myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Windsurfing Videos Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Global cooling
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 300, 301, 302 ... 347, 348, 349  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
frederick23



Joined: 24 Dec 2013
Posts: 443

PostPosted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 7:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm hoping an angel notifies me when to stop posting here. Its like crack. I have seen a UFO.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nw30



Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 1821
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast

PostPosted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 7:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

frederick23 wrote:
Oddly, its always been number one here.

Little did I know that curing global warming has become a religion to several here when I first started this thread. But as for me~

_________________
I don't drink the 'cool' aid, I drink tequila, it's more honest.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
frederick23



Joined: 24 Dec 2013
Posts: 443

PostPosted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 7:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NW, on the count of three, we'll both give up posting. 1, 2, ...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nw30



Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 1821
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast

PostPosted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 7:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Never, I may be a global warming heretic, but I pick up after myself.
No reason for pollution.

_________________
I don't drink the 'cool' aid, I drink tequila, it's more honest.


Last edited by nw30 on Mon Mar 31, 2014 7:48 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
windoggie



Joined: 22 Feb 2002
Posts: 2406

PostPosted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 7:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wait! Ok, 1...2...
_________________
/w\
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 14339

PostPosted: Tue Apr 01, 2014 3:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The NIPCC just issued its 1,062-page AGW technical report based on peer-reviewed studies. It found that higher CO2 concentrations and rising temperatures are causing "no harm to the global environment or to human health and often finds the opposite: net benefits to plants, including important food crops, and to animals and human health."

WSJ, today, at http://tinyurl.com/p6flnld .

mac's proof the NIPCC is wrong will consist of "They're just a ragtag bunch of deniers, all of them racist".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5399

PostPosted: Tue Apr 01, 2014 3:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Very funny. Isobars misquoted Fred Singer's interview on PBS on this forum--as he has ignored the more recent work of the author of "Cool It"--

I don't know anything about their racial bias, but funded by big oil? You betcha. Through the Heartland Institute. Here's just a taste:

Quote:
NIPCC traces its beginnings to an informal meeting held in Milan, Italy in 2003 organized by Dr. S. Fred Singer and the Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP).


Of course, now 90, Fred's most infamous role was as an apologist for tobacco. Here's how he established his credibility to make money lying for big oil and big coal, from Sourcewatch:

I
Quote:
n 1994, Singer was Chief Reviewer of the report Science, economics, and environmental policy: a critical examination published by the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution (AdTI). This was all part of an attack on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency funded by the Tobacco Institute over a risk assessment on environmental tobacco smoke. [18] At that time, Mr. Singer was a Senior Fellow with AdTI.[19]
"The report's principal reviewer, Dr. Fred Singer, was involved with the International Center for a Scientific Ecology, a group that was considered important in Philip Morris' plans to create a group in Europe similar to The Advancement for Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), as discussed by Ong and Glantz. He was also on a tobacco industry list of people who could write op-ed pieces on "junk science," defending the industry's views.39" [20]
In 1995, as President of the Science and Environmental Policy Project (a think tank based in Fairfax, Virginia) S. Fred Singer was involved in launching a publicity campaign about "The Top Five Environmental Myths of 1995," a list that included the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's conclusion that secondhand tobacco smoke is a human carcinogen. Shandwick, a public relations agency working for British American Tobacco, pitched the "Top Five Myths" list idea to Singer to minimize the appearance of tobacco industry involvement in orchestrating criticism of the EPA. The "Top Five Environmental Myths" list packaged EPA's secondhand smoke ruling with other topics like global warming and radon gas, to help minimize the appearance of tobacco industry involvement in the effort. According to a 1996 BAT memo describing the arrangement, Singer agreed to an "aggressive media interview schedule" organized by Shandwick to help publicize his criticism of EPA's conclusions.[21]


It just goes to prove Mencken's comment, "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." There's money to be made lying for big carbon. Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 14339

PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2014 7:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The WSJ staff weighs in with this assessment of the latest IPCC report.
http://tinyurl.com/kpchr2l
Excerpts:

The latest U.N. report tones down the alarmism but ramps up the bad economics. ... "Improvement" ... may not be saying much, but on climate change intellectual progress of any sort is worth commending. ... the usual alarmist headlines ... typical ... sexed up for mass media

Gone are some of the false alarmist claims from the last report, such as the forecast that the Himalayan glaciers would vanish by 2035 or that hurricanes are becoming more intense. "Current data sets," the report admits, "indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century."

refreshingly honest admission that "current alarmist predictions of massive flows of so-called 'environmental refugees' or 'environmental migrants' are not supported ... and are tentative at best."

more cautious about temperature predictions ... "the innate behavior of the climate system imposes limits on the ability to predict its evolution."

All of this vindicates what we wrote about the 2007 report: "Beware claims that the science of global warming is settled." ... humanity has lots of problems, climate change being one of them. And as with other problems, humanity will cope and adapt.

authors venture from cautious climate science into the most politically correct forms of political science. "Existing gender inequalities are increased or heightened by climate-related hazards," says the report, while dilating on the deleterious effects global warming has on "discrimination based on gender, age, race, class, caste, indigeneity, and (dis)ability ... Recognizing how inequality and marginalization perpetuate poverty is a prerequisite for climate-resilient development pathways,"

[ummm ... SAY WHAT?]

The IPCC also turns out to have an agenda that's less about climate change than income inequality and redistribution. ... just 3 trillion in reparations.

If one Solyndra wasn't enough, try underwriting thousands of them. Preferably in third-world countries. For those who suspect that the purported threat of global warming is really a vehicle of convenience for reviving the discredited economics of the 1970s, this IPCC report will serve as Exhibit A.

the IPCC supports the very regulation, income redistribution, and politically favored misallocation of resources that will make the world poorer—and less able to adapt if the climate threat proves to be as real as the U.N.'s computer models claim.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GURGLETROUSERS



Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Posts: 1368

PostPosted: Thu Apr 10, 2014 3:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have read and tried to make sense of a counter attack on the final draft of the IPCC report.

In brief, Prof Richard Tol (climate ECONOMIST from Sussex University and a co-ordinatring author of a chapter in the IPCC report) refused to sign the final hammered out draft which overrode his initial submission. on the grounds that it is 'sexed up' and too alarmist. (His initial submission was that a SMALL rise in global temperature would be beneficial in some ways.)

A smear campaigne against Tol claiming errors in his work (led by Bob Ward, Director of Policy at the London School of Economics - he is neither an economist nor a climate expert) has led to a lot of in-fighting in the ranks, with Tol being supported by fellow co-ordinator Professor Arent, Director of Americas National Renewable Energy Laboratory, who claims their initial submission (which was rejected) had been triple checked for errors, and they had nade a single slight alteration.

The criticism is NOT that global warming factors (ignoring counter cooling forces for the moment) are in doubt, but that the figures are simply too alarmist, and the effects may be no where near so bad as predicted.

All this political subterfuge stuff is bull! Most of us long ago removed our tin foil hats, but, as they say -'Fools rush in etc!'
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GURGLETROUSERS



Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Posts: 1368

PostPosted: Thu Apr 10, 2014 12:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

To clarify above. (Was in a rush to get out this morning and may be misunderstood.)

Those working in the climate field have now accumulated a considerable body of research which leaves little doubt that warming from human activity is a significant factor.

Differences in interpretation hinge on the extent and severity of future changes, along with the social and economic consequences. Those consequences can hardly be just ignored.

Anyone now claiming that all the climate scientists have no integrity, and are all working to some hidden socialist agenda of world wealth distribution, is himself a political 'nut job.'

If the IPCC report is correct, give or take a reasonable range around their quoted figures, then the social and political consequences will indeed be serious. If counter theory of solar cooling cycle lasting for a century or so (still just a theory and, as yet, not quite provable) is correct it will hold the human warming factors (not disputed by the Russians) in check, or possible even reverse the trend.

I see no contradiction in that!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 300, 301, 302 ... 347, 348, 349  Next
Page 301 of 349

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group