Barnes: "Obama ought to recognize that the science" of climate change "is in dispute"
November 25, 2009 6:47 pm ET
From the November 25 edition of Fox News' Special Report:
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
How about 97%?
so, a "majority" in this case is the same as the "majority" who voted for bush in '00 and '04, and obama in '08. given the fact that a whopping "majority" of 35% of the population in a country of 300 million voted-in the residing president (how representative). not that science cares about democracy anyway, im just pointing it out.
"The survey, conducted among researchers listed in the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments*, "found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role". "
hmmm, read that again... "97 percent agreeing humans play a role" ... okay.... 'playing a role' is one thing. the various causes of climate change, and to what degree, is quite another. meanwhile, people continue to do things (lobby, regulate, heckle, plan for the future, modify behavior, etc) based on what they think they know.
"the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming"... oh really?? sounds to me like there is a conflation of 'consensus' and 'causes' going on here. there is much to distinguish if accuracy is going to be any measure of success. amazing what a little unspecificity in language can imply, whether by design or not.
Since he made the claim , why doesn't he respond, maybe his link would be more credible than yours.
See, that is how surveys work. We infer that 90 percent of scientists believe that global warming is real (+/- a margin of error). we don't draw conclusions based upon "those contacted" - or we say that the contact isn't complete until the survey is returned.
We cannot and do not infer anything from those surveys that are not returned - that is just stupid.
Oh, nevermind.
Neither did I, you are implying that I did and I did not. I simply stated that this survey was not support for the claim of the initial poster, who stated as fact that 95% of the world's scientist believed that global warming was real. Not you , him or anyone else has presented evidence to support his claim. I guess you allow other libs to say whatever they want to without evidence, while you require cons to proove every word they say. A true devotee of MMFA. He made what MMFA would call another "baseless claim"
90% of those responding (with the usual margin of error) believe in global warming. Your "30%" is a number fraught with unjustified inference.
While my source doesn't completely support 3amnoise, I find it to be pretty convincing (unless you are a selective reader only looking for reasons to shoot something down).
To me, the most interesting statistic there is the least surprising. Petroleum geologists were most likely to deny global warming. Gee, I wonder why? Whereas 96% of climatologists agree that anthropogenic global warming is a real phenomenon.
This is a fight you won't win. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Its atmospheric concentrations have doubled since the advent of industrialism. The oceans are growing more acidic. The permafrost is beginning to melt. Do you know what will happen if we cross the threshold, and the permafrost really does melt? Can you guess what will happen when all that methane is released? What will happen when the oceans warm sufficiently that the solubility of CO2 drops off?
Good guess, he's not any more slick than the ham-handed Hannity. I was seriously backtracking, and checking the link again trying to figure out where he was going.
I don't know if even Sean would attempt to interpret a survey by counting a group who responded against the total number given the opportunity to take the survey.
Do you think this was deliberate obfuscation by Faillib, or is this actually how the wingnut brain operates after years of abuse? I'm serious, I don't know for sure that FL was pretending to be confused.
Obviously you all miss the point I was making.It seems you are a bit confused. The other poster claimed that 95% of the world's scientists believed in GW and that man was responsible. That is garbage and there is no support for it. The link provided did not support that fact. Period. The survey cited points to about 2700 scientists who believe in GW and about 2500 who believe man is responsible. On a planet with almost 7 billion people that is a drop in the bucket. And in no way does it support his claim.
I watched a bit of a show last week where Beck gathered about 60 doctors from the NY area, the vast majority of which stated that Obama's health care program would be bad. There were a few med students who liked it. Would you then accept their conclusions like you accept the conclusions of these scientists. Of course not, they don't agree with you. And then 60 minutes did a piece on the waste in the medical system and presented doctors who supported the overhaul of the system. What's the point?, it just shows that there are opinions on both sides. Watch a trial, there will be "experts" presenting opposing opinions, how can that be?
Global warming is no different. And global warming has become a huge profit center for Gore and his investors.
So what you are saying is that only you can decide what data might be true and what is garbage?
Watch a trial, there will be "experts" presenting opposing opinions, how can that be?
OK I think I get it. Just like tobacco (smoking is addictive, no it isn't) the fact that someone presents an appossing position means that no one should make a decision and should just continue to support the status quo?
Please cite your information on this bit of news, AND BE SPECIFIC WITH REGARDS TO EXACTLY WHAT IS BEING DONE WITH THE MONEY. Is it pocketed as personal profit, or invested in some way that tries to deal with the issue?
But, here we go anyway...
In a poll like this, one needs to focus on 3 things -
1. Was the sampling reasonably random?
2. What was the size of the sample?
3. Where the questions neutral, or leading?
It appears this poll passed all 3 criteria.
3100 respondents is statistically significant for a poll.
Assuming the 3100 is a random selection of respondents, the standard error of the result is less than 1% at 95% confidence.
Statistically, you cannot say ANYTHING about a non-response. NADA. NILL. NOTHING. It's empty space.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margin_of_error
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_%28statistics%29
Another link to the same story. This is from CNN.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/
Interesting presentation from Naomi Oreskes on this subject
http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/resources/globalwarming/documents/oreskes-on-science-consenus.pdf
And a video of her presenting this (about 1 hr long)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio
That may have been a reasonable survey but it does not support the claim that I was contesting. In fact it disproves the initial claim.
How many times do we see here at MMFA that some right winger said something that was baseless and the host did not contest it. That is exactly what happened here, the claim was that 95% of the world's scientists agreed with GW. No one here contested it and no one here proved it. I was merely pointing out that fact. Not only did no one here contest the claim, most contested what I said and tacitly supported a baseless claim.
What a surprise, different standards for libs and cons.
so, 90% of all scientist surveyed - which can be used to surmise that around 90% of all scientists (depending on the survey's margin of error).
so, rather than an outrageous claim, what we have is a slight exageration (and if the margin of error is at all typical, we can say between 86 and 94 percent, which makes it a very slight exageration).
I'm not thinking you have much to complain about - it certainly is nothing like the exagerations and misrepresentations highlighted her often (like the false comparison of Obama's and Palin's numbers (http://mediamatters.org/blog/200911230028).
Even when the right asks, "Do you approve of Obama's Health Care plan?" it is a fake statistic that results, because many of the people who disapprove want a single payer plan - so the number does not accurately reflect the number of people who are against a public option. Same thing: "Do you approve of Obama's handling of the economy?" Many people think he should have another stimulus and many believe he shouldn't have had the first.
But, to quibble over what is, for all intents and purposes, a 2 or 3 percentage point exageration is uniquely Right wing.
Apparently you did not bother to read the post I was responding to. You just pounced on my post. He did indeed say 95% of the world's scientists. I guess since he is probably a liberal, he does not have to be precise, that is a standard you will only hold a conservative to.
We infer. In the same way it is inferred that 2.6 million people watch Beck's program - they don't actually ask 302 million people what they watch.
See, this is why you get thumbs down on perfectly innocuous posts. we can just infer that you are being obtuse because you ar obtuse 99% of the time.
It seems like you think you deserve an enormous amount of slack in what you say, while others are required to specify things that any mildly intelligent twelve-year-old already knows.
Too much. These same people went ballistic about Perino on a tinny mis-spoken comment about how Bush has kept us safe from terrorism.
What is it with libbies anyway? How can they not see their obvious hypocrisy (e.g. DellDolly frequently expresses her opinions but heaven forbid if we do.) I say tongue-in-cheek the left are mentally challenged and "not normal" just to push their buttons but do they really have mental issues? I'm serious. What can explain the way they think?
Tinny? Tiny? So you're calling forgetting about 9/11 tiny?
Nice.
Nope. Just a mis-statement such as Obama saying there are 58 states.
Why don't you guys get it?
Does that say something about "the way they think"?
It's just such a tremendously jarring mistake that it's hard to believe that anyone could really either forget or think for even a split-second that they were going to get away with it. I'm not sure she's at that level of stupid, in all honesty. And the argument of "Bush kept us safe for over seven years" has been made so many times that it seems plausible that she meant to say something like that.
I only watched the video once, though, and I won't be able to do it again by the time this thread closes. If there was some contextual clue that indicated that she really forgot or flew too close to the sun with her dishonesty, I'm certainly not loathe to hear it.
You can get p/ssy about a few percentage points or you can start dealing with reality.
The choice is yours.
I agree. In fact global climate change has been going on for several million years now - 100's of millions. At one point our planet was completely covered with ice and another time all heat. BTW both before humans were on board.
And did you agree 30 years ago when the environmental wackos claimed global cooling was a clear and present danger?
You wackos should try that some time.
A significant majority.
You are fiddling while Rome is burning, Nero. Wanna play "Name That Tune"?
Repubs like to call it "global warming" so they can ridicule it every time it snows.
This one says 97 percent of climatologists.
I'd like to know why you're apparently not convinced that we are a major factor when it comes to climate change.
I'd like to know, too. But I suspect it most cases it boils-down to two words: Al Gore (or one word if it's a Limbaugh lover). A progressive is saying it, so it's automatically a lie, no question--and any scientists who agree with Gore are also liars. For them, it's all about the messenger and not the message. But they'll try to make it seem like it's mostly the message, because they realize they have to back up their partisanship with something that at least looks like a fact or two.
It's the concrete thinking thing. Remember, just as nothing can possibly be racist unless somebody can prove it's racist, and that requires screaming of the N word, a lynching, or a burning cross.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/05/cap-and-trade-bill-faces-stiff-pr-winds
Anyone with half a brain understands that fossil fuels are a finite resource. when do you suppose it will be a good time to start reducing their consumption? When will it be too late to do anything about it?
Climate change is merely the first good reason to stop burning fossil fuels. The economy and national security are the next good reasons.
There isn't even one good reason to wait.
As for ExxonMobil, they are but one company, and while their 404 billion dollars in revenue is a hefty chunk, they constitute less than 1/3 of the total revenues of the companies considered to make up "big oil".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermajor
Electricity is produced any time a conductive metal passes a magnet - this is what coal- and oil-burning power plants use to produce electricity (as well as nuclear plants). The key is to harness new, clean ways to pass that conductive metal across the magnetic field. All movement is potentially energy-productive.
Clean energy will increasingly rely upon ways that burn no carbon-based fuels at all.
Cap and trade will, initially, deal in the trade of carbon units, but those units will be incrementally reduced so taht, eventually, it will become much more economical to use wind, solar and kinetic energies to produce electricity - that is the endgame.
The smart grid is very important, but moving away from burning fuel to turn generating turbines is just as important. We need to harness existing motion and existing energies (such as the sun) or we will still be looking at environmental disaster at some point in the future.
I think, ultimately, we will need to think more like the Japanese, though - harness everything that is out there.
Well now we know what kind of games they've been up to. We know what the drivers are (money grubbing).
The big question here id will president obama be able to take a step back and review the information and data reasonably before he goes off and sells us down the river?
Lets face it, his track record is bad at best. He doesn't know we have a global war on terror, he denies the fort hood terrorist is an islamo fascist terrorist. thinks KSM and company deserve to be give American constitutional rights.
How can we presume he'll be better on this... I wonder what the overall objective of the GW nutcases really is?
I would go to the trouble of explaining the problems with comparing water vapor and CO2 concentrations, and how they affect heat retention but; you are obviously beyond that.
You better re-think that whole equation - it is too funny for anyone with any brains to take seriously.
A point that is often lost in the heat of debate.
Knee-jerk contrarianism isn't a science, it's the low art of being Republican.
Randy
Not everything is an opinion, and not every disagreement is a dispute. There are things called facts which cannot be refuted, no matter how tightly you squeeze your eyes shut or how long you keep your fingers in your ears while yelling "LA LA LA LA NOT LISTENING LA LA LA!"
EXACTLY the same holds for the global climate change, aka global warming. WAY TO much data has been hidden, manipulated, changed, altered etc. They, the global warming fearmongers, SAY that solar activity, volcanic activity has little or no impact on global climate change. It's all human based and CO2 related.
Most of you probably don't know what "greenhouse" gasses even exis in our atmosphere. Water vapor is a far more potent greenhous gas and exist in MUCH higher concentrations than CO2, yet there's no "redice the water vapor" frenzy... pathitic
The very nature of science means that many topics are "in dispute."
That's why dogma-driven dummies like Fred keep harping on what their feeble, incurious minds perceive as an easy opening to argue the cause they're championing.
There are no more vociferous skeptics than scientists.
Darwin does put forth a theory, other theories have also been put forth.
Do ALL theories have "basis" or just the one(s) YOU support.... Let's see it with the thumbs down, I'm curious how many of you just don't get it.
Yup, there is a theory that covers that.
I'm sure he's covered this topic in his corrective upgrade to that old idiot Darwin's book.
So why on Earth would Obama listen to you now??
http://soe.uaa.alaska.edu/workshops/wwdcc/WWexecsum.pdf
Most people and scientists do agree, the climate is changing and has been changing since the beginning of the planet.
The problem is we've been told and let to believe that it's a human caused issue. That's is unbelievably pathetic that so called scientist, discount the reality of other factors, solar activity, volcanic activity etc.... pathetic.
Perhaps what we should invest money into is how we are going to adapt to climate changes instead of trying to stop something we can't, never could.
You either have your head in the sand or somewhere else.
What is his expertise, or qualifications?
I'm an avid fan of Thom Hartmann and I have noticed many times as well when he would not specifically dispute a number or what not which is spewed by a right-wing loon... but normally, I tend to believe that when Thom does not dispute something it is because he likely does not know if it legitimate or not.
Thom would be foolish if he were to dispute something on his own airwaves that he is not sure if it is correct or bunk.
I for one consider Thom to be one of the most intellectually honest and decent radio host of them all! But that is me.
Here's an easy "for instance." If the guest says on the show that unemployment between 1933 and 1939 averaged 17 percent, the odds are that he's made that false claim before. If someone working for Hartmann or Hartmann himself does the research to find that out in advance, then Hartmann can put the lie to that claim when the guest makes it on Hartmann's show.
I hear Hartmann make mistakes all the time or allow outrageous claims by his guests to stand. And mind you, he's about the best liberal radio host on the air. Bill Press, Randi Rhodes, Stephanie Miller, etc. are even worse -- uninformed, inarticulate, and easily distracted.
The most successful liberal host on the radio was Al Franken, and his success came from the fact that he was the opposite of his peers -- well informed, articulate, able to stay on topic, and willing to do the research necessary to deflate the other side's arguments.
The lack of liberal hosts and the spectacular failure of Air America stands out all the more because of the success of liberal blogs and online news sites and the liberal political successes of 2006 and 2008.
Jamele's right -- it's a damned shame that we liberals can't seem to get the radio thing right.
If that were true how do you account for his claim that Jeremy Glick was stating "true stuff" in his confrontation with Bill O'Reilly. Glick was talking from his as s and didn't know what he was talking about. He was wrong on most everything he said. Franken, like Glick is a fool.
Bill'O always have had agendas against people with left-views such as Jeremy Glick. Which after the interview his video was doctored to make Glick look hateful towards this country. Why not ask questions about 9/11? Especially since the truth commission papers will not be released. Now I do believe he meant to claim that GWB and his father did let Osama Bin Laden go without capture on purpose. Especially since the Bush Family had a relationship with the Bin Ladens. Now that is true. So 9/11 is to wonder by most people which Jeremy Glick probally did.
Another baseless claim, to borrow the words of MMFA. Can you prove it? If I make a claim of that nature here I am always pounced to provide a link to prove what I say. How about you doing the same?
But since I was addressing the inaccuracies of Al Franken, why did you avoid discussing that ?
"Now I do believe he meant to claim that GWB and his father did let Osama Bin Laden go without capture on purpose"
Delusional again , I see. The conversation had nothing to do with Bin Laden.
But still all the drive by thumbs down, you know that procedure that many of the libs here whine about constantly.
I guess it is just another example of "do as I say, not as I do"
You didn't really "address" any errors, you only made vague accusations. The thumbs down are probably about your failure to be specific about anything, while pretending that you've posted any substance.
Remember, most people here haven't been brainwashed into believing things are true just because the tv, radio or righty blog says they are.
ROFL . . . she defended a publication that doesn't exist?
LMAO!!
Glick: [S]ix months before the invasion in Afghanistan, starting in the Carter administration and continuing and escalating while Bush’s father was head of the CIA, we recruited a hundred thousand radical mujahadeens to combat a democratic government in Afghanistan, the Taraki government
Do you agree that thses same mujahadeen were trying to overthrow the democratic Tariki Gov't? That was another claim.
Do you agree that there was a coup in Florida?
Do you agree that 9/11 was an alledged assassination as Glick called it.
Would have been nice if you cited a few examples, or even one, I suppose.
FL: "Another baseless claim, to borrow the words of MMFA. Can you prove it?"
Please don't ask of others what you are unwilling to do yourself...
There is a big one, anyone care to dispute it?
He also referred to the coup in Florida, there is no basis to that either.
He also stated that the mujahadeen that Bush was assisting was combating the democratic Tariki Gov't. That "democratic gov't" seized control in a coup. It was not a democratic gov't by anyone's standards .
Virtually everything that Glick said was wrong. Maybe you can point out that I am wrong, give it a shot.
Now let's see what you are willing to do.
How about you posting the "true stuff" that Franken and apparently you claim he stated.
I'll wait.
Glick was wrong about the role President George H W Bush had while he was CIA director.
But that error doesn't mean that Glick was 100% wrong, nor does it mean that Bill O'Reilly didn't distort much of what Glick said, nor does it negate the fact that O'Reilly cut Glick's mic simply because he couldn't debate fairly with an opponent! O'Reilly's the offensive, obnoxious one who brought up Glick's father, and asserted that his father would be ashamed of what Glick was doing.
Interesting how you even agree that Glick was wrong but still ask for a link. Even when you know I am right you ask for a link. This thread started with me asking for a link to a claim that still after a day and a half has no support nor any link that supports it. But no one other than myself asks for a link. And no one supplies any proof of the claim.
pathetic
what is pathetic is the notion that doctored videos should go unchallenged simply because it has become a common argument. If the right continually uses doctored videos, they should be continually challenged. I don't care how much whining they do.
I heard him say that he "believes" and "thinks" that Huey Long served in the US Senate. Long was a Senator at the time of his death, which anyone with a basic knowledge of history should know, or could find out in a 10 second Google search.
I heard him say that John Adams served as president from 1796 to 1800, and Jefferson from 1800 to 1808. That is not accurate. Adams was elected in 1796 and served from 1797 to 1801. Jefferson was elected in 1800 and reelected in 1804, serving from 1801 to 1809.
These are minor details, to be sure, but if you're looked to as a voice of authority or an advocate, you ought to get details like that right.
As far as the actual election years versus years of terms, I agree people should know this. However, I have heard many intelligent people make this same mistake. I wouldn't harp on it too much.
As for Glick was talking from his as s and didn't know what he was talking about. He was wrong on most everything he said I read the transcript and Glick was wrong about Bush being DCI at the time in question, other than that, I am unsure what you are talking about.
Glick made the comments in a speech he made at the Univ of Missouri, a link is on this page.
"I read the transcript and Glick was wrong about Bush being DCI at the time in question, other than that, I am unsure what you are talking about"
Glick was blaming W for 9/11 for the actions that he claimed that his father carried out as director of the CIA. His claim about that was dead wrong, so his entire argument was wrong. Very simple. He also claimed that the gov't that the mujahadeen were fighting was a democratic gov't , it was not , the Tariki gov't came into power in a military coup. He also declared that there was a coup in Florida. He also claimed that O'Reilly was exploiting the 9/11 families when O'Reilly had done a lot to help them.
Perhaps now you can point out something of substance that Glick stated that was right?
That's SENATOR Fool to you, FAILlib . . .
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0130-11.htm
He owns a suit, can read cue cards, and has no shame. Oh, did you mean qualifications for something other than Fox talking head ?
How would you define these real credentials?
Big difference.
I'm specialy grateful to end a week+ without power at home yesterday.
Most of those so called "respeted" scientist have been exposed? Duh.
The more upset he gets the more the typing degenerates.
Why is the fact of whether pollution is or not happening. Whether it is land, air, or water pollution.
Listen, to all the people that think man-made products do not pollute. Look in the sky, look in the water, look in the air. Wonder why in the middle of January you have snow then in about two weeks it melts. Better yet here in the midwest in the dead winter months you have a period of one week where it is 70 degrees!
We are doing damage to our planet. Those that deny it are fools.
Best you can do is go with proven alternatives until others can be developed.
The only viable, proven alternative is nuclear.
The sooner we move in that direction, the better off we will be. and the nation that gets there first will also be the nation that stands at the front of the world economy.
You and people like you want us to lead by following. Had our forefathers been so risk-averse, we wouldn't have built railroads or interstate highways.
We have a massive national debt - that is a fact that tax cuts will never erase, nor will some mis-guided notion that we should try to return to the eighties.
The only way to lead is by getting out in front - and it is the only way that we will ever have any hope of erasing the existing debt (let alone the debt we will incur along the way).
Stop living in fear and start taking life by the balls.
Sweet, I always wanted a nuclear powered car. ;-)
The Flat Earth Society
Well, that is other than all the luddites (small case) who actively work against any type of technical progress or change from what they are used to.
The original Luddite society was formed because of their opposition to the use of mechanical textile mills. (Loss of jobs)
Randy
Damn, a conspiracy of epic and unprecedented proportions!
Just think of it - all these thousands of scientists living in their palatial estates...
I think you might need a med vacation.
What’s the hubbub? It all comes down to men behaving badly. Emails and files related to top scientists that support man made global warming theory were released in the hacked files. These scientists have authored/co-authored many of the studies relied on by the UN IPCC, and world governments. The studies have been used to pronounce global warming an immediate, and therefore taxable, threat.
Here are some of the highlights of the documents released.
1. The scientists colluded in efforts to thwart Freedom of Information Act requests (across continents no less). They reference deleting data, hiding source code from requests, manipulating data to make it more annoying to use, and attempting to deny requests from people recognized as contributors to specific internet sites. Big brother really is watching you. He’s just not very good at securing his web site.
2. These scientists publicly diminished opposing arguments for lack of being published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In the background they discussed black-balling journals that did publish opposing views, and preventing opposing views from being published in journals they controlled. They even mention changing the rules midstream in arenas they control to ensure opposing views would not see the light of day. They discuss amongst themselves which scientists can be trusted and who should be excluded from having data because they may not be “predictable”.
3. The scientists expressed concern privately over a lack of increase in global temperatures in the last decade, and the fact that they could not explain this. Publicly they discounted it as simple natural variations. In one instance, data was [apparently] manipulated to hide a decline in temperatures when graphed. Other discussions included ways to discount historic warming trends that inconveniently did not occur during increases in atmospheric CO2.
4. The emails show examples of top scientists working to create public relations messaging with favorable news outlets. It shows them identifying and cataloging, by name and association, people with opposing views. These people are then disparaged in a coordinated fashion via favorable online communities.
If man made global warming is so easy to prove, why go through all these steps? Consensus? Nah!
This is really where your ideology collapses into sheer idiocy. What's next for Media Matters? Maybe you can try to prove Fox News doesn't really exist.
But you will probably censor this post, as you so often censor posts. Since Media Matters main goal here is to HIDE that global warming is in dispute.
Thought maybe we should talk a little more about Alaska - give you my take on what's happening.
I spent a good portion of my career working in Alaska beginning with working on the initial routing and construction of the Trans Alaska Pipeline in the late 60's and early 70's, the development of the Prudhoe Bay, Kuparak, and Endicott Oil Fields, and monitoring sea ice drift for Brittish Petroleum, Conoco, and Arco Oil Companies Offshore Division through the 80's.
During that time I worked with many Inuit Natives because of their ability to read the snow and ice conditions that have been transfered down from one generation to another. This can not be learned in a book or by taking scientific measurements. At many times our very lives depended on these people to navigate our way out of harms path when working out on the sea ice. Even back in the 60's some of them was talking about something was happening to our climate system - the sea ice conditions were changing, the migratory bird patterns were changing, and plant species were beginning to appear where even the elders could not remember that happening. I still keep in touch with many of them and there are more an more signs appearing every year. Because so many of them have a subsistence life style they are facing some serious consequences due to the effects of climate change.
Alaska is a lot like a canary in a coal mine for global climate change, it is starting to chirp that something is happening. Like I have said before, we still don't know to what degree man plays in this story, but the story still continues to unfold regardless. I think many people believe that the money and effort required to find out all the answers far outways the impact if we do nothing at all. Kind of like the Bark Beetle investation in a lot of our National Forests that are killing our trees - why is it spreading so fast?
We need more answers to the many questions but there is always a reluctance to do this because it means taxes or fees to industry to fund it. As always, lack of money prevents scientists from reaching a unanimous finding so we have to rely on the overall concensus of the scientific community to lead us in the right direction.
One mans opinion!
You can't possibly believe that. In most major corporations, the majority of the stock is held by a handful of people - with less than half of the company held in "common stock" so that the Board can retain majority control.
I suppose there are still people out there who believe that "average Americans" own these companies, but most of us here have educations and understand how it works.
You thik you are defending the little guy, but he isn't the one getting rich from "big oil" - that is cut and dried.
That is your statement and it is wrong. Period.
Stock ownership determines company ownership. Common stock is typically what determines voting rights. Perferred stock usually does not come with voting rights.
You ridicule another's post and it is yours that is wrong. Typical.
Of course, it doesn't change the fundamental immorality of ABYONE getting rich through mortgaging the future of our planet. Nor does it change the fundamental truth that it is really only a handful of people who are getting rich. Nor does it change the fundamental truth of global climate change.
I don't need to be right all the time to be correct in my conclusions.
Randy
"1. The scientists colluded in efforts to thwart Freedom of Information Act requests (across continents no less). They reference deleting data, hiding source code from requests, manipulating data to make it more annoying to use, and attempting to deny requests from people recognized as contributors to specific internet sites. Big brother really is watching you. He’s just not very good at securing his web site.
2. These scientists publicly diminished opposing arguments for lack of being published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In the background they discussed black-balling journals that did publish opposing views, and preventing opposing views from being published in journals they controlled. They even mention changing the rules midstream in arenas they control to ensure opposing views would not see the light of day. They discuss amongst themselves which scientists can be trusted and who should be excluded from having data because they may not be “predictable”.
3. The scientists expressed concern privately over a lack of increase in global temperatures in the last decade, and the fact that they could not explain this. Publicly they discounted it as simple natural variations. In one instance, data was [apparently] manipulated to hide a decline in temperatures when graphed. Other discussions included ways to discount historic warming trends that inconveniently did not occur during increases in atmospheric CO2.
4. The emails show examples of top scientists working to create public relations messaging with favorable news outlets. It shows them identifying and cataloging, by name and association, people with opposing views. These people are then disparaged in a coordinated fashion via favorable online communities.
What the emails/files don’t do is completely destroy the possibility that global climate change is real. They don’t preclude many studies from being accurate, on either side of the discussion. And they should not be seen as discrediting all science."
Your text to link here...
How can any of you still speak about the consensus of scientist when the exposed e-mails show that many of the IPCC scientists themselves are preventing those you call disenters, from publishing their papers?
You cant hide behind all this fake consesus rhetoric anymore.
http://ilovecarbondioxide.com/2009/01/top-15-climate-myths.html
Your text to link here...
Tell you what, Coo-Coo . . .
Instead of insisting that Obama "recognize the science [as] in dispute", why not convince these people:
Like Pat Robertson: "I'm a convert to global warming" . . .
Or perhaps the Pentagon: "The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents."
Hm, they don't seem to think its "in dispute" . . .