Posted on 02/26/2006 11:12:43 AM PST by alumleg
Haven't seen the latest, will look for them.
Welcome to Free Republic and thanks for the post. A lot of people here think there is no such thing as global warming/climate change, because that's what Rush Limbaugh tells them to think. It is disgraceful that pols are muzzling scientists. But what Donald Kennedy needs to do, is to get the ear of the President and the Republican leadership, not antagonize them.
"It's similar to some charities: the last thing their big bucks executives and board members want is the problem to be solved. Then they have to look for real jobs."
I don't believe that. Do you? They do want the problem solved because then it makes them look like geniuses for hiring certain scientists or funding certain research programs. In turn their professional worth goes up and they are more likely to be hired by some other organization with a problem to solve. Being an exectutive or a board member is like any other job. If you aren't productive, you will get the boot eventually.
"We have to give up meat because the methane from farm animals is a much more serious 'green house' gas than CO2..."
"If you follow the trend line, the polar caps will lose all their ice in X number of decades...."
Art baby, what about all the other planets in solar system that are heating up, without the presence of man or the
next cow in line for my steak dinner?
The tool in this scenario is us. Why we allow Hansen to continue publishing such crap on our dime is perplexing.
At least you stuck around to engage in dialog - most hurl garbage and then do the cut and run thing. Welcome to the grindstone!
What is disgraceful is spending billions of taxpayer dollars every year to create more models to push a blatently political scientific theory. Forcing is not worth billions in research. Independence from foreign oil is nice but it's not worth billions in boondoggles either.
Get real jobs, eh? Such complainers. Government scientists are not scientists first, they are sinecurees. On the dole.
I gotta somewhat agree with you though, Rush Limbaugh is no scientist either. I doubt he's looked into the science more than superficially. I have studied forcing, both from an energy balance and a weather modelling perspective. My conclusions are my own, not Rush Limbaugh's.
And by they way men are NOT walking on the moon. The past imperfect verb tense you used suggests we are still getting to the moon. We are not. We be not so being brought walking. Why? Because it was a government project and not a private one. If we had been brought space privatising rather than moon walking, we would likely today still strolling lunarly been brung, be bringing and being brought.
And GPS? Really? Are you sure?
Or not, depending on your political dogma, and your level of tonedeafness on subjects you've "made up your mind" about.
The federal government currently funds several programs that have the purpose or effect of conserving energy or reducing emissions of greenhouse gases but that are not identified as being directly linked to climate change.Despite doubtful data savvy bureaucrats cleverly use Climate Change as a stealthy euphemism for Global Warning to keep that pork coming their way. The alleged anti-environment Bush administration actually increased Climate Change (Global Warning) funding by $250,000,000 from $5,090,000,000 in 2004 to $5,473,000,000 in 2006.
Global warming was the GOAL of the research and to find any evidence otherwise is regarded as failure.
The rinky-dink computer models they use will come with anything they need if they "tweak" them enough....and they do...for $$$$.
News of everything that proves global warming is not man-made is suppressed. Same $$$ at work.
Even global warming's biggest believers will have to admit, that the difference between us taking drastic measures and doing absolutely nothing would only make the difference (in their own computer models, (fully tweaked) of a fraction of one degree over a hundred year span.
It's the "herd instinct" that makes most people buy into it. They are told a huge number of scientists favor global warming. Science has never been about choosing up sides and which ever side has the most members must be right. That's not science, it's political spin.
If you still believe in that crap, you haven't really done any homework. It's all available online and is easy to find. There's no good excuse for being "Stuck on Stupid" on this subject.
Why would you let Art Bell on your pillow speaker? I'd immediately launder the pillow cover with extra bleach, and disinfect the speaker.
Nevertheless, merely a journalist.
You probably don't want to talk about Dr. Richard A. Lindzen, a member of the IPCC committe who said,
When the report's summary came out, he was dismayed to read its conclusion: "The balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate." "That struck me as bizarre," he says. "Because without saying how much the effect was, the statement had no meaning. If it was discernible and very small, for instance, it would be no problem." Environmentalist Bill McKibbon referred to this phrase in an article in The Atlantic in May 1998: "The panel's 2,000 scientists, from every corner of the globe, summed up their findings in this dry but historic bit of understatement."
In an angry letter, Lindzen wrote that the full report "takes great pains to point out that the statement has no implications for the magnitude of the effect, is dependent on the [dubious] assumption that natural variability obtained from [computer] models is the same as that in nature, and, even with these caveats, is largely a subjective matter."
His credentials?
Prof. Lindzen is a recipient of the AMS's Meisinger, and Charney Awards, and AGU's Macelwane Medal. He is a corresponding member of the NAS Committee on Human Rights, a member of the NRC Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, and a Fellow of the AAAS1. He is a consultant to the Global Modeling and Simulation Group at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, and a Distinguished Visiting Scientist at California Institute of Technology's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. (Ph.D., '64, S.M., '61, A.B., '60, Harvard University)
Respected indeed!
But don't stop with my critique. Read the thread and critique it for yourself. Then read other more scientific sources (I recommend junkscience.com) and critique those as well. Don't just accept either side, but form your own conclusions. And don't dismiss us all here as Rushbots.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.