developments in economics, technology or population movements, which affect emissions and consequent temperature predictions.
As the Economist recently pointed out, they assume growth rates that are beyond any historical experience, resulting in predictions of a bizarre economic future in which the United States stops growing and developing nations overtake the industrialised world. But that reversal of fortune is, of course, precisely the objective.
And if anyone objects, they are demonised. As Professor Lindzen has protested, science is now being used ‘as a source of authority with which to bludgeon political opponents and propagandize uninformed citizens’.
Dr Bjorn Lomborg, the Danish statistician who became famous for his book ‘The Sceptical Environmentalist’, paid a heavy price for pointing out that richer countries were cleaner countries, and observing that the costs of implementing the Kyoto protocol for less than one year would provide clean water for every human being on Earth.
For his demolition of the environmental scam, he was vilified across the globe and accused by a Danish scientific committee of ‘dishonesty’ — a disgraceful verdict that has now been demolished by a superior committee that tore into Dr Lomborg’s inquisitors for intellectual inadequacy.
The claim of man-made global warming represents the descent of science from the pursuit of truth into politicised propaganda. The fact that it is endorsed by the top scientist in the British government shows how deep this rot has gone.





http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles/archives/000255.html

AND...Surprise! She's a CONSERVATIVE!