America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

The only Academy with a dissenting opinion is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists... And you want to talk about supporters?

To even think that mankind can have an effect just shows how full of themselves these ''scientist'' are. We all know they can get whatever results they want when they want, include this data, exclude this it's a joke. It's all agenda driven, get a grip.

Yes, because they were all pumping gas and flipping burgers before the climate change gravy train pulled in...they are just in science for the money, said no real scientist ever.

An aside, my BIL is forgoing a $400K salary as a gastroenterologist so that he can do research instead and make $60k. What is his hidden agenda aside from learning more and helping people?

his agenda is he's a moron,,,

work place violence rather than Terrorism,,,

Tomato,, Toomatoooo


wheel,

Never took the job so he couldn't get laid off.


So money is all that matters. And that is the core of the climate change deniers, the people feeding them "news" will get less money if we try to do anything...If I'm right I just get a place for my daughter eventual offspring to inhabit if this place still exists.

ok you are the moron,,,

all the money goes to Voo Doo Global warming communists,,

Actually, it isn't relevant unless you're looking for someone or something to blame. If you're just concerned about the planet's environment 50 or 100 years down the road, then it isn't particularly relevant. All that would be relevant is whether you want to find a way to secure the current environmental conditions (the ones that are pretty good for us).


That's not a dataset. I actually mean data... you know, numbers. Show me actual information backing up your statement that there were extreme climactic changes (I'm not actually doubting your statement here, I just want to see the exact same numbers you are looking at, so we're working off the same information).


Yes. It's all about control. Did you ever for a moment think that if the individuals actually believe that there is any risk to the current environment they would want to find a way to fix it?

I wonder how much money been made off this thing..

all passed on to the consumer of course....

I thought it was socialists?

Instead of looking into one off scams or conspiracy theories it would be good for people on the right to look into the vast number of peer reviewed studies and research findings on the opposing side.

BTW - I tried looking into it but all I found were biased sites. I would love a link from a reputable source.

This is nothing more than an assumption that the man caused 'climate change' claim is valid.


Sorry, there were no known data gathering environmentalists a hundred million years ago. However, finding fossil evidence of rain forests in what are now temperate or arid areas would tend to support the fact that global climate has changed, sometimes drastically, throughout Earth's history.

They obviously have an agenda beyond 'saving the Earth'. The fact that environmentalists doggedly insist on assuming control of the means of production via ever more strict environmental controls despite the fact that they have to continually modify their doomsday predictions - global cooling, then global warming, and now climate change - tells me that their true goal is control, not in saving the environment per se.

read this,,,

14 Sep 2013


A new study has found that climate predictions used by scientists, forecasters, and academics have wildly overestimated global warming, forecasting on average two times more warming than actually occurred.

As Fox News reports, a study in the science journal Nature Climate Change "compared 117 climate predictions made in the 1990s to the actual amount of warming." And out of those 117 predictions, according to the study's author, "three were roughly accurate and 114 overestimated the amount of warming. On average, the predictions forecasted two times more global warming than actually occurred."

John Christy, a professor at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, told Fox News that he "looked at 73 climate models going back to 1979 and every single one predicted more warming than happened in the real world."

Many of these "overestimations also made their way into the popular press." For instance, the Associated Press in 1989 reported, "Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide 2 degrees by 2010." Such articles then became the launching point for many other stories in local papers and national newscasts. According to NASA, though, "global temperature has increased by less than half that—about 0.7 degrees Fahrenheit—from 1989 to 2010."

"I think in one sense the climate establishment is embarrassed by this, and so they're trying to minimize the problem," Christy said. "The fundamental thing a climate model is supposed to predict is temperature. And yet it gets that wrong."


doh

LOL, biased is subjective to who's reading it, round and round we go.

Swing and a miss....w:d/

I do love a good ribeye.

no. I am stating that if the data is showing a trend towards an environment which is not particularly beneficial for our current way of life, and a person had a vested interest in the medium near future, then that person should be concerned with methods of reversing that trend. Not throwing their hands up in the air and saying "it's natural, nothing I can do about it". Because man has never bothered defying nature or anything... not our thing at all....


Honestly, I'm curious as to which paleontology articles you're talking about. I'm curious because while we always accept the "wildly varying climates" statement, I've never looked at any articles specifically pinpointing fossils of rain forests on landmasses that were in temperate and/or arid areas at the time (the land masses have moved, so I'm curious as to how they pinpointed this temporally and geographically).


Ah. yes... obviously.
Look, as I've said before, I don't particularly care about the earth. But even I am willing to see that if someone actually believes something is important, they would work to try to change it. PETA isn't fully of socialists trying to control the means of fur and food production, their misguided people who don't realize that if cows had developed opposeable thumbs before we did we would be in those pens being fattened for veal. Do you think every catholic is agenda driven to control the means of reproduction?

You need a bible.

Jesus will give me airconditioning like Obama gives poor people phones.









(Maybe he's void of hubris that man cannot fix a problem it didn't create?)

Tomato,, Toomatoooo

wheel,



Thanks Wheel.

In searching for John Christy you have a 50/50 split between sites saying he is a crackpot with only two other scientists that have ever written or agreed with him, and on the other sites he is a highly regarded scientist who spoke in front of congress.

One that had actual references to support it's claims is clearly biased from the liberal/believer side, but the facts are convincing. It seems he is cherry picking the troposphere temperature which are much harder to measure accurately. When measuring ground temps the models have been very accurate and the warming has been as predicted.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/christy-testimony.html

Some people just refuse to celebrate the passing of the Laurentide ice sheet.

My only caveat to this is that I would not call the fossil evidence worthless. All information is valuable, this is just half the necessary picture. I like to think that a smart person has combined fossil evidence with continent shift, but I don't necessarily follow this closely. So I'd like to see it.

You know, this is a very interesting discussion point Victor. If this correlation hasn't been investigated thoroughly, it should be.


I don't believe that there are anything but temporary, naturally caused global temperature arcs. The man-made global Climate Change predictions have swung from at first global cooling, then to global warming, and to now the catch-all term of 'climate change'. I find it difficult to put any faith in studies that give early on, two totally opposite predictions then abandons both and eventually arrives at a catch-all sort of prediction. 'Climate Change' is like a meteorologist predicting that tomorrow, we'll have 'scattered weather'. To me, 'Climate Change' falls into the 'No sh*t, Sherlock' level of believability. Climate changes. Always has changed whether we were around or not.

But I digress, as usual. Personally, although we may see micro and very localized changes in climate caused by natural cycles or gremlins, overall (by overall I mean on the order of many thousands of years) I believe there is but one overarching cause of climate change...natural cycles of the earth's climate.

No, it will be part of the socialist, communist, elitist, etc. agenda and you will just be a victim of it.

Didn't Dr. Evil use a "laser" to control plate tectonics?

New study says threat of man-made global warming greatly exaggerated

By Doug McKelway
Published September 19, 2013

A peer-reviewed climate change study released Wednesday by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change finds the threat of man-made global warming to be not only greatly exaggerated but so small as to be “embedded within the background variability of the natural climate system” and not dangerous.

Armed with the new findings, Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee grilled administration environmental policy officials about the economic consequences of its aggressive regulatory crackdown on the fossil fuel industry.

The 1,000 page study was the work of 47 scientists and scholars examining many of the same journals and studies that the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change (UNIPCC) examined, producing entirely different conclusions.

"This volume provides the scientific balance that is missing from the overly alarmist reports from the IPCC, which are highly selective in their review of climate science," the authors write.

The study was done under the auspices of the Heartland Institute, which claims it "has no formal attachment to or sponsorship from any government or governmental agency."

The Heartland Institute’s president, Joseph Bast, said of the study, "The big issue in the global warming debate is how large is the human impact on climate. And this report shows that it is very small, that natural variability, the variability that's caused by natural cycles of the sun and other factors, way outweigh anything the human impact could have."

The report comes in advance of the expected release later this month of a new U.N. report on climate change. Leaked drafts of that report show surface temperature increases have been statistically insignificant for the last 15 years, and that Antarctic sea ice is increasing, not decreasing.

In addition, new satellite measurements of Arctic sea ice show it has increased this year.

At the House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing Wednesday, Republicans particularly wanted to know what President Obama planned to do to address those fossil fuel workers who've lost their jobs as a result of administration policy.

In a major address at Georgetown University last June, Obama promised there would be a special plan for those workers.

"So I would ask either one of you what are the special plans in the president's action plan to help address these people who are losing their jobs, " Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) asked EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz.

"I'm not familiar with the details of those plans, but I am familiar from reading the climate action plan that the president sees this as both a challenge and an economic opportunity," McCarthy replied.

That exchange led to a testy retort by Ralph Hall (R-Tex.). "You got a better answer than I received from Mrs. McCarthy about a year ago before the science committee," Hall told McCarthy. "I may have asked you a question you didn't like and your answer was, ‘I'm not in the business of creating jobs.’”

Committee Democrats, along with McCarthy and Moniz, set out to counter Republican skepticism about the impact of climate change.

"The evidence is overwhelming and the science is clear," said Moniz. "The threat from climate change is real and urgent. The basic science behind climate change is simple. Carbon dioxide makes the earth warmer, and we are admitting more and more of it into the atmosphere."

Moniz added that any stabilization of surface temperatures in recent years was an indication of a "hiatus" of global warming, not an end to global warming.

Told of Moniz's remarks, astrophysicist Willy Soon, one of the NIPCC's leading scientists, reacted incredulously. "So tell us when is it going to rise again?” he asked. “This is a question that not only me, as a scientist, is asking , but all the lay persons should begin asking."

The Heartland Institute's Bast told Fox News that there are no climate models used by proponents of global warming that predict a lull in warming.

"Point to the model that predicted this hiatus," he said. "No increase in violent weather , no increase in hurricanes. All of this and we're still supposed to believe the models... models they picked because they supported their political interests, not because they represented good science."

Film at 11.....