What Do We Think About Climate Change

But Hoyt, the problem is they DIDN'T say it.

 

No, I haven't had a chance to make a ricotta cake yet.

 

Aux contraire mon frere.

Sheepy and Hoyt made wild and unsupported statements about what the "experts" predicted. It is perfectly reasonable to challenge them on their bogus claims.

I don't doubt that you may find my challenge to unsupported comments unacceptable, but this just means that you don't really care if people on your side of the issue make false and/or unsupported and/or unsupportable statements. Or to put it another way, it seems that you prefer made up propaganda to reasoned discussion based on supportable information.

 

If you are interested in a very good Chicken curry called "Balti Chicken" please let me know.

 

An interesting fact: Denmark has managed to become a net exporter of energy. They used to depend primarily on imported oil. They have broken that dependence. Now they produce some oil. However, much of their energy independence is derived from other energy sources. They have done this while maintaining one of the highest standards of living in the world.

This provides a real life example of a country that achieved energy independence, and did so in part by renewable energy and other alternatives to fossil fuels.

I am not suggesting that we simply follow Denmark's lead in all this. There are a number of things they have done which I would not want to see done in the US, such as exorbitant taxes on automobiles. However, I still think there are things that the Danes have done that we could look at and learn from, such as their advanced use of wind power.

 

Yes I am interested in the chicken dish.

 

Troy has been in the thesaurus again..."non sequitur". I know you get to read a lot on union valve monitor duty but Troy doesn't read - he trolls.
The leftist lot of you need learn what the word "fascist" means - it is never anything to do with the right. Why progressives throw this word out there so much is beyond me, unless they just get tired of their usual volley of "Dittohead", "Teabagger", "redneck" and "racist". If I could, in my life, drive one thing into the thick, bone heads of leftists, it would be that "fascists" are progressives. The only thing "right" about fascism is that it implies will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong. I contend that the only reason that leftists are considered pussies and not associated with war is that they have always been in the woman's camp - when they get a little power, and when "modern women" are not always what we used to think of as women,



look at what they do!



http://www.netrootsnation.org/



****, watch your wallet - he already got Troy's hat!

The face of Fascism - what's "right" about that?

 

More fascism.

http://bigjournalism.com/acary/2010...-escorted-seiu-protesters-to-greg-baers-home/

Police escort busloads of these pieces of sh to a man's home? Why are the police doing this? Who gave the order - did it come from Barack or direct from the top, Andy Stern?

This will be viewed positively by the failing media. What if the Teapartiers did anything REMOTELY this vile?

 

I'm a reasonably literate man, Mark, and I'm comfortable with my use of language. I don't own a thesaurus.

Whether you use one or not, I don't know. But I'm sure you don't read dictionaries or history books. Otherwise, you wouldn't be trying to conflate liberalism and fascism.

It looks to me like climate change is just one more excuse for you to spout your ignorant, neanderthal political views, and your resentment of anyone who might be be better than you in any way. Apparently you can't measure up, or you wouldn't be so desperately trying to drag everyone else down.

Tell me, Mark: how many posts has it been since you actually said anything intelligent about climate change in this thread... instead of just verbally abusing people, and frothing at the mouth about unions, liberals, California, Vietnam draftees, welfare, people with genuine educations and degrees, or other subjects having nothing to do with climate change?

 

Right Mark,

If you can't win with arguments then call your opponents fascists. Way to go boy..!! Sure Hoyt agree with those silly insults as he has often made them himself. 'Nice' way of hiding your lack of knowledge about the subject at hand. Have another glas (or bottle) of vinegar and write me a response please, sure you will do it in that order

Bye bye kid.

Cheers!
Angel

PS - Sorry , I'm off-line for a few days from now so can't respond your greetings (and won't go back to them)

 

the "debate" must be over if the deniers have been reduced to random tirades and a complete lack of scientific evidence to back up there claims as well as fraudulently listing scientists they say support the oil and gas PR campaigns when if fact they are screaming to have there names taken off the list

interesting also is the fact that heartland refused to remove the names from there list
http://heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=23207

several dozen links to the fraudulent nature of the heartland institute can be found here

http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/denier-vs-skeptic/denier-myths-debunked/the-heartland-institute/

 

Nice try, you said a tin shed with pallets inside, why can't you admit you were wrong, and you vastly overestimate your influence on anyone. If you took the time to do even a tiny bit of research like Troy did you would have found that only about of a quarter of their financing comes from corporations and that they do no contracted research. Once again you are using ad hominem but irrelevent attacks to deflect from your own lazines. If you find the picture you refer to it only proves that you are again willing to use deception as a tactic as the picture is long out of date. You make unsubstantiated claims about lies that Heartland "spreads" while you defend a lie made by yourself, priceless, but typical. This alleged ploy was simply done to show what a phoney and a fraud you are and how you confuse winning a point in a debate with the reality that there is no climate crisis. The only time that is wasted here is reading the drivel and misinformation you post along with the deliberately deceptive graphs that you alter.

 

You're quibbling about details, and completely sidestepping the point: which is that the Heartland Institute is a front organization for corporations--a lobbying organization disguised as a non-profit "Institute"--and that people keep quoting them as though they're some unimpeachable source of scientific research and information.

 

About the 500 letter complaint........

DeSmogBlog, a Web site created to attack conservative and free-market nonprofit organizations, targeted The Heartland Institute in late April 2008, and in particular two lists posted on Heartland’s Web site [ http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=21971 ] of scientists whose published work contradicts some of the main tenets of global warming alarmism. The blog persuaded some of the scientists appearing in the lists to ask that their names be removed from the lists.

In response to the complaints, The Heartland Institute has changed the headlines that its PR department had chosen for some of the documents related to the lists, from “500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares” to “500 Scientists Whose Research Contradicts Man-Made Global Warming Scares.”

Aside from those headlines, none of the articles and news releases produced by The Heartland Institute or the Hudson Institute (the original source of the lists) claims that all of the scientists who appear in the lists currently doubt that the modern warming is man-made. In fact, The Hudson Institute’s news release [ http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=21970 ] says, “Not all of these researchers would describe themselves as global warming skeptics,” said Avery, “but the evidence in their studies is there for all to see.”

We plan to make no further changes to the articles or to the lists.

We suspect this change will not satisfy the bloggers or the disgruntled scientists. Why? DeSmogBlog’s motivation is plain enough: It was created and is funded solely to demonize groups like The Heartland Institute. They are doing what they are paid to do.

What motivates the scientists? They have no right -- legally or ethically -- to demand that their names be removed from a bibliography composed by researchers with whom they disagree. Their names probably appear in hundreds or thousands of bibliographies accompanying other articles or in books with which they disagree. Do they plan to sue hundreds or thousands of their colleagues? The proper response is to engage in scholarly debate, not demand imperiously that the other side redact its publications.

Many of the complaining scientists have crossed the line between scientific research and policy advocacy. They lend their credibility to politicians and advocacy groups who call for higher taxes and more government regulations to “save the world” from catastrophic warming ... and not coincidentally, to fund more climate research. They are embarrassed -- as they should be -- to see their names in a list of scientists whose peer-reviewed published work suggests the modern warming might be due to a natural 1,500-year climate cycle.

Why did DeSmogBlog and the disgruntled scientists wait seven months to express their displeasure? Maybe its because a new and expanded list [ http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22968 ] was released by the Hudson Institute on March 3. Heartland reported it in the May issue of Environment and Climate News in an article titled “Hundreds More Scientists Acknowledge Natural 1,500-Year Climate Cycle.” [ http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=23085 ] The number of peer-reviewed scientists who’ve recently found physical evidence of natural climate cycles now exceeds 700. No need to redact the title of any of those articles.

The point should be obvious: There is no scientific consensus that global warming is a crisis. For more evidence, including actual surveys of scientists (something the alarmists never cite because no survey has ever found a “consensus” in support of their claims), click on the “PolicyBot” button on Heartland’s Web site at http://www.heartland.org and choose “environment” and then “Climate: Consensus” from the menu.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joseph Bast is president of The Heartland Institute, a 24-year-old national nonprofit research organization, and publisher of Environment & Climate News.

 

A bit more on the same issue .....


Statement on List of 500 Authors
Climate Change > Consensus
Climate Change > Natural Cycles

Email a Friend
Written By: Dennis Avery
Publication date: 12/18/2009

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[British newspaper columnist George Monbiot, citing a book by James Hoggan titled Climate Cover-Up, recently claimed that a list of 500 scientists “whose research contradicts man-made global warming scares” published by The Heartland Institute misrepresented the views of those scientists. This is a false and defamatory accusation that Dennis Avery, the author of the list, and The Heartland Institute have already refuted several times. Here is a new statement by Dennis Avery addressing the matter again.]

Dennis Avery and Fred Singer read thousands of peer-reviewed studies on all aspects of global warming while preparing the manuscript of their New York Times best-seller Unstoppable Global Warming--Every 1,500 Years. These included studies of ice cores, seabed sediments, fossil pollen, ancient tree rings, drought cycles near the equator, the sunspot index, Lindzen’s study of the heat vent over the warm pool of the Pacific, museum paintings from the Medieval Warming and Little Ice Age, and many other subsets of climate knowledge.

After the book was published, to make this information more accessible to the public, we assembled the names of hundreds of these peer-reviewed authors and published them on our Web site. Most of the studies and authors had been cited in our book.

Fewer than a dozen of the authors complained, saying they did not agree with our position on climate change. That wasn’t the point. Once a paper has been published, it enters the public domain. Comments on it and about it and proceeding from it are supposed to be encouraged. As the CRU scientists have so recently been forced to admit, this is how science proceeds.

If a peer-reviewed author of a study on sunspots has never heard of the 1,500-year cycle, the findings in his paper that bear on the existence of the cycle are nonetheless open to public comment. Neither we nor any other researchers need the authors’ permission to discuss the findings, though our own statements will open us to condemnation if what we say is not valid or relevant.

As an example, the authors of a paper on how wildlife species are inhabiting a broader range of territory--rather than going extinct--during this globally warming period seems relevant to the discussion of whether global warming will drive more species extinct. A paper on how atmospheric ozone amplifies the variability of solar irradiation also seemed relevant.

We did not ask for those authors’ permission, nor do we seek their permission now.

We’ve explained to each of the dissenting authors why we felt their papers endorsed the 1,500-year cycle. We may even be mistaken in our analysis, though we don’t think so. But the purpose of publishing peer-reviewed papers is to test their validity and help other researchers apply the lessons they contain. We are part of the testing process. It should all be open, and transparent, and err on the side of being even more open and transparent.

It is particularly abhorrent to see The Guardian’s George Monbiot, who I know considers himself an important element in the global warming debate, attack The Heartland Institute and the Hudson Institute for pointing out how these papers impact our understanding of the long, moderate natural climate cycles.

It was not even two weeks ago that Mr. Monbiot was confessing he had not been an objective observer of the global warming evidence and would have been a better journalist if he had been more skeptical. His statement is still true.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dennis Avery, Center for Global Food Issues, Hudson Institute


Again, Boston is incapable of anything but deception and misinformation.