When an issue is politicized science, there is also 'political pressures' to find a study that will promote the idea.
Political pressure? From a Republican controlled Congress and the Bush administration? Are you
high?
This is NOT conspiracy, this is the system and how business works.
Yet still a conspiracy to hide the truth. It doesn't matter if that happens to be "business as usual" or not.
Again, like the FDA... you can't say there is a conspiracy between FDA and big pharma companies that create 'synthetic' drugs. The procedure involved with the safety studies assures that big pharma will not produce 'organic' medicines because the product cannot be patented; and the FDA will not pass drugs without this testing. These companies however will synthesize organic medicines and then get the testing done because then they can sell for a better price than an organic medicine that cannot be 'owned'.
Holy crap... :shock: I'll tell you what. To avoid any further confusion, why don't us just list us what conspiracy theories you
don't believe...
Nothing, because it actually represents a balanced viewpoint.
Now what's interesting is that not only did I post that link way the frell back on page 9, but I
directly quoted it as well, yet you proceeded to maintain that no one have offered a valid critique of the lag issue other than "twisting logic".
So tell me, did you not see my post or do you just choose not to read my posts and links? :doh
So admittedly there are other factors to climate change.... Something I've stated repeatedly.
As have I. Glad you're paying attention.
No. The existence of that skeptical conservative think tank does not throw the prevailing scientific theory into question anymore than
this conservative think tank does evolution.
seeing as we are about at the minimum and then I come across an article like
this.
Yet the majority of them are
still in retreat. Yes, retreating. During a cold ENSO cycle and low solar activity.
Even though it's not quite a reversal, you can see the correlation for yourself...
Close only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades, and thermonuclear war. It does not dispute the role of CO2 in the current warming and even notes that the increase in solar irradiance during the solar "is not enough to cause notable climate change".
No, you forget that it's the creationists that say the 'debate is over'... 'God (IPCC for argument) said it, I believe it, end of discussion' is a 'creationist' argument.
As usual, your completely wrong. The science has been settled for decades, yet it is the creationists who are busy trying to slide their nonsense into public schools. "
Teach the Controversy" is the name of one such campaign from the Discovery Institute attempting to demonstrate that there is a legitimate alternative to evolution.
Much as AGW skeptics do now.
So now when I hear a quote I must have read the book from which it came to count??
If you're going to directly quote from that source, yes. Especially if you want to be taken seriously as to it's authenticity. And
especially after you say "they wrote a book where they talked of 'the need for an enemy either real or imagined to unite the masses."
Quote mining is a common crank tactic, as well as downright fabrication. Since you haven't read it, you don't know if that statement is true anymore than I do.
Let me guess; you believe that the 'Council on Foreign Relations' is a conspiracy theory too?? That the Federal reserve is run by the same families that have run it from the start, that must be a conspiracy too? Look, just because you're uncomfortable accepting certain ideas doesn't mean that it is conspiracy... especially when talking about verifiable organizations?
I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm not prone to the tin foil hat nuttery that you seem to be.
Well, it's easy to avoid confusion when you refuse to acknowledge that politicization of science isn't going to produce 'unbiased' results.
The onus is on you to prove that the data and the research has been biased. I'm not convinced yet; all I've seen from you are ignorant interpretations of climate science and massive appeals to a Club of Rome "non-conspiracy" conspiracy.
That CO2 doesn't FULLY explain global warming historically...
It doesn't have to; it doesn't say that CO2 is the only thing affecting climate. AGW only states that CO2 is responsible for the
current warming trend. If you're going to dispute a theory, you should at least understand what it actually states.
That CO2 has grown due to human production doesn't mean that CO2 will then 'drive' the environment... with the reduction in solar activity the past 2 years, it's no wonder that they've had snow in
kenya.... when by the logic of AGW the earth should still be warming...
Oh wait, the sun doesn't have an important affect on climate...
*sigh* :roll:
Would you please try reading my posts before you respond? It would make everything so much easier.
Climate myths: Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans
Switch off the Sun and Earth would become a very chilly place. No one denies our star's central role in determining how warm our planet is. The issue today is how much solar changes have contributed to the recent warming, and what that tells us about future climate.
. . .
[T]here is no correlation between solar activity and the strong warming during the past 40 years. Claims that this is the case have
not stood up to scrutiny (pdf document).
Direct measurements of solar output since 1978 show a steady rise and fall over the 11-year sunspot cycle, but
no upwards or downward trend .
Similarly, there is no trend in direct measurements of the Sun's ultraviolet output and in cosmic rays.
So for the period for which we have direct, reliable records, the Earth has warmed dramatically even though there has been no corresponding rise in any kind of solar activity.
It IS a red herring if it's real, but is being used to keep you away from looking at other MORE IMPORTANT environmental issues.
To wit I said:
I do not see how or why acknowledging the fact that AGW is real means you have to deny the existence of other environmental problems. A debate on the proposed solutions to AGW is a distinct and separate one from a debate on its existence.
I guess you'd rather wait for government to tell you that 'to protect the environment' you'll have to pay a 'carbon tax' based on : vehicle, furnace, hot water heat + the amount of co2 you realease by exhalation.
Don't care. I'm not here to debate policy, since that has
absolutely nothing to do with the science involved. Start a new thread if you want to...
The difference between this issue and the issue of tobacco was that the tobacco companies had direct vested interest; it was putting at risk a highly addictive product whose users fought tooth and nail to keep using
And oil companies
don't have a vested interest in AGW skepticism and preventing any proposed solutions from inhibiting consumption of their product?
The sun is the ONLY FORCING agent; if not for the sun there is no 'greenhouse effect'.
Well no wonder you're confused. You're redefining terms...
Are you serious?? Do I really need to explain the 'carbon cycle' to someone that is clearly educated like yourself??
I'll do it anyway O2 -> carbon based animal exhales = CO2 -> trees exhale = O2. So, yes it's a nutrient.
Are you serious?? Do I really need to explain 'suffocation' to someone that is clearly educated like yourself??
I'll do it anyway O2 -> carbon based animal exhales = CO2 -> carbon based animal inhales = dead. So, yeah... It's a poison, too.
The disconnect is the simplification for political purposes, the AGENDA attached to global warming. When there are more urgent issues to be dealt with affecting the environment and ecosystem of the planet.
Exactly. Pure ideology. Because of the perceived "agenda", any of the science
must be false. EOD.
Crankism 101.
I simply recited the NIST explanaition of events. Go find the newest revision of the NIST report for yourself.
No you didn't. Much like your Club of Rome research, you simply regurgitated that from some conspiracy theory website, and not from
the actual source.
Let's keep it civil folks. Address the material and not each other.