• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fisker Recalling 239 Karma Plug-In Hybrids for Fire Hazard

Of course scientists have been wrong.

Ok, STOP THERE...The debate is NOT settled on this.

But they still represent by far the best, most informed opinion on the subject.

That's your opinion. I prefer to look at more than the UN for settling this issue.

Okay, here goes.


A simple link to the UN IPCC would suffice. However, the real argument in this thread anyway, is how these new technologies are being subsidized, some in the case of auto's to the tune of $250,000 per car, and they are still catching fire, and being recalled, yet we are told we MUST shift to them....I have the right to spend my money, at least for the moment, on any damned car, or as I prefer truck I want. I don't like being told what to do, by anyone, especially libs.

j-mac
 
Ok, STOP THERE...The debate is NOT settled on this.

Science is never settled. Nevertheless we operate on the assumption that the earth is round, matter is composed of subatomic particles, etc. At a certain point the debate becomes sufficiently settled to justify action, and we are well past that point with AGW.

That's your opinion. I prefer to look at more than the UN for settling this issue.

Thus the pages and pages of additional sources I cited for you. Presumably you find Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh more authoritative than the National Academy of Sciences.

However, the real argument in this thread anyway, is how these new technologies are being subsidized, some in the case of auto's to the tune of $250,000 per car, and they are still catching fire, and being recalled, yet we are told we MUST shift to them....I have the right to spend my money, at least for the moment, on any damned car, or as I prefer truck I want. I don't like being told what to do, by anyone, especially libs.

I'd like to see the source for your numbers and no one is being told they "must" switch to hybrids. As mentioned ad nauseum, the Fisker recall has nothing to do with hybrid technology. It was about a misplaced hose clamp.

j-mac[/QUOTE]
 
Solar is not a proven, reliable energy source. Its inefficiency and high cost makes us rely on other energy sources to produce power when the sun is not out supplying energy.

The biggest problems with solar energy aren't the reliability of the sun or the high start-up cost.

The single biggest problem with solar energy is the collecting and processing of the energy. Most of the electronics available out there are just about incapable of efficiently converting the energy from the panel into something that can be dumped into a battery. Most of the electronics available out there suck at pulling that energy out of the panel as efficiently as possible. Those problems account for huge energy losses.

Add to this the fact that all to often the wrong panels are used. Either the peak voltage of the panel isn't high enough, or its quality is such that the peak voltage isn't high enough in most real-world environmental conditions.

Wind is not a proven, reliable energy source. The wind doesnt always blow to generate power and power storage capabilities are lack luster at best on both.

Now both ARE viable assistants to providing power (in addition to what we currently have and use) but neither can provide enough power to supply the worlds demand.

I like solar energy...as a back up / assistant to the customary power generating facilities but it is too far from being a solo energy source.

The problem is that too few people are thinking outside the box.

Unless you're talking about locations where the sun pounds down on you day after day or the wind buffets you constantly (and there are plenty such locations), these power sources should never be considered as grid-quality replacements. They are, however, good in micro-power applications.

For example, I've wondered why the hell I've never seen anybody use either as a power source for a water electrolysis process. There are web sites all over the damn place teaching about brown gas -- make some, process it safely (using your alternative energy), and then you've got yourself a supply of hydrogen for a fuel cell. Now, instead of trying to dump the energy into ever-aging battery packs, you're converting it into a source that you can tap whenever you need a steady flow of electrons.

Maybe I blinked and missed it, but I doubt it.
 
Poor investment, perhaps. Does it convince me to vote for the party that thought the Iraq War and the Bush tax cuts were good investments? No.

I wish we had an alternative I could take seriously.
 
Science is never settled. Nevertheless we operate on the assumption that the earth is round, matter is composed of subatomic particles, etc. At a certain point the debate becomes sufficiently settled to justify action, and we are well past that point with AGW.



Thus the pages and pages of additional sources I cited for you. Presumably you find Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh more authoritative than the National Academy of Sciences.



I'd like to see the source for your numbers and no one is being told they "must" switch to hybrids. As mentioned ad nauseum, the Fisker recall has nothing to do with hybrid technology. It was about a misplaced hose clamp.


If I had time and when I do I'll post some dissenting opinions for you, that no doubt you will dismiss out of hand with closed mind. See that's how religious fanatics operate.


J-mac


Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk
 
...that no doubt you will dismiss out of hand with closed mind. See that's how religious fanatics operate.

Sounds like a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
 
If I had time and when I do I'll post some dissenting opinions for you, that no doubt you will dismiss out of hand with closed mind. See that's how religious fanatics operate.


J-mac


Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

Chances are I've already seen them. It's a pretty small club.
 
Chances are I've already seen them. It's a pretty small club.


Small club?

32,000 American scientists, including over 9,000 Ph.D’s, have now signed the “Oregon Petition” rejecting Kyoto and other similar measures, and the premise of “global warming” itself. The petition reads:

“We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

32,000 Scientists Dissent From Global Warming “Consensus” « American Elephants

32,000 is now a small club eh? Just keep placing fingers in ears, and yelling la, la, la..til you turn blue...Doesn't make your opinion correct.


j-mac
 
Small club?



32,000 is now a small club eh? Just keep placing fingers in ears, and yelling la, la, la..til you turn blue...Doesn't make your opinion correct.


j-mac

Ah yes, the infamous "Oregon Petition." Here's some interesting points about that:

Kevin Grandia: The 30,000 Global Warming Petition Is Easily-Debunked Propaganda
The petition was so misleading that the National Academy issued a news release stating: "The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science."

Oregon Petition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A number of critics of the petition questioned the scientific credentials and the authenticity of the names of the signatories.

In May 1998 the Seattle Times wrote:
“ Several environmental groups questioned some of the names in the petition. For instance: "Perry S. Mason", who was a legitimate scientist who shared the name of a TV character. Similarly, "Michael J. Fox", "Robert C. Byrd", and "John C. Grisham" were signatories with names shared with famous people. Geraldine Halliwell was added as: "Dr. Geri Halliwell" and "Dr. Halliwell." This name may have been contributed by a proxy trying to discredit the petition since Ms. Halliwell has never admitted to signing the petition.

Asked about the pop singer, Robinson said he was duped. The returned petition, one of thousands of mailings he sent out, identified her as having a degree in microbiology and living in Boston. "When we're getting thousands of signatures there's no way of filtering out a fake", he said.[21]



In 2001, Scientific American reported:
“ Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.[22] ”


In a 2005 op-ed in the Hawaii Reporter, Todd Shelly wrote:
“ In less than 10 minutes of casual scanning, I found duplicate names (Did two Joe R. Eaglemans and two David Tompkins sign the petition, or were some individuals counted twice?), single names without even an initial (Biolchini), corporate names (Graybeal & Sayre, Inc. How does a business sign a petition?), and an apparently phony single name (Redwine, Ph.D.). These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided. Why the lack of transparency?[23] ”


To the issue of duplicate names, the Global Warming Petition Project had responded:
“ Thousands of scientists have signed the petition more than once. These duplicates have been carefully removed from the petition list. The list contains many instances of scientists with closely similar and sometimes identical names, as is statistically expected in a list of this size, but these signers are different people, who live at different addresses, and usually have different fields of specialization. Primarily as a result of name and address variants, occasional duplicate names are found in the list. These are immediately removed.[24]

It wouldn't surprise me if Dr. Paris Hilton signed this thing as well.
 
Ah yes, the infamous "Oregon Petition." Here's some interesting points about that:

Kevin Grandia: The 30,000 Global Warming Petition Is Easily-Debunked Propaganda


Oregon Petition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


It wouldn't surprise me if Dr. Paris Hilton signed this thing as well.

So let me get this straight. Any scientists against AGW that speak out are subject to intense ridicule, scrutiny, and discrediting of their academic standing to speak to the standards of determination of AGW, but those in favor of the theory that used false data, fudged results, and email trails between scientist skewing information should be taken at face value no matter what.

Like I said before, Alinsky would be proud.

From what I can tell from your post you have given nothing but attacks of individuals that spoke out against AGW.

j-mac
 
So let me get this straight. Any scientists against AGW that speak out are subject to intense ridicule, scrutiny, and discrediting of their academic standing to speak to the standards of determination of AGW, but those in favor of the theory that used false data, fudged results, and email trails between scientist skewing information should be taken at face value no matter what.

Like I said before, Alinsky would be proud.

From what I can tell from your post you have given nothing but attacks of individuals that spoke out against AGW.

j-mac

The "intense ridicule, scrutiny, and discrediting," has been coming from both sides, not just one. I've highlighted in bold where you yourself are offering ridicule and discrediting those in favor of AGW. Supporters of AGW have been the target of intense scrutiny and accusations of malfeasance from opposers of AGW, so your point (apparently that attacks aren't nice) is not an adequate defense. Both sides have been attacking each other.
 
The "intense ridicule, scrutiny, and discrediting," has been coming from both sides, not just one. I've highlighted in bold where you yourself are offering ridicule and discrediting those in favor of AGW. Supporters of AGW have been the target of intense scrutiny and accusations of malfeasance from opposers of AGW, so your point (apparently that attacks aren't nice) is not an adequate defense. Both sides have been attacking each other.


The difference being that those questioning the scientists at East Angelia specifically, and demonstratively attempted to skew results, and data sets to fit their theory. Those that are being discredited on the opposing AGW side are having this done to them maliciously, and without addressing their argument, but rather personally. It is clear which side deserves the discredit to me.

j-mac
 
So let me get this straight. Any scientists against AGW that speak out are subject to intense ridicule, scrutiny, and discrediting of their academic standing to speak to the standards of determination of AGW, but those in favor of the theory that used false data, fudged results, and email trails between scientist skewing information should be taken at face value no matter what.

Like I said before, Alinsky would be proud.

From what I can tell from your post you have given nothing but attacks of individuals that spoke out against AGW.

j-mac

As noted above, the Oregon Petition was a joke. It was completely unscientific and unverified, and the person who put it together is a fruit loop.
 
The difference being that those questioning the scientists at East Angelia specifically, and demonstratively attempted to skew results, and data sets to fit their theory. Those that are being discredited on the opposing AGW side are having this done to them maliciously, and without addressing their argument, but rather personally. It is clear which side deserves the discredit to me.

j-mac

Actually there have been at LEAST four different inquiries into the East Anglia hooha and each one of them has categorically concluded that there was no fudging of the science.
 
The difference being that those questioning the scientists at East Angelia specifically, and demonstratively attempted to skew results, and data sets to fit their theory. Those that are being discredited on the opposing AGW side are having this done to them maliciously, and without addressing their argument, but rather personally. It is clear which side deserves the discredit to me.

Who's being more malicious doesn't make one side more right than the other. I side with the AGW crowd because more established scientific institutions support it than those who do not. Additionally, you mention East Anglia. So consider this:

Climatic Research Unit email controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[my bold]
Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.[14] The Muir Russell report stated, however, "We do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA."[15][16] The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged at the end of the investigations

According to The Guardian, Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and science historian Naomi Oreskes make the case that the "attacks on climate science that were made ahead of the Copenhagen climate change summit were 'organised' to undermine efforts to tackle global warming and mirror the earlier tactics of the tobacco industry".[124] Noting the initial media circus that occurred when the story first broke, Oreskes and Erik Conway, in an article about the history of climate change denial, observed that in the aftermath of the "climategate" investigations, "the vindication of the climate scientists has received very little coverage at all. Vindication is not as sexy as accusation, and many people are still suspicious. After all, some of those emails, taken out of context, sounded damning. But what they show is that climate scientists are frustrated, because for two decades they have been under attack."[125]

Bill Royce, head of the European practice on energy, environment and climate change at Burson-Marsteller, also observed what appeared to be an organised effort to discredit climate science. Royce described "climategate" as "a sustained and coordinated campaign" aimed at undermining the credibility of the science, and disproportionate reporting of the original story "widely amplified by climate deniers", with much less coverage of reports that had cleared the scientists.[126] Journalist Curtis Brainard of the Columbia Journalism Review criticised newspapers and magazines for failing to give prominent coverage to the findings of the review panels, and said that "readers need to understand that while there is plenty of room to improve the research and communications process, its fundamental tenets remain as solid as ever."[127] CNN media critic Howard Kurtz expressed similar sentiments.[128]
 
Last edited:
Who's being more malicious doesn't make one side more right than the other. I side with the AGW crowd because more established scientific institutions support it than those who do not. Additionally, you mention East Anglia. So consider this:

Climatic Research Unit email controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[my bold]


the Oregon Petition is not the only one out there, from your own source....

The Oregon Petition is the third, and by far the largest, of three prominent efforts to argue that the scientific consensus on global warming does not exist; the other two are the 1992 Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming, and the Leipzig Declaration.

BTW, the SEPP report from 1992 includes scientists that you earlier said didn't exist in my argument such as:

* David G. Aubrey, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute
* Nathaniel B. Guttman, Ph.D., Research Physical Scientist, National Climatic Data Center
* Hugh W. Ellsaesser, Ph.D., Meteorologist, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
* Richard Lindzen, Ph.D., Center for Meteorology and Physical Meteorology, M.l.T.
* Robert C. Balling, Ph.D., Director, Laboratory of Climatology, Arizona State University
* Patrick Michaels, Ph.D., Assoc. Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia
* Roger Pielke, Ph.D., Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University
* Michael Garstang, Ph.D., Professor of Meteorology, University of Virginia
* Sherwood B. Idso, Ph.D., Research Physicist, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory
* Lev S. Gandin, Ph.D., UCAR Scientist, National Meteorological Center
* John A. McGinley, Chief, Forecast Research Group, Forecast Systems Laboratory, NOAA
* H. Jean Thiebaux, Ph.D., Research Scientist, National Meteorological Center, National Weather Service, NOM
* Kenneth V. Beard, Ph.D., Professor of Atmospheric Physics, University of Illinois
* Paul W. Mielke, Jr., Ph.D., Professor, Dept. of Statistics, Colorado State University
* Thomas Lockhart, Meteorologist, Meteorological Standards Institute
* Peter F. Giddings, Meteorologist, Weather Service Director
* Hazen A. Bedke, Meteorologist, Former Regional Director, National Weather Service
* Gabriel T. Csanady, Ph.D., Eminent Professor, Old Dominion University
* Roy Leep, Executive Weather Director, Gillett Weather Data Services
* Terrance J. Clark, Meteorologist, U.S. Air Force
* Neil L Frank, Ph.D., Meteorologist
* Michael S. Uhart, Ph.D., Meteorologist, National Weather Service
* Bruce A. Boe, Ph.D., Director, North Dakota Atmospheric Resource Board
* Andrew Detwiler, Ph.D., Assoc. Prof., Institute of Atmospheric Sciences, S. Dakota School of Mines & Technology
* Robert M. Cunningham, Consulting Meteorologist, Fellow, American Meteorological Society
* Steven R. Hanna, Ph.D., Sigma Research Corporation
* Elliot Abrams, Meteorologist, Senior Vice President, AccuWeather, Inc.
* William E. Reifenyder, Ph.D., Consulting Meteorologist, Professor Emeritus, Forest Meteorology, Yale University
* David W. Reynolds, Research Meteorologist
* Jerry A. Williams, Meteorologist, President, Oceanroutes, Inc.
* Lee W. Eddington, Meteorologist, Geophysics Division, Pacific Missile Test Center
* Werner A. Baum, Ph.D., former Dean, College of Arts & Sciences, Florida State University
* David P. Rogers, Ph.D., Assoc. Professor of Research Oceanography, Scripps Institution of Oceanography
* Brian Fiedler, Ph.D., Asst. Professor of Meteorology, School of Meteorology, University of Oklahoma
* Edward A. Brandes, Meteorologist
* Melvyn Shapiro, Chief of Meteorological Research, Wave Propagation Laboratory, NOM
* Joseph Zabransky, Jr., Associate Professor of Meteorology, Plymouth State College
* James A. Moore, Project Manager, Research Applications Program, National Center for Atmospheric Research
* Daniel J. McNaughton, ENSR Consulting and Engineering
* Brian Sussman, Meteorologist
* Robert D. Elliott, Meteorologist, Fellow, American Meteorological Society
* H. Read McGrath, Ph.D., Meteorologist
* Earl G. Droessler, Ph.D., North Carolina State University
* Robert E. Zabrecky, Meteorologist
* William M. Porch, Ph.D., Atmospheric Physicist, Los Alamos National Laboratory
* Earle R. Williams, Ph.D, Assoc. Prof. of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
* S. Fred Singer, Ph.D., Atmospheric Physicist, Univ. of Virginia, President, Science & Environmental Policy Project


SEPP and the Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming - SourceWatch

But I am sure that nothing I say to a proponent of turning my exhalations into a taxable substance is much interested in just how foolish this AGW crap is.

j-mac
 


From your own source:

Singer in editorial columns appearing in hundreds of websites and major publications, including The Wall Street Journal, Miami Herald, Detroit News, Chicago Tribune, The Plain Dealer, Memphis Commercial Appeal, The Seattle Times, and The Orange County Register. Jeff Jacoby, a columnist with the Boston Globe, describes the signers of the Leipzig Declaration as "climate scientists" that "include prominent scholars." Think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation, the Heartland Institute, and Australia's Institute for Public Affairs calls them "noted scientists." Both the Leipzig Declaration and Frederick Seitz's Oregon Petition have been quoted as authoritative sources during deliberations in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives.

Although the key data on which the Leipzig declaration relied (see: satellite temperature record) has been invalidated by subsequent research, and much new evidence has accumulated,[5] the declaration continues to be cited, along with the Oregon petition as evidence of the current views of scientists on climate change. Moreover, the organizers have not changed their stated position of rejecting anthropogenic global warming.

So, you must realize that you prove my point. You disagree with it so it is invalid to you. Unfortunately for you, you don't decide what is and what isn't accepted.

So go ahead and continue to look foolish.

j-mac
 
But I am sure that nothing I say to a proponent of turning my exhalations into a taxable substance is much interested in just how foolish this AGW crap is.

j-mac

That's a far shorter list than 32,000 wouldn't you say?

And for the record, I'm against cap and trade, or even taxing CO2-producing industries. I am for encouraging the development of cleaner industries and systems (such as cars). I think they should be encouraged to the point that electric cars, for example, are a superior option than gas-burning cars. If such things are encouraged to develop they will get better and better and cheaper and cheaper. So if you don't like the idea of buying a Fisker. That's totally fine. Don't. Other people will want them and it should make no difference to you if a Fisker is their car of choice. Let the electric economy mature just as the oil economy was permitted (and encouraged) to mature, then lets compare them.
 
From your own source:



So, you must realize that you prove my point. You disagree with it so it is invalid to you. Unfortunately for you, you don't decide what is and what isn't accepted.

So go ahead and continue to look foolish.

j-mac

Come on now, let's not engage in selective quoting, shall we? :lol:

And now for the rest of the story:

According to the SEPP website, there were 79 signatures to the 1995 declaration, including Frederick Seitz: the current SEPP chair. Perhaps the most prominent signatory to the declaration was Dr. Robert E. Stevenson, a former research scientist for NASA and the Scripps Institution of Oceanography [7]. The signature list was last updated on July 16, 1996. Of these 79, 33 failed to respond when the SEPP asked them to sign the 1997 declaration. The SEPP calls the signatories "nearly 100 climate experts".

The signatures to the 1995 declaration were disputed by David Olinger of the St. Petersburg Times. In an article on July 29, 1996, he revealed that many signers, including Chauncey Starr, Robert Balling, and Patrick Michaels, have received funding from the oil industry, while others had no scientific training or could not be identified.[2]

The 1995 declarations begins: "As scientists, we are intensely interested in the possibility that human activities may affect the global climate". However, those identified as scientists and climate experts include at least ten weather presenters, including Dick Groeber of Dick's Weather Service in Springfield, Ohio. Groeber, who had not completed a university degree, labelled himself a scientist by virtue of his thirty to forty years of self-study.[2]

In any case, it is difficult to accurately evaluate the list of signatures of the 1995 declaration, as the SEPP website provides no additional details about them except for their university, if they are professors.

[edit] The 1997 Declaration

The 1997 declaration updated the 1995 declaration in a number of ways. The most obvious difference was its focus on the Kyoto Protocol, as the Kyoto conference was in the process of being finalised. The declaration says:
"We believe the Kyoto Protocol -- to curtail carbon dioxide emissions from only part of the world community -- is dangerously simplistic, quite ineffective, and economically destructive to jobs and standards-of-living. ... We consider the drastic emission control policies deriving from the Kyoto conference -- lacking credible support from the underlying science -- to be ill-advised and premature."
The 1997 declaration also updated its citations of evidence that appeared to run contrary to the consensus on global warming. For example, the 1995 declaration cites "observations from earth satellites," where the 1997 declaration cites "observations from both weather satellites and balloon-borne radiosondes." As with satellite data, subsequent analysis of radiosondes has shown[citation needed] a statistically-significant warming trend.

Signatures

The declaration begins: "As independent scientists concerned with atmospheric and climate problems, we...". As with the 1995 declaration, questions have been raised about the scientific background of the signers, and others have questioned the degree to which they can be deemed to be independent. Because many of those who signed the 1997 declaration also signed the 1995 declaration, the concerns raised by David Olinger and others after the 1995 declaration are still relevant.

The signers are generally described by Fred Singer and his supporters as climate scientists, although the current signers also include 25 weather presenters. One key report opposing the scientific credentials of the signers was a Danish Broadcasting Company TV special by Øjvind Hesselager.[3] Hesselager attempted to contact the declaration's 33 European signers and found that four of them could not be located, twelve denied ever having signed, and some had not even heard of the Leipzig Declaration. Those who verified signing included a medical doctor, a nuclear scientist, and an entomologist. After discounting the signers whose credentials were inflated, irrelevant, false, or unverifiable, Hesselager claimed that only 20 of the names on the list had any scientific connection with the study of climate change, and some of those names were known to have obtained grants from the oil and fuel industry, including the German coal industry and the government of Kuwait (a major oil exporter). As a result of Hesselager's report, Singer removed some, but not all, of the discredited signatures. The number of signatures on the document, according to the SEPP's own press releases, has declined from 140 (according to a December 1997 press release) to 105 (as of February 2003).


The SEPP's position is that "a few of the original signers did not have the 'proper' academic credentials - even though they understand the scientific climate issues quite well. To avoid this kind of smear, we want to restrict the Leipzig Declaration to signers with impeccable qualifications." To address the signer credibility issue, the SEPP has provided considerably more information about each signer on their website and lists the weather presenters separately from the other signers.
 
Last edited:
That's a far shorter list than 32,000 wouldn't you say?

And for the record, I'm against cap and trade, or even taxing CO2-producing industries. I am for encouraging the development of cleaner industries and systems (such as cars). I think they should be encouraged to the point that electric cars, for example, are a superior option than gas-burning cars. If such things are encouraged to develop they will get better and better and cheaper and cheaper. So if you don't like the idea of buying a Fisker. That's totally fine. Don't. Other people will want them and it should make no difference to you if a Fisker is their car of choice. Let the electric economy mature just as the oil economy was permitted (and encouraged) to mature, then lets compare them.


Actually, I am not against what you say here. I watched the video earlier in the thread, and actually think that the Fisker is a pretty cool car. I don't like the idea that I am being forced to buy one though on the predicate that the cars I own are trash due to the political agenda of those in power that think that they can "nudge" me into buying one.

If the market produces an alternative to the say, Ford, F-150 4x4 that fits my needs, is inexpensive to own, will last as long, and do better for the environment, then I am all for it, if I chose to buy one.

But, I am not going to buy one if 1. I don't need to replace what I have, and 2. some green weenie tells me I have to.

j-mac
 
Come on now, let's not engage in selective quoting, shall we? :lol:

And now for the rest of the story:

Oh give me a break...David 'I never met an enviro weenie cause I didn't support' Olinger? You bitch about selective quoting, then in the same breath highlight probably one of the most far left green whacko's in journalism.

pfft...GTFH with that pap.


j-mac
 
Oh give me a break...David 'I never met an enviro weenie cause I didn't support' Olinger? You bitch about selective quoting, then in the same breath highlight probably one of the most far left green whacko's in journalism.

pfft...GTFH with that pap.


j-mac

Really? That's the first I've heard of that. Do you have some links establishing Olinger's bias?

Because I could fill a warehouse with information establishing Singer's bias, and the "Heartland Institute", and all the other clowns you cite. Here's a thought: instead of citing half-assed petitions slapped together by AGW deniers, perhaps you could cite to some peer-reviewed scientific articles that support your view?
 
Really? That's the first I've heard of that. Do you have some links establishing Olinger's bias?

Because I could fill a warehouse with information establishing Singer's bias, and the "Heartland Institute", and all the other clowns you cite. Here's a thought: instead of citing half-assed petitions slapped together by AGW deniers, perhaps you could cite to some peer-reviewed scientific articles that support your view?


Blah, blah, blah....You are the minority that still buy's this crap.

Given the widely noted increase in the warming effects of rising greenhouse gas concentrations, it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008. We find that this hiatus in warming coincides with a period of little increase in the sum of anthropogenic and natural forcings. Declining solar insolation as part of a normal eleven-year cycle, and a cyclical change from an El Nino to a La Nina dominate our measure of anthropogenic effects because rapid growth in short-lived sulfur emissions partially offsets rising greenhouse gas concentrations. As such, we find that recent global temperature records are consistent with the existing understanding of the relationship among global surface temperature, internal variability, and radiative forcing, which includes anthropogenic factors with well known warming and cooling effects.

Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998

Only recently, faced with a gap between the climate reality and alarmist theory that was too great to ignore, has official climate science begun to admit the facts to the public.

And so, in June, the prestigious journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) published a peer-reviewed article that began: “Data for global surface temperature indicate little warming between 1998 and 2008. Furthermore, global surface temperature declines 0.2 °C between 2005 and 2008.”(3) (As we will see below, the cooling trend has continued past 2008 despite a warm, El Nino-influenced 2010.)

Early in August, a press release from the British Meteorological Office admitted there had been no warming—the Met delicately called it “a pause in the warming”—in the upper 700 metres of the world’s oceans since, get this, 2003.(4) Yet, for the past eight years, the Met has warned the public about a dangerous heating up of the oceans.

FALSE ALARM: Why Almost Everything We’ve Been Told About Global Warming is Misleading, Exaggerated, or Plain Wrong

Much like the kooks during the 70s that were screaming about another ice age, along with the homeless corner preacher spouting 'repent the end is near' AGW true believers will be relegated to nut status soon, if not already.


j-mac
 
Blah, blah, blah....You are the minority that still buy's this crap.





Much like the kooks during the 70s that were screaming about another ice age, along with the homeless corner preacher spouting 'repent the end is near' AGW true believers will be relegated to nut status soon, if not already.


j-mac

So you have no evidence to support your claim about Olinger, not surprisinlgy.

I have no idea what you think the first cite proves. The second cite is to a climate change denier blog -- not a peer-reviewed journal.

You are obviously getting your science education from right-wing punditainers. :lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom