Youngin! I am very proud of you for acknowleging the political preasure coming from mostly the left and even some on the right regarding science. Next we need to take the politics out of a green economy, which, by the way does not exist in the competitive energy marketplace without major government subsidies that find there way politicians campaign contributors pocketbooks . We need to let the so called green industries compete with the oil, coal and all fosil fuels and compete for our money without the need for political government intervention.
Actually, there are many scientists who, from sunspot records, believe the world is actually entering a cooling phase. Just remember, there is no relationship between the weather and climate change.
Hoax, junk science??? I don’t need a scientist or any idiot politician to tell me when I drive through L.A. or Riverside and see that thick, nasty smog that something is wrong.
Grew up in Long Beach, LA smog used to be much worse. I read the article as saying the Republican debates are causing the change in global warming. I’m a Republican but would still but that arguement.
Riverside used to be MUCH worse than it is today. You really don’t know that? I grew up there in the 70s and there were many, many first stage smog alerts per year when I was a kid. Now they’re comparatively rare.
Quoting Wikipedia: …reduced the number of Stage 1 smog alerts from several hundred annually to just a few…
There is a huge difference between is it warming and why. Of course it’s warming. The earth has always gone through cooling and warming cycles. It makes for fascinating reading by the way. However, these cycles started and continued long before man existed and will continue long after we’re gone. Spending money to stop global warming is a waste. Mother nature is going to have her way regardless.
These global warming scientists are all perpetrating a hoax. The earth has been warming and cooling for centuries. It was hot when the dinosaurs roamed the earth and when the ice age came on, they all died. I don’t think we can blame humans for that. If we have warming, it is probably all that hot air emanating from Washington DC and Al Gore.
Scientific observation: global climate is warming
Scientific observation#2: Al Gore continues to emit greenhouse gases from his mouth
Scientific observation#3: Al Gore has raked in millions while emitting gasseous clouds from his mouth
Resulting theory: When Al Gore makes money, it gets warmer…he talks more, he makes more money.
This should be no surprise based on the constant one-sided reporting being done by the biased media. Where reports of falsifying information is put under wraps or the crazy rants of Al Gore make firn page news all the time. The same Al Gore who categorically refuses to debate the topic with anybody. If he’s not allowed to do a movie where no contrary opinions can be voiced or if he won’t appear on a stage where those of differing opinions are heard that should help one decide the depth of his arguments. God forbid we allow “real” science to be involved. The world has been a lot hotter and a lot colder than it is now, well before man generally started burning fossil fuels. And guess what? It will get a lot hotter and a lot cooler yet again despite anything we do.
It’s interesting how those arguing against the existence of manmade global warming call the credibility of politician Al Gore into question. You never hear them arguing with the actual scientists since they’d be knowledgeably schooled on their own b.s….instead we get one politician cutting down another. That should tell you something.
Justin, you are a whining liberal. Say bye bye to the first and last president from Chicago…
Climate is ALWAYS CHANGING IDIOT. We could not change it or control it if we wanted to.
Look at China – spewing more polution into the air in one day than Al Gore does in 6 months with his jets and large homes. But he is for a green America. When does he start participating???
If he was not just in it to make a buck, someone might buy it.
As far as the scientists, they were caught with the fraudelent emails and reports covering their scam.
I thought you were trying to be humorous when you said, “The change is likely influenced by the Republican presidential debates.” ANY discussion among politicians, especially Republicans, adds to the hot air content.
My take on the article: The world is warming…due to (the republicans) hot air.
The sentence structure and grammar in many of these writings is poor at best. Come on, Insurance Journal – don’t ‘dumb it down’ so much for the readers- We are more sophisticated that you seem to believe.
For every scientist saying that global warming exists there is another saying it does not. In the meantime, we will go broke trying to create some sort of government subsidized green economy that is not competitive in the marketplace. The Volt is a good example of this, I think chevy has sold a total of 10,000. since the creation of this lemon. The energy plan should consist of making us self sufficient by producing our own energy without spending money (loaning) and giving money away for a political posturing to companies with bad business models, some even are created with the plan of sucking all the money out of the entity before the government gives them the money.
Sarah, who says “For every scientist saying that global warming exists there is another saying it does not.”
Really Sarah? You think that it’s about 50/50?
The only scientific body that dissented from the overwhelming consensus that global warming is a man made problem is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, a group of scientists paid by the oil industry. Amazing thing is that even that group revoked their findings in 2007 and now agree with EVERY OTHER legitimate scientist.
Sure, there are always a few cranks who will disagree with anything.
You say our goal should be to become energy independent. I agree, but we don’t have enough oil to become independent even if we allowed drilling within sight of Miami Beach. We need an oil alternative. That’s what the green programs are supposed to encourage.
You know, many people in your party thought that the race to the moon was a collosal waste of time and money. But look at the benefits we gained from all that scientific research and the spending of public money on NASA. Pocket calculators, computers, teflon, the list goes on and on.
But you’re not interested in the facts, are you?
Don’t take my word for it. Just Google “Scientific opinion on climate change.” Read what scientists have to say about it. Or not. Just keep repeating the lies that the politicians tell you.
Very dry reading, but that’s what scientific facts are all about.
And don’t give us any BS such as: “The only scientific body that dissented from the overwhelming consensus that global warming is a man made problem is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists” That is an out and out lie, something straight out of Saul Alinsky’s playbook. Say a lie over and over again and people eventually begin to believe it. You obviously learned well from YOUR party.
“The only scientific body that dissented from the overwhelming consensus that global warming is a man made problem is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists”
Is plainly a flat out lie. Read the book, go to any library, there are numerous scientific bodies besides the AAPG who dissent from “the overwhelming consenus” he states. I’d rather have TOPOV prove that silly statement than to prove my obvious one. Only one dissenting body? Come on!
September 19, 2011 at 3:55 pm
youngin' says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Lemme get this straight. You call someone a liar for making a statement that “The only scientific body that dissented from the overwhelming consensus that global warming is a man made problem is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists”, and you want this person to prove the statement by doing what exactly? Why can’t you provide a link backing up your claim, that doesn’t require us to buy something?
This is the interweb. Factual disputes are easy to resolve here.
September 19, 2011 at 11:11 pm
Dave says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
youngin’ lemme get this straight, TOPOV makes the statement that not a single scientific body in the ENTIRE WORLD outside of AAPG has dissented from the “overwhelming consensus” that global warming is a manmade product and I have to prove that that is an idiotic statement? Don’t be a cheapskate, buy the book I gave you a link to and see the dozens of scientific bodies who state that global warming is not a manmade product, many of which say global warming is not even occurring. It is the person who makes an outrageous claim which needs to prove it, not me to refute it as it was done dozens of times in the book I gave you a link to.
September 20, 2011 at 4:01 pm
Some Insurance Guy says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Acutally Dave, in this case, since OTPOV made a negative statement “There are no other….”, it only takes one person to find another group to disprove his/her ‘fact’.
You might want to rent the movie, Expelled. Ben Stein made it and it is compelling on this subject and all the scientific “fact”. Can’t recommend it enough for all.
The other item I think is very interesting is that I recently read through a book on 100 years of the headlines of a particular newspaper in California. It was simply fascinating to look at the headlines like, “Hottest summer in 100 years,” “Record rainfall,” etc. etc. from 100 years ago. No question that man should be a good steward of the earth, but as has been proven, we’ve seen highs and lows over many hundreds of years and this particular (negligible) warming trend is no different. Follow the money, people, as you can bet there are a group that are making a fortune off all this “global warming” talk.
Now that reply is straight comedy. Funny how it is that nobody who speaks of funding clouding issues on the anti-AGW side ever admits to the scam that is AGW “science”. Here’s the scoop:
– AGW scientists don’t exist in a vacuum; they, like eveyone else, must eat and live, which requires money.
– AGW scientists amass their incomes through grants.
– Grants are provided mainly by the government (i.e. beauracrats who distribute our taken tax dollars).
– The government then determines who gets how much in grants.
– The government is controlled by politicians. Therefore the dollars distributed through grants are primarily a political process.
– AGW scientists have determined pro-AGW reports garner more grants, as it reinforces certain political leanings.
– Anti-AGW projects, however, seem not to get the grants. (Hmm…)
– Therefore, it is in the best interests of scientists seeking grants (i.e. ALL OF THEM WHO ARE NOT EMPLOYED BY THE PRIVATE SECTOR) to affirm AGW, as it leads to steady, and incraesed, income.
– AGW “scientists” are human, and will bend to the almighty dollar like most human beings (perhaps more so, since, without government funding, they have nowhere else to go to make huge dollars in income!).
So, on the one hand, we have politicians who like AGW, as it provides the ability/excuse to take control of more of the economy. At the same time, we have AGW “scientists”, who know they will be greatly rewarded with more grants, IF the “concensus” view is supported by their work. In other words, this scam doesn’t pass the smell test. Why? Scientists are being paid tax dollars to reinforce certain political beliefs.
How do we know this?
– How many times have computer “models” been “revised” to account for “anomolies” or “inconsistencies”, due to a total failure to confirm AGW? Please, do some research.
– The “hockey stick” graph, which purported to “prove” drastic increases in CO2, has been completely discredited by those knuckle-dragging, anti-science people…AT MIT! This “hockey stick” has been one of the lynchpins of the AGW argument. Once again, please do some research on the tpoic.
– How many times have AGW scientists been caught destroying evidence and records of their experiments? Please discover for yourself.
– How many times have AGW “scientists” been caight trying to keep their studies from being peer reviwed, primarily by keeping data from the public? Please do some research on this, too.
When Einstein first came up with the theory of relativity he was somewhat humbled, as he knew there was no sure experiments which had been devised (or possibly COULD EVER be devised) to either prove or disprove his theory. Only when a specific test was done (by happenstance, and unrelated to Einstein’s endeavors), which was confirmed in a totally seperate test and location on the globe, proving a portion of Einstein’s theory, did he actually accept his work as correct.
Mind you, many aspects of Einstein’s theory of relativity have been disproved (much as many of the specifics of Darwin’s throey have been proved incorrect through experiments) over the years. While many aspects of his thought experiments have proven true (like Darwin), much of what was offered as true has been proven wrong by many scientists over the past (almost) 100 years.
Einstein was also, seemingly, off on his theories regarding quantum mechanics, and the relationship between relativity and quantum theory. In fact, one of Einstein’s most famous quotes “God does not play dice” proved to be a huge lapse in vision for Einstein, in that it clouded his ability to remain open-minded about Quantum theory, possibly preventing his discovery of a solution.
Please keep in mind, every famous scientist one can name off the top of their heads was wrong far more than he/she was right. Einstein, Pasteur, Newton, Copernicus, Tesla, etc. have all had much of their work and “proven” theories disproven through the years. So, while we all discuss AGW, it is important to remember how completely wrong most scientists are, much of the time.
In other words, anyone who tells you any scientific theory is “settled” is either lying or ignorant. Remember, doctors used to talk of “bodily humors” and used leeches, bleeding and cupping as “settled science”, “proven” to cure ills and disease.
One other item to consider is Computer modeling. Has anyone else on these boards EVER been involved with writing software, for ANY purpose? Anyone who has will tell you of the numerous issues and bugs that constantly pop up. Errors are found regularly, and updates must be run constantly to patch the program’s holes and inconsistencies. Often times, models have to be compltely thrown out, after years and years, and millions of dollars, as a single mistake can render years of work completely moot. It can take out the most experienced coders, time and again.
For a little experiment, please consider how many times Microsoft Office has issues. How many times has that software been updated? Why? Are there holes in the platform? Can others effect the code and exploit the errors (malware, spyware, viruses, etc.)?
Yet everyone seems to consider AGW computer modeling to be sacrosanct? That defies logic on many, many levels, as ANYONE with software experience will tell you.
Also, why does nobody question the expertise of coders versus environmental scientists? People who are experts in coding would not be experts in environmental science. The two fields are not interrealted in any way. If they were that good writing code, there is no reason to believe they are also that good at environmental science. Statistically, to believe those who’ve written the modeling code(s) have the same level of expertise and training in environmental sciences is to run a fool’s errand. The odds on that would seemingly be equal to the odds of winning Super Lotto.
One last item to consider: Wasn’t Pluto recently a planet? I am 43, and all my life I have been told Pluto was a planet. I was tested on it regularly through years of schooling. However, just a few short years ago, Pluto suddenly was reclassified. Is a possible planetoid more difficult to classify than every single factor that is a part of creating, changing, and altering historical weather patterns on earth? How much easier is it to observe a planet in our own solar system than build computer models that take into account EVERY SINGLE FORCE IN NATURE WHICH INFLUENCES WEATHER AND CLIMATE? Yet there was sure a “concensus” on Pluto, right? For a good long time, right?
But, don’t worry, all these AGW “scientists” have everything figured out. Just ask them! Oh, and the governmnet “workers” handing millions and millions of our tax dollars to them (many of whom work for politicians who also have huge financial stakes in “green technology” companies – like Al Gore). But, don’t worry. Nothing to see here. The “science” is “settled”.
Sarah, I think GM has sold far less Volts than you said. No one wants a $40,000 electric car which goes 100 miles between charges. We can buy 4 Nissan Versa’s for the same amount and it will get 40MPG. The Green Energy initiative is a colossal bust. $18 Billion invested and it created 3,500 jobs and these green companies are going broke like Solyndra. They renamed it Sayonara. Now, their executives are going to plead the 5th in front of Congress because this is all a political game with the Democratic Party.
Whether or not global warming exists, if we all change our lifestyles and use common sense to protect our planet (and homes!) then it might not be an issue at all.
Like our half a billion dollar “investment” in now bankrupt Solyndra? For crying out loud this story is but a few days old and you’re already forgetting it.
caffiend, on that we can agree. There are many little things we can all do which add up to improving the environment and reducing the overall costs of energy. I just get upset when a centralized government feels compelled to put their thumb on the free market scales to help decide winners and losers. They are notoriously bad judges in winning markets and products as the failed Soviet Union, North Korea, previoulsy Communist China, Cuba, etc. have proven time and time again.
Yeah, those darned federal government bureaucrats, making all those unnecessary rules, like those pesky child labor laws, and all those rules limiting the amount of pesticides that are in our food supply. Let the free market decide those things! We should have started a revolution when the “centralized government” banned leaded gasoline. What’s a little lead in the atmosphere? It’s a mineral right? Minerals are good for you!
I got news for you Dave, the “free market” doesn’t have all the answers. At least not the answers that are in everyone’s best interest. The free market is interested in making money. That’s it.
September 19, 2011 at 6:22 pm
Dave says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
The “free market” may not have all the answers, but I trust the profit making motive well above the motives of political hacks. Especially the power grabbers on the left. One thing the left always refuses to acknowledge are the millions of deaths attributed to Socialistic and Communist regimes. That scares me more than anything.
September 19, 2011 at 8:41 pm
Bartleby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
They *CAN* save money over the initial cost, but they do not always do so.
As a side note, while I do not believe that human beings are responsible for any warming trends we might see, I still think it’s a bad idea to have all of this garbage in our air and that we should work to keep things clean when possible.
All you have to do is look at past and present pictures of places like Glacier national park, Mt. Kilimanjaro, massive ice shelfs in Antartica and massive melting of permafrost which released CO2 into the atmosphere. Is it cyclical? Yes. Is it caused by man? Probably. But, how much is caused by man, who knows? Our output of harmful gasses into the atmosphere is a lot better than it was in the early 70s. Rivers, streams, and lakes are way cleaner than they were in the late 60s and early 70s. The Clean Air Act turned out to do what it set out to do. Yet, global warming is really speeding up within the last 10 years. The rest of the worlds industrial output has caught up to and surpassed us but Eastern Europe and China won’t change. So, what’s left to do? Sounds like a runaway train to me. Time to get out of the way (plan for a new, hotter, reality).
Whether the earth is warming and whether man made global climate change is going to destroy the world are two totally different things. It would be nice is reporters would acknowledge the difference, but if they did, it wouldn’t play into their political agenda.
I think that the Insurance Journal should stick to insurance related topics not push Reuters Liberal agenda. They do not even put any stats about what the increase is of weather related disasters.
Wow, I thought I was reading National Lampoon and the writer was blaming the global warming on all of the hot air from the Republican presidential debates.
D, your fact, most of which seem to have come from Gore’s movie, have mostly been debunked. And you decade of proof argument is about as valid a comparison as looking in the sky and seeing what you think is a single star missing from the galaxy. Come on man, one frame does not make a movie, not even a good trailer.
I am sure if a reputable (that would not be Reuters) polling firm asked 1,000 concerned citizens to prioritize the items that would drive their vote in 2012, the vast majority would not put this matter in their top ten. That does not make the issue unimportant any more than saying over and over that the science has been settled makes it settled–just ask Al Gore how that’s working for him.
Insurance people should stick to numbers they understand–CO2 is .038% of the atmosphere. “Man” contributes 3% to that number, if you can believe that number can be measured accuarately on a global basis. It should be obvious even to the most casual observer that the numbers just don’t support the conclusion.The members of the “consensus”–i.e. the true believers in AGW, refuse to surrender the raw or processed science behind their doomsday forecasts, and some of their leading figures have already been found to have ginned up their numbers to back into their forgone conclusion–that is the only factor associated with this matter that is “settled”.
If the current president wants to get re-elected, the economy will do it for him–or not. What his opposition thinks about AGW will not matter to them–or him– or the voting public in general. This is probably a good thing.
What? You’re throwing actual numbers and scientific facts to the far left fanatics and expect them to understand? If it don’t fit on a bumper sticker don’t expect them to get it.
that’s because most people confuse the weather with climate change. Wait to winter comes, probably early this year. They’ll change their tune. Regardless, there is really no relationship between the weather and climate change.
Posit this. Last week the scientific world was abuzz about the discovery of a nuetrino, a particle that can travel faster than the speed of light, putting into serious question Einstein’s theory of relativity. This was once thought to be impossible. Today, we learn that the Nobel Prize in Chemistry goes to a scientist who identified “quasicyrstals” and was scoffed at an derided years ago as a scientific heretic. Science has a hard enough time with theory, so why would anyone think that Political scientits can give us answers, unless, of course, it yields them power over those they seek to rule.
Why is there even a debate as to whether the world is warming? It is.
I thought the debate was more around man’s connection to the warming…and even that is settled in every industrial country other than the U.S.
It’s also settled here. What’s changed is the number of people who rely solely on politicians for updates from the world of science.
Youngin! I am very proud of you for acknowleging the political preasure coming from mostly the left and even some on the right regarding science. Next we need to take the politics out of a green economy, which, by the way does not exist in the competitive energy marketplace without major government subsidies that find there way politicians campaign contributors pocketbooks . We need to let the so called green industries compete with the oil, coal and all fosil fuels and compete for our money without the need for political government intervention.
Actually, there are many scientists who, from sunspot records, believe the world is actually entering a cooling phase. Just remember, there is no relationship between the weather and climate change.
Actually, nothing is “settled” or we wouldn’t be having this debate, would we? Science is not up to a consensus. That is not science.
Funny, a very intelligent Nobel prize winner just resigned over this topic. Guess he didn’t get the message that this was “settled science.”
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=46212
Hoax, junk science??? I don’t need a scientist or any idiot politician to tell me when I drive through L.A. or Riverside and see that thick, nasty smog that something is wrong.
Grew up in Long Beach, LA smog used to be much worse. I read the article as saying the Republican debates are causing the change in global warming. I’m a Republican but would still but that arguement.
Damn. thats pretty bad.
Riverside used to be MUCH worse than it is today. You really don’t know that? I grew up there in the 70s and there were many, many first stage smog alerts per year when I was a kid. Now they’re comparatively rare.
Quoting Wikipedia: …reduced the number of Stage 1 smog alerts from several hundred annually to just a few…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smog
Riverside is nasty, but AGW is unproven…AT BEST.
There is a huge difference between is it warming and why. Of course it’s warming. The earth has always gone through cooling and warming cycles. It makes for fascinating reading by the way. However, these cycles started and continued long before man existed and will continue long after we’re gone. Spending money to stop global warming is a waste. Mother nature is going to have her way regardless.
True. But we’re not helping.
These global warming scientists are all perpetrating a hoax. The earth has been warming and cooling for centuries. It was hot when the dinosaurs roamed the earth and when the ice age came on, they all died. I don’t think we can blame humans for that. If we have warming, it is probably all that hot air emanating from Washington DC and Al Gore.
Scientific observation: global climate is warming
Scientific observation#2: Al Gore continues to emit greenhouse gases from his mouth
Scientific observation#3: Al Gore has raked in millions while emitting gasseous clouds from his mouth
Resulting theory: When Al Gore makes money, it gets warmer…he talks more, he makes more money.
This should be no surprise based on the constant one-sided reporting being done by the biased media. Where reports of falsifying information is put under wraps or the crazy rants of Al Gore make firn page news all the time. The same Al Gore who categorically refuses to debate the topic with anybody. If he’s not allowed to do a movie where no contrary opinions can be voiced or if he won’t appear on a stage where those of differing opinions are heard that should help one decide the depth of his arguments. God forbid we allow “real” science to be involved. The world has been a lot hotter and a lot colder than it is now, well before man generally started burning fossil fuels. And guess what? It will get a lot hotter and a lot cooler yet again despite anything we do.
It’s interesting how those arguing against the existence of manmade global warming call the credibility of politician Al Gore into question. You never hear them arguing with the actual scientists since they’d be knowledgeably schooled on their own b.s….instead we get one politician cutting down another. That should tell you something.
Justin, you are a whining liberal. Say bye bye to the first and last president from Chicago…
Climate is ALWAYS CHANGING IDIOT. We could not change it or control it if we wanted to.
Look at China – spewing more polution into the air in one day than Al Gore does in 6 months with his jets and large homes. But he is for a green America. When does he start participating???
If he was not just in it to make a buck, someone might buy it.
As far as the scientists, they were caught with the fraudelent emails and reports covering their scam.
wake up lib.
Forget about Al Gore. Just look at a picture of any major city in China or look no further than L.A. The air is as black as my marker.
I thought you were trying to be humorous when you said, “The change is likely influenced by the Republican presidential debates.” ANY discussion among politicians, especially Republicans, adds to the hot air content.
My take on the article: The world is warming…due to (the republicans) hot air.
The sentence structure and grammar in many of these writings is poor at best. Come on, Insurance Journal – don’t ‘dumb it down’ so much for the readers- We are more sophisticated that you seem to believe.
For every scientist saying that global warming exists there is another saying it does not. In the meantime, we will go broke trying to create some sort of government subsidized green economy that is not competitive in the marketplace. The Volt is a good example of this, I think chevy has sold a total of 10,000. since the creation of this lemon. The energy plan should consist of making us self sufficient by producing our own energy without spending money (loaning) and giving money away for a political posturing to companies with bad business models, some even are created with the plan of sucking all the money out of the entity before the government gives them the money.
Sarah, who says “For every scientist saying that global warming exists there is another saying it does not.”
Really Sarah? You think that it’s about 50/50?
The only scientific body that dissented from the overwhelming consensus that global warming is a man made problem is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, a group of scientists paid by the oil industry. Amazing thing is that even that group revoked their findings in 2007 and now agree with EVERY OTHER legitimate scientist.
Sure, there are always a few cranks who will disagree with anything.
You say our goal should be to become energy independent. I agree, but we don’t have enough oil to become independent even if we allowed drilling within sight of Miami Beach. We need an oil alternative. That’s what the green programs are supposed to encourage.
You know, many people in your party thought that the race to the moon was a collosal waste of time and money. But look at the benefits we gained from all that scientific research and the spending of public money on NASA. Pocket calculators, computers, teflon, the list goes on and on.
But you’re not interested in the facts, are you?
Don’t take my word for it. Just Google “Scientific opinion on climate change.” Read what scientists have to say about it. Or not. Just keep repeating the lies that the politicians tell you.
Read Meltdown by Patrick J. Michaels http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/meltdown-patrick-j-michaels/1100086619?ean=9781930865792&itm=48&usri=meltdown
Very dry reading, but that’s what scientific facts are all about.
And don’t give us any BS such as: “The only scientific body that dissented from the overwhelming consensus that global warming is a man made problem is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists” That is an out and out lie, something straight out of Saul Alinsky’s playbook. Say a lie over and over again and people eventually begin to believe it. You obviously learned well from YOUR party.
Dave, provide a link or apologize to TOPOV for calling him/her a liar.
youngin’ the statement:
“The only scientific body that dissented from the overwhelming consensus that global warming is a man made problem is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists”
Is plainly a flat out lie. Read the book, go to any library, there are numerous scientific bodies besides the AAPG who dissent from “the overwhelming consenus” he states. I’d rather have TOPOV prove that silly statement than to prove my obvious one. Only one dissenting body? Come on!
Lemme get this straight. You call someone a liar for making a statement that “The only scientific body that dissented from the overwhelming consensus that global warming is a man made problem is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists”, and you want this person to prove the statement by doing what exactly? Why can’t you provide a link backing up your claim, that doesn’t require us to buy something?
This is the interweb. Factual disputes are easy to resolve here.
youngin’ lemme get this straight, TOPOV makes the statement that not a single scientific body in the ENTIRE WORLD outside of AAPG has dissented from the “overwhelming consensus” that global warming is a manmade product and I have to prove that that is an idiotic statement? Don’t be a cheapskate, buy the book I gave you a link to and see the dozens of scientific bodies who state that global warming is not a manmade product, many of which say global warming is not even occurring. It is the person who makes an outrageous claim which needs to prove it, not me to refute it as it was done dozens of times in the book I gave you a link to.
Acutally Dave, in this case, since OTPOV made a negative statement “There are no other….”, it only takes one person to find another group to disprove his/her ‘fact’.
http://www.infowars.com/another-domino-falls-uks-leading-scientific-body-retreats-on-climate-change/
You might want to rent the movie, Expelled. Ben Stein made it and it is compelling on this subject and all the scientific “fact”. Can’t recommend it enough for all.
The other item I think is very interesting is that I recently read through a book on 100 years of the headlines of a particular newspaper in California. It was simply fascinating to look at the headlines like, “Hottest summer in 100 years,” “Record rainfall,” etc. etc. from 100 years ago. No question that man should be a good steward of the earth, but as has been proven, we’ve seen highs and lows over many hundreds of years and this particular (negligible) warming trend is no different. Follow the money, people, as you can bet there are a group that are making a fortune off all this “global warming” talk.
Now that reply is straight comedy. Funny how it is that nobody who speaks of funding clouding issues on the anti-AGW side ever admits to the scam that is AGW “science”. Here’s the scoop:
– AGW scientists don’t exist in a vacuum; they, like eveyone else, must eat and live, which requires money.
– AGW scientists amass their incomes through grants.
– Grants are provided mainly by the government (i.e. beauracrats who distribute our taken tax dollars).
– The government then determines who gets how much in grants.
– The government is controlled by politicians. Therefore the dollars distributed through grants are primarily a political process.
– AGW scientists have determined pro-AGW reports garner more grants, as it reinforces certain political leanings.
– Anti-AGW projects, however, seem not to get the grants. (Hmm…)
– Therefore, it is in the best interests of scientists seeking grants (i.e. ALL OF THEM WHO ARE NOT EMPLOYED BY THE PRIVATE SECTOR) to affirm AGW, as it leads to steady, and incraesed, income.
– AGW “scientists” are human, and will bend to the almighty dollar like most human beings (perhaps more so, since, without government funding, they have nowhere else to go to make huge dollars in income!).
So, on the one hand, we have politicians who like AGW, as it provides the ability/excuse to take control of more of the economy. At the same time, we have AGW “scientists”, who know they will be greatly rewarded with more grants, IF the “concensus” view is supported by their work. In other words, this scam doesn’t pass the smell test. Why? Scientists are being paid tax dollars to reinforce certain political beliefs.
How do we know this?
– How many times have computer “models” been “revised” to account for “anomolies” or “inconsistencies”, due to a total failure to confirm AGW? Please, do some research.
– The “hockey stick” graph, which purported to “prove” drastic increases in CO2, has been completely discredited by those knuckle-dragging, anti-science people…AT MIT! This “hockey stick” has been one of the lynchpins of the AGW argument. Once again, please do some research on the tpoic.
– How many times have AGW scientists been caught destroying evidence and records of their experiments? Please discover for yourself.
– How many times have AGW “scientists” been caight trying to keep their studies from being peer reviwed, primarily by keeping data from the public? Please do some research on this, too.
When Einstein first came up with the theory of relativity he was somewhat humbled, as he knew there was no sure experiments which had been devised (or possibly COULD EVER be devised) to either prove or disprove his theory. Only when a specific test was done (by happenstance, and unrelated to Einstein’s endeavors), which was confirmed in a totally seperate test and location on the globe, proving a portion of Einstein’s theory, did he actually accept his work as correct.
Mind you, many aspects of Einstein’s theory of relativity have been disproved (much as many of the specifics of Darwin’s throey have been proved incorrect through experiments) over the years. While many aspects of his thought experiments have proven true (like Darwin), much of what was offered as true has been proven wrong by many scientists over the past (almost) 100 years.
Einstein was also, seemingly, off on his theories regarding quantum mechanics, and the relationship between relativity and quantum theory. In fact, one of Einstein’s most famous quotes “God does not play dice” proved to be a huge lapse in vision for Einstein, in that it clouded his ability to remain open-minded about Quantum theory, possibly preventing his discovery of a solution.
Please keep in mind, every famous scientist one can name off the top of their heads was wrong far more than he/she was right. Einstein, Pasteur, Newton, Copernicus, Tesla, etc. have all had much of their work and “proven” theories disproven through the years. So, while we all discuss AGW, it is important to remember how completely wrong most scientists are, much of the time.
In other words, anyone who tells you any scientific theory is “settled” is either lying or ignorant. Remember, doctors used to talk of “bodily humors” and used leeches, bleeding and cupping as “settled science”, “proven” to cure ills and disease.
One other item to consider is Computer modeling. Has anyone else on these boards EVER been involved with writing software, for ANY purpose? Anyone who has will tell you of the numerous issues and bugs that constantly pop up. Errors are found regularly, and updates must be run constantly to patch the program’s holes and inconsistencies. Often times, models have to be compltely thrown out, after years and years, and millions of dollars, as a single mistake can render years of work completely moot. It can take out the most experienced coders, time and again.
For a little experiment, please consider how many times Microsoft Office has issues. How many times has that software been updated? Why? Are there holes in the platform? Can others effect the code and exploit the errors (malware, spyware, viruses, etc.)?
Yet everyone seems to consider AGW computer modeling to be sacrosanct? That defies logic on many, many levels, as ANYONE with software experience will tell you.
Also, why does nobody question the expertise of coders versus environmental scientists? People who are experts in coding would not be experts in environmental science. The two fields are not interrealted in any way. If they were that good writing code, there is no reason to believe they are also that good at environmental science. Statistically, to believe those who’ve written the modeling code(s) have the same level of expertise and training in environmental sciences is to run a fool’s errand. The odds on that would seemingly be equal to the odds of winning Super Lotto.
One last item to consider: Wasn’t Pluto recently a planet? I am 43, and all my life I have been told Pluto was a planet. I was tested on it regularly through years of schooling. However, just a few short years ago, Pluto suddenly was reclassified. Is a possible planetoid more difficult to classify than every single factor that is a part of creating, changing, and altering historical weather patterns on earth? How much easier is it to observe a planet in our own solar system than build computer models that take into account EVERY SINGLE FORCE IN NATURE WHICH INFLUENCES WEATHER AND CLIMATE? Yet there was sure a “concensus” on Pluto, right? For a good long time, right?
But, don’t worry, all these AGW “scientists” have everything figured out. Just ask them! Oh, and the governmnet “workers” handing millions and millions of our tax dollars to them (many of whom work for politicians who also have huge financial stakes in “green technology” companies – like Al Gore). But, don’t worry. Nothing to see here. The “science” is “settled”.
Mike N, great fricken post!
You are a lying liberal.
Go away with your crappy President- never had a job Obamination/least qualified clown in any room he walks into!
Sarah, I think GM has sold far less Volts than you said. No one wants a $40,000 electric car which goes 100 miles between charges. We can buy 4 Nissan Versa’s for the same amount and it will get 40MPG. The Green Energy initiative is a colossal bust. $18 Billion invested and it created 3,500 jobs and these green companies are going broke like Solyndra. They renamed it Sayonara. Now, their executives are going to plead the 5th in front of Congress because this is all a political game with the Democratic Party.
Whether or not global warming exists, if we all change our lifestyles and use common sense to protect our planet (and homes!) then it might not be an issue at all.
I see no need for this to be a political debate.
On the upside, while the initial cash outlay on green tech is greater, the savings over time add up to quite a bit more then the initial cost…
Think green, even if you don’t believe in global warming.
Like our half a billion dollar “investment” in now bankrupt Solyndra? For crying out loud this story is but a few days old and you’re already forgetting it.
Actually Dave, I’m referring more to energy efficent appliances, double pane windows, and good quality insulation (etc…) for homes and offices.
It may cost more for these type of things in the short run, but the savings realized over time will more then make up for that.
You don’t have to be a mega-corp or the government to make a difference in your own life.
caffiend, on that we can agree. There are many little things we can all do which add up to improving the environment and reducing the overall costs of energy. I just get upset when a centralized government feels compelled to put their thumb on the free market scales to help decide winners and losers. They are notoriously bad judges in winning markets and products as the failed Soviet Union, North Korea, previoulsy Communist China, Cuba, etc. have proven time and time again.
Yeah, those darned federal government bureaucrats, making all those unnecessary rules, like those pesky child labor laws, and all those rules limiting the amount of pesticides that are in our food supply. Let the free market decide those things! We should have started a revolution when the “centralized government” banned leaded gasoline. What’s a little lead in the atmosphere? It’s a mineral right? Minerals are good for you!
I got news for you Dave, the “free market” doesn’t have all the answers. At least not the answers that are in everyone’s best interest. The free market is interested in making money. That’s it.
The “free market” may not have all the answers, but I trust the profit making motive well above the motives of political hacks. Especially the power grabbers on the left. One thing the left always refuses to acknowledge are the millions of deaths attributed to Socialistic and Communist regimes. That scares me more than anything.
They *CAN* save money over the initial cost, but they do not always do so.
As a side note, while I do not believe that human beings are responsible for any warming trends we might see, I still think it’s a bad idea to have all of this garbage in our air and that we should work to keep things clean when possible.
All you have to do is look at past and present pictures of places like Glacier national park, Mt. Kilimanjaro, massive ice shelfs in Antartica and massive melting of permafrost which released CO2 into the atmosphere. Is it cyclical? Yes. Is it caused by man? Probably. But, how much is caused by man, who knows? Our output of harmful gasses into the atmosphere is a lot better than it was in the early 70s. Rivers, streams, and lakes are way cleaner than they were in the late 60s and early 70s. The Clean Air Act turned out to do what it set out to do. Yet, global warming is really speeding up within the last 10 years. The rest of the worlds industrial output has caught up to and surpassed us but Eastern Europe and China won’t change. So, what’s left to do? Sounds like a runaway train to me. Time to get out of the way (plan for a new, hotter, reality).
Whether the earth is warming and whether man made global climate change is going to destroy the world are two totally different things. It would be nice is reporters would acknowledge the difference, but if they did, it wouldn’t play into their political agenda.
The basis of the article is wishful thinking. Take a look at today’s WSJ editorial for the latest scientist to put a fork in the theory.
I think that the Insurance Journal should stick to insurance related topics not push Reuters Liberal agenda. They do not even put any stats about what the increase is of weather related disasters.
COMON IJ!- What does the politics of global warming have to do with the day to day insurance market? Stop it with the liberal slant!
The same survey would produce the same results if people we told that the Yetti’s hair is 6 inches long, not 2 as previoulsy thought,and turning gray.
Wow, I thought I was reading National Lampoon and the writer was blaming the global warming on all of the hot air from the Republican presidential debates.
D, your fact, most of which seem to have come from Gore’s movie, have mostly been debunked. And you decade of proof argument is about as valid a comparison as looking in the sky and seeing what you think is a single star missing from the galaxy. Come on man, one frame does not make a movie, not even a good trailer.
I am sure if a reputable (that would not be Reuters) polling firm asked 1,000 concerned citizens to prioritize the items that would drive their vote in 2012, the vast majority would not put this matter in their top ten. That does not make the issue unimportant any more than saying over and over that the science has been settled makes it settled–just ask Al Gore how that’s working for him.
Insurance people should stick to numbers they understand–CO2 is .038% of the atmosphere. “Man” contributes 3% to that number, if you can believe that number can be measured accuarately on a global basis. It should be obvious even to the most casual observer that the numbers just don’t support the conclusion.The members of the “consensus”–i.e. the true believers in AGW, refuse to surrender the raw or processed science behind their doomsday forecasts, and some of their leading figures have already been found to have ginned up their numbers to back into their forgone conclusion–that is the only factor associated with this matter that is “settled”.
If the current president wants to get re-elected, the economy will do it for him–or not. What his opposition thinks about AGW will not matter to them–or him– or the voting public in general. This is probably a good thing.
To confirm what you’re saying, the human contribution of CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.00114% of the atmosphere as a whole?
So 114 out of every ten million ‘parts’ of the air is human contributed CO2 (0.00001% = 1 in ten million)?
Yeah, this seems like far less of an issue than was previously thought.
What? You’re throwing actual numbers and scientific facts to the far left fanatics and expect them to understand? If it don’t fit on a bumper sticker don’t expect them to get it.
that’s because most people confuse the weather with climate change. Wait to winter comes, probably early this year. They’ll change their tune. Regardless, there is really no relationship between the weather and climate change.
Posit this. Last week the scientific world was abuzz about the discovery of a nuetrino, a particle that can travel faster than the speed of light, putting into serious question Einstein’s theory of relativity. This was once thought to be impossible. Today, we learn that the Nobel Prize in Chemistry goes to a scientist who identified “quasicyrstals” and was scoffed at an derided years ago as a scientific heretic. Science has a hard enough time with theory, so why would anyone think that Political scientits can give us answers, unless, of course, it yields them power over those they seek to rule.