2lane

Crime is a legit worry but you're more likely to get waxed in your car, in a random or accidental shooting, or from a "failure to respond" incident in your local hospital than getting killed by a terrorist or act of terrorism.

Advertising

wyly

Lavosier- coal miners yeah they'll be objective won't they....

Quote:

Global Warming Science and Public Policy - What is Wrong with the IPCC?

author Hans Labohm...an Economic Historian, yeah he's really qualified ...nicely discredited by Bowerbird

the debate has been on for 40 yrs in peer reviewed papers, consensus decides the victory, deniers have lost

it goes back to 98 because deniers claimed warming had stopped in 98, 98 was a particularly hot year but it coincided with el Nino

yup, read it before, ...a who's who of scientists and non scientists who are funded by various energy corporations, thoroughly discredited...70 of his 400 experts weren't scientists

Sen. Inhofe won a an award for Friend of the Oil Industry or something like that..

compare that to
Inhofes 400 Global Warming Deniers Debunked - 400 Scientists Doubt Climate Change - thedailygreen.com

so 400 industry funded scientists, economists and tv weathermen vs 50,000 earth ocean and atmospheric scientists of the AGU....yeah I think the debate has been settled by consensus...

wyly

that's naive...it's called conflict of interest...I live in region where the energy industry is massive, our entire economy is tied to oil, gas and coal naturally people tend to support the energy industry because it pays the mortgage....scientists who receive government grants (and I know one) aren't under any pressure to produce biased results, they'll still have a job and funding regardless of their findings pro or con....

strange you critize government funded scientists in one post then use a Senate minority report as support in another....first the government is biased then it isn't?

98 was an el Nino year and it was significantly warmer (until 2006) it was the warmest year ever recorded (since records began) ...I don't know if El Nino's and Nina's are predicted to be more common long term but GW will make them more severe...

Bowerbird

Wiki was convenient - I could have used any one of a dozen or so sources from the net.
There is a LOT of information about the disinformation campaign that Exxon has run. George Monbiot on climate change and Big Tobacco | Environment | The Guardian
If you WANT to believe hype over facts that is fine by me. As for the global warming activists who "pressured" the BBC - well I would like some links on THAT too. But tell me, if you were a concerned scientist and someone was putting out disinformation - what would you do? And please believe me the old BEEB does NOT bow to pressure just because someone says they do not like what they are airing.
I am googling it up now but I have a strong feeling that this is a sham contest - but just looking at the rules tells me all I need to know


Entrants acknowledge that the concepts and terms mentioned and referred to in the UGWC hypotheses are inherently and necessarily vague, and involve subjective judgment. JunkScience.com reserves the exclusive right to determine the meaning and application of such concepts and terms in order to facilitate the purpose of the contest.
JunkScience.com's Ultimate Global Warming Challenge


In other words it is rigged - Look at the second "hypothesis" Yeah! that one is like trying to prove that a blind person sees the same colour purple as you do!!

You did. But an El Nino has bigger influence here in Australia. This is why I knew you were talking out of your hat on the El Nino effect because we watch the Southern Oscillation Index daily.

Australia is going to be one of the first and worst affected countries when it comes to global warming. So excuse me if I find the "!@# the rest of the world we are OK" attitude just a little offensive.

This sad little lizard told me that he was a brontosaurus on his mother’s side. I did not laugh; people who boast of ancestry often have little else to sustain them. Humouring them costs nothing and adds to happiness in a world in which happiness is always in short supply.

R. A. Heinlein

At present, the internet allows one to claim anything, relationship to royalty, physical attributes and expertise they do not have...........

Bowerbird

Back to the "Junkscience "contest"" Sorry but I am wetting my britches reading about this!!

To have a chance to win Steve Milloy’s contest, you must disprove his twin, extremely nebulous hypotheses that people aren’t causing global warming and that global warming is a good thing. The money is coming out of Milloy’s pocket, he’s is the judge of all entries, and he doesn’t have to choose a winner.
You must reject the scientific virtue of building on your peers’ research for your submission, your submission may be manipulated and used for whatever propaganda Milloy sees fit, and you may not sue him.
When you enter the contest, you will be given a t-shirt letting everyone around you know what a dumbass you are, which raises the catch-22 of this contest: You’d have to be a puke-drooling nimrod stupider than a cup of dirt to enter the contest in the first place. In other words, stupider than Steve Milloy (and that’s lowwwwww), who will continue bragging about how there are still no winners for a contest that will not even be announcing winners until February 2009.
The Ultimate Global Warming Challenge is ultimately a great big steaming pile of horse-patootey, and Steve Milloy isn’t so much a corporate “tool,” but more of a “Useful Idiot.” I wonder what that makes his audience?


ideonexus.com � Blog Archive � Steve Milloy’s Ultimate Global Warming Challenge

This sad little lizard told me that he was a brontosaurus on his mother’s side. I did not laugh; people who boast of ancestry often have little else to sustain them. Humouring them costs nothing and adds to happiness in a world in which happiness is always in short supply.

R. A. Heinlein

At present, the internet allows one to claim anything, relationship to royalty, physical attributes and expertise they do not have...........

mjdsr

I try to read up on issues that are of concern to me, and the debate over AGW is an issue I read up on often. I was going by what I remembered reading. I can admit when I misstate something, so if that means that I am talking out of my hat, so be it.

I already stated before that I wouldn't argue against living "greener" My problem is the government's hype about issues that are yet to be proven. I am more concerned with the ill effects that the drastic proposals being offered will have. And I have still yet to read anything that proves that humans are the cause for global warming.

Bowerbird

If you read science magazines you would find you are not alone in your concern. Even the scientists are questioning our plans to do something about this problem.

This is the REAL problem I have with Exxons little tricks - they have made the debate itself seem to be the final say. So instead of being able to argue the fine points i.e. will the ocean get saltier - they made it seem that ANY paper that questions any part of the science is proof that the entire field is flawed.

Exxon has probably done more to stifle debate on this than any "global conspiracy" of scientists.

I find this site to be not only pretty up to date with the latest thinking but also fair, in that they WILL publish criticisms

Special Report on Climate Change - New Scientist Environment

This sad little lizard told me that he was a brontosaurus on his mother’s side. I did not laugh; people who boast of ancestry often have little else to sustain them. Humouring them costs nothing and adds to happiness in a world in which happiness is always in short supply.

R. A. Heinlein

At present, the internet allows one to claim anything, relationship to royalty, physical attributes and expertise they do not have...........