Heritics and the Eco Inquistion - New England Patriots Forums

***patsfan13*** · 06-13-2006, 10:26 AM

in other threads there have been conversations on whether or not there is a consensus o Global as the left believe's. During the course of this conversation the subject of wether science refuting Global warming resulting from natural causes or man made causes was not valid because it came from 'indutry' sponsered reasearch. Is research sponsered by academic institutions and goverment more 'pure' and untainted by an agenda.

I wanted to provide data, hopefully from 'reliable' mainstream media sources about these issues, since anything from 'tainted' (conservative) meida sources are generally rejected out of hand without examination.

If you read the linked articles youwill see that scientist are being intimidated into scilence by the Eco Inquistion, those that don't comply, no matter their crenditals are having their funding pulled.

Please take the opportunity to read the linked articles.

link: http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_3899807

Quote:

The only inconvenient truth about global warming, contends Colorado State University's Bill Gray, is that a genuine debate has never actually taken place. Hundreds of scientists, many of them prominent in the field, agree.

Gray is perhaps the world's foremost hurricane expert. His Tropical Storm Forecast sets the standard. Yet, his criticism of the global warming "hoax" makes him an outcast.

Comments on the effects for an academian having the 'wrong' science:

Quote:

Another highly respected climatologist, Roger Pielke Sr. at the University of Colorado, is also skeptical.....

There aren't just two sides here. There are a range of opinions on this issue. A lot of scientists out there that are very capable of presenting other views are not being heard."

More from Dr Gray:

Quote:

"Let's just say a crowd of baby boomers and yuppies have hijacked this thing," Gray says. "It's about politics. Very few people have experience with some real data.

And the effects on young scientist:

Quote:

Both Gray and Pielke say there are many younger scientists who voice their concerns about global warming hysteria privately but would never jeopardize their careers by speaking up.

"Plenty of young people tell me they don't believe it," he says. "But they won't touch this at all. If they're smart, they'll say: 'I'm going to let this run its course.' It's a sort of mild McCarthyism. I just believe in telling the truth the best I can. I was brought up that way."

More on Dr Gray's problem with the Global warming MC Carthyite's:

link:http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dw...g.9047767.html

Quote:

It should be glorious to be William Gray, professor emeritus. He's the guy who predicts the number of hurricanes for the coming tropical storm season. He works on a country road leading into the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains, in the atmospheric science department of Colorado State University. He's mentored dozens of scientists.

Quote:

He was supposed to debate another scientist at a weather conference, but the organizer found him to be too obstreperous and disinvited him.

Much of his government funding has dried up. He has had to use his money, more than $100,000, to keep his research going. He feels intellectually abandoned. If none of his colleagues comes to his funeral, he said, that'll be evidence that he had the courage to say what they were afraid to admit. Which is this: Global warming is a hoax.

"I am of the opinion that this is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people," he said.

Rahter than encourge a full discusion of research and issues. The Eco Inquistion seeks to cut of debate and eliminate any dissenting voices. So much for 'tolerance' and 'freedom of speech' the left claims to cherish.

Mainefan · 06-13-2006, 11:28 AM

Have your funding pulled? Doesn't that work the other way around in Washington these days?

There is one good thing about global warming. It's either going to affect us or it won't.

If it doesn't, all the doom-sayers will look foolish.

If it does, all the doubters will be scrambling for higher ground, the world food supply will be endangered, the hurricanes will be worse and the coastal cities will all look like Venice (which will be gone.)

Let's see now. The risk of looking foolish vs. the risk of putting civilization in danger.

Seems to me that it's an easy choice--except for a party composed mainly of clones of Amity Island's Mayor Vaughn, in Jaws.

Blue Collar · 06-13-2006, 11:38 AM

Unfortunately '' intelligence failures happen'' when one view is accepted.

***patsfan13*** · 06-13-2006, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mainefan

Have your funding pulled? Doesn't that work the other way around in Washington these days?

There is one good thing about global warming. It's either going to affect us or it won't.

If it doesn't, all the doom-sayers will look foolish.

If it does, all the doubters will be scrambling for higher ground, the world food supply will be endangered, the hurricanes will be worse and the coastal cities will all look like Venice (which will be gone.)

Let's see now. The risk of looking foolish vs. the risk of putting civilization in danger.

Seems to me that it's an easy choice--except for a party composed mainly of clones of Amity Island's Mayor Vaughn, in Jaws.

The funding is controlled, the global warming fanatics are entrenched in the bureauracy. 2 things, These same alarmist were demanding goverment action against the coming ice age 25 years before the global warming scare. What if we had changed policy then? 2nd there is evidence that during the warmest period in the earth's history the Upper latitudes warmed up significently but the tropics did not. This confused the reasearches whoi were looking for catastrophic results. Maybe they will fudge the data to get what they want.

Oh BTW no global warming since 1998 we've gotten cooler. Here are the links:

From the MIT Technology Review:
http://www.technologyreview.com/read...830&ch=biztech

Quote:

Global Warming Bombshell
A prime piece of evidence linking human activity to climate change turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics.

By Richard Muller

Progress in science is sometimes made by great discoveries. But science also advances when we learn that something we believed to be true isnt. When solving a jigsaw puzzle, the solution can sometimes be stymied by the fact that a wrong piece has been wedged in a key place.

In the scientific and political debate over global warming, the latest wrong piece may be the hockey stick, the famous plot (shown below), published by University of Massachusetts geoscientist Michael Mann and colleagues. This plot purports to show that we are now experiencing the warmest climate in a millennium, and that the earth, after remaining cool for centuries during the medieval era, suddenly began to heat up about 100 years ago--just at the time that the burning of coal and oil led to an increase in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide.

I talked about this at length in my December 2003 column. Unfortunately, discussion of this plot has been so polluted by political and activist frenzy that it is hard to dig into it to reach the science. My earlier column was largely a plea to let science proceed unmolested. Unfortunately, the very importance of the issue has made careful science difficult to pursue.

But now a shock: Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have uncovered a fundamental mathematical flaw in the computer program that was used to produce the hockey stick. In his original publications of the stick, Mann purported to use a standard method known as principal component analysis, or PCA, to find the dominant features in a set of more than 70 different climate records.

Next:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m.../09/do0907.xml

Quote:

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998
By Bob Carter(Filed: 09/04/2006)

For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).

Yes, you did read that right. And also, yes, this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say "how silly to judge climate change over such a short period". Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by the curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate.

Sun responsible? Algore calls for regualtion of Sun?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/56456.stm

Quote:

Friday, February 13, 1998 Published at 19:25 GMT

Sci/Tech

Scientists blame sun for global warming

The Sun is more active than it has ever been in the last 300 years
Climate changes such as global warming may be due to changes in the sun rather than to the release of greenhouse gases on Earth.

Climatologists and astronomers speaking at the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Philadelphia say the present warming may be unusual - but a mini ice age could soon follow.

The sun provides all the energy that drives our climate, but it is not the constant star it might seem.

Careful studies over the last 20 years show that its overall brightness and energy output increases slightly as sunspot activity rises to the peak of its 11-year cycle.

And individual cycles can be more or less active.

The sun is currently at its most active for 300 years.

Mainefan · 06-13-2006, 01:52 PM

Cooling eh? Then where are all the glaciers going. They are melting everywhere on earth. Take a look at pictures from Glacier National Park 20 years ago and today. Try to find the glaciers. Take a look at Mt. Kilimanjaro. Used to be snow-capped. Check out the frozen North Pole. The ice sheet has shrunk so much that it no longer contains enough game to support the polar bear. Get pictures of the South Pole, and the Rhode Island-sized iceberg that broke away and is now melting.

"There is no such thing as global warming," the Boston Republican said. They were his last words, as the rising sea swept him away.

The simple truth is, Patsfan13, for every article you can find doubting global warming, I can find 10 attesting to it. But the proof is already visible all over the world.

***patsfan13*** · 06-13-2006, 02:37 PM

I suspect you haven't actually read the articles. They all talk about warming. however they don't view it as a necessarily, the last articles refer to the last 8 years after some 80 years of warming, they also point we are in a period of increasd solar activity. Then ther is the real question if the Co 2 levels were to cause the planet to warm significently would it really be a problem? The climatalogical record would say NO.

link:http://www.physorg.com/news68305951.html

excerpts:

Quote:

The cylindrical core samples contained the remains of ancient plant and animal life, which yielded critical new information about the Arctic Ocean during that time. Researchers used a recently developed technique called TEX-86, which enables scientists to measure the temperatures that existed when ancient organisms lived by analyzing the composition of fatty substances called lipids in their cell membranes. Using this technique, the researchers found that sea surface temperatures at the North Pole had soared to 23 degrees Celsius, or around 73 degrees Fahrenheit, during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, or the PETM, about 55 million years ago. Today's mean annual temperature at the North Pole is around minus 20 degrees Celsius, Huber said.
.....

The concentration of carbon dioxide in today's atmosphere is about 380 parts per million, whereas the concentration 55 million years ago was about 2,000 parts per million.

"We now have a pretty good correlation between records of past warmth and higher carbon dioxide concentrations," Huber said. "What it tells you is that it's not too difficult to push the climate system to a warm state. This event was a large release of a greenhouse gas. That's why it's a good analog for today's greenhouse-gas emissions, and it shows without a doubt that if you pump a bunch of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere, the planet warms.

"If you work out the numbers, it's almost identical to what we are expected to do over the next few hundred years."

While the climate models had predicted that researchers would discover the Arctic Ocean's freshwater past, the models have consistently underestimated by at least 10 degrees how hot the Earth would have been during that time, Huber said.

The models fail to explain another puzzling fact. The temperature difference between the North Pole and the equator today is about 45 degrees C. But the difference appears to have been much smaller during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum time frame. Otherwise, it would have been too hot for vegetation to survive in equatorial latitudes.

So in a time of massive amounts of CO2 in the air, the planet seems to have been a rather temperate. The humorour part is they are concerned that global warming caused the earth to be MORE hospitiable to life. The tropics were the same temp. They were expecting (hoping?) the tropics were going to heat up radically.

Man made is a religious belief for the left not science.

[/quote]

***Patters*** · 06-13-2006, 03:06 PM

patsfan13, why are you so adamantly against fighting global warming. While you can find the odd totally legitimate scientist who disputes the findings of the majority, many good and qualified scientists believe that human activities are causing global warming to progress in way that constitutes danger for low-lying areas. Shouldn't we err on the side of caution and do what we can? What harm is there if we invest in new technology and force companies to do the same so that we create a cleaner environment? Even if you don't believe in global warming, why not use it as a tool to clean our environment? It would not only be healthier, it would spawn new technology and new industry.

***patsfan13*** · 06-13-2006, 03:34 PM

Good and fair question Patters which I attempted to anyswer in another postHere goes:

1) There is no compelling evidence that Global warming is caused by Man, ehnce ther is nothing to 'fight'.

2) I question people who rahter than examining an issue, cry crisis, then demogouge the issue and stifle 'dissent by lying (claiming a consensus where one doesn't exist. Especially when the 'solution' is a large, powerful internation bueauracy, which woudl control our econimic future.

3) There is no evidence that the global warming would even be bad for the human race. The effects of even the largest projected increases in tempature (wether man made or natural), woudl create the problem the believers predict.

There are lots of real problems that need to be worked on where we can have a definite impact (eg improperly treated human waste being dumped in hte oceans) this IMO isnt one of them.

Mainefan · 06-13-2006, 03:42 PM

Patfan13, no I haven't read the articles--at least no more than 50 or 100 of them. But I have talked to a number of the scientists studying the phenomenon. They are convinced and so am I.

What I don't understand is why this is a political issue. In fact, I'm completely mystified by that. I always admired the strong conservation streak in the Republican philosophy. What's happened to it?

In a way, it reminds me of the way the Iron Curtain countries treated environmentalism. In brief, they didn't give a damn about the environment. It would never have occurred to them to spend money to preserve it. The result is that there are ecological catastrophies throughout the former Communist world.

And yet, surprisingly, Russia has voted to abide by the Kyoto Treaty.

Isn't it odd how things change?

ctpatsfan1 · 06-13-2006, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mainefan

Have your funding pulled? Doesn't that work the other way around in Washington these days?

There is one good thing about global warming. It's either going to affect us or it won't.

If it doesn't, all the doom-sayers will look foolish.

If it does, all the doubters will be scrambling for higher ground, the world food supply will be endangered, the hurricanes will be worse and the coastal cities will all look like Venice (which will be gone.)

Let's see now. The risk of looking foolish vs. the risk of putting civilization in danger.
Seems to me that it's an easy choice--except for a party composed mainly of clones of Amity Island's Mayor Vaughn, in Jaws.

heh that was the same argument used by Bush and his "advisors" to go to war in Iraq.........

btw the risk is not "looking foolish" it is very much like the Iraq war......we risk pissing away billions perhaps trillions of $ economically because the envrionmentalists, like the Bush WH was scared of a boogie man that didn't exist or conversely existed but wasn't a threat when all was said and done.

I am all for less pollution and finding other means of energy aside from fossil fuels. But lets approach it like we did the race to the moon in the 60's not the race to war like we did with Iraq.