Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

CLIMATE CHANGE ROCKED
Daily Express UK ^ | December 2,2009 | John Ingham

Posted on 12/01/2009 5:56:47 PM PST by ricks_place

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-44 next last
To: ricks_place; Uncledave; neverdem
...Prof Plimer said Governments were treating the public like “fools” and using climate change to increase taxes. He said carbon dioxide has had no impact on temperature and that recent warming was part of the natural cycle of climate stretching over ­billions of years.

LOL - this guy's good!

21 posted on 12/01/2009 7:05:36 PM PST by GOPJ (Anthropogenic global warming-the most costly and widespread scientific FRAUD in history-James Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doc1019
Algore, can you hear the sounds of your false kingdom crumbling?

I can hear GE's stock falling...

22 posted on 12/01/2009 7:08:10 PM PST by GOPJ (Anthropogenic global warming-the most costly and widespread scientific FRAUD in history-James Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: xcamel
Professor Ian Plimer condemned the climate change lobby as “climate comrades” keeping the “gravy train” going.

In a controversial talk just days before the start of a climate summit attended by world leaders in Copenhagen, Prof Plimer said Governments were treating the public like “fools” and using climate change to increase taxes.

Don't miss this one, xcamel.

Ping

23 posted on 12/01/2009 7:19:54 PM PST by GOPJ (Anthropogenic global warming-the most costly and widespread scientific FRAUD in history-James Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rlbedfor
The reason they are useless could be caused by rat farts in the past just as by humans now as the Goreonians insist. Bottom line, temps can’t be determined by them. Go back to the gravy train drawing board.

As I tried to state. The counter to bad science is not more bad science. Both sides of this debate are slinging it around with little actual theory or fact to back up their positions.

The hypothesis of human activity producing global climate change is just that, a hypothesis. It is not established. Nor is it disproven. It remains a question that has not been settled. Whether it is worth settling is also a good question.

You, for instance, need to be careful about the nonsense you sling around in opposition to the nonsense from the other side. You forward the hypothesis could be caused by rat farts in the past just as by humans now. Well if rat farts produced global climate change then we are one step closer to establishing that human activities are causing global climate change now, and in fact what might have been argued to be a large leap suddenly is reduced to a tiny baby step.

It is the problem that conservatives have with science. So few of them actually understand it. This aspect of conservatism is really quite repulsive and drives a lot of otherwise intelligent scientists to become liberals. It is sad really.

24 posted on 12/01/2009 7:19:56 PM PST by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson
This aspect of conservatism is really quite repulsive and drives a lot of otherwise intelligent scientists to become liberals. It is sad really.

That's funny. Do liberals become conservatives when peer review becomes farce?

25 posted on 12/01/2009 7:23:15 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
I’m sure he was talking 1000PPM

That would make sense, but that is not what the quote of the article said he said, which, as I have expressed before, raises my real concern that the counter global warming crowd is every bit as wreckless with fact, unscientific, and unscrupulous in political aims as are the pro global warming crowd.

The future of conservatism has to be in fact and rational debate, not this conservative counter slang for every liberal slang. Liberals are at least cute. Conservatives rarely are.

26 posted on 12/01/2009 7:23:46 PM PST by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson
While Lord Plimer's statement about CO2 levels having been 1000 times current levels may have been an exaggeration, it is absolutely true that for most of the Earth's geologic past, atmospheric CO2 levels were far higher than today. Compare 380 ppm today with an estimated 7000 ppm during the middle Cambrian, 5000 ppm during the Ordovician Period, and 4000 ppm during the Devonian.

In fact, the only geologic era which shared the same low atmospheric CO2 levels we see today is the Carboniferous Period some 300 million years ago. Not surprisingly, the climate then appears to be strikingly similar to that of today.

When compared with the rest of geologic history, the Earth's atmosphere during both the Carboniferous Period and Quaternary Period, the current geologic period, have been characterized as "CO2 impoverished."
27 posted on 12/01/2009 7:24:40 PM PST by Milton Miteybad (I am Jim Thompson. {Really.})
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson
It is the problem that conservatives have with science. So few of them actually understand it. This aspect of conservatism is really quite repulsive and drives a lot of otherwise intelligent scientists to become liberals. It is sad really. I would say that if an “intelligent scientist” is so easily influenced by some conservatives, then they A. are not actually intelligent and B. likely had a strong tendency toward liberalism to begin with.

Were you influenced to become conservative by the beliefs of other conservatives? I certainly don't think myself or many I know were and instead became conservative by an ability to rationally recognize certain truths about human nature and behavior and a fair dose of good ol common sense. You know have our permission to step down off your highhorse.

28 posted on 12/01/2009 7:33:19 PM PST by dusttoyou (libs are all wee wee'd up and no place to go)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson

I actually love science and I am a trained Aerospace Engineer. The issue is that the science used by the “global warming” crowd is flawed. Mixed models, corrected to match real data with no scientific rational reason to do so, with very unclean messy data, is very flawed. I did not say that humans have had no effect. I am saying it is just as likely that any warming now (based on flawed and very messy data) is cause by non human activity as human. Along with the very determined attempt to be less than forthcoming on facts, the Goreonians make my “bad” science alert sound clearly. If I had an Engineer come to me with this data and theory, I would tell them to get real.


29 posted on 12/01/2009 7:59:22 PM PST by rlbedfor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: GOPJ

You absolutely would NOT believe how many people have not heard a single word about this YET ! Even friends who are conservative and pretty on top of things haven’t seen a word of this blockbuster news. They have us by the b*lls folks. Total control over the new media.Note tag line.


30 posted on 12/01/2009 8:02:25 PM PST by sonic109 (and...what are we going to do about it ? NOTHING ?..so shut up and take it !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: rlbedfor

I mean really. Let’s build a googletrillian dollar baseball glove in space to catch alien baseballs the size of the moon because we can’t prove they don’t exists and are not coming toward us know clocked with alien technology. We must save the Earth.


31 posted on 12/01/2009 8:08:32 PM PST by rlbedfor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: rlbedfor

Corrected spelling... Sorry.

I mean really. Let’s build a googletrillion dollar baseball glove in space to catch alien baseballs the size of the moon because we can’t prove they don’t exist and are not coming toward us now clocked with alien technology. We must save the Earth.


32 posted on 12/01/2009 8:14:03 PM PST by rlbedfor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: ricks_place; informavoracious; larose; RJR_fan; Prospero; Conservative Vermont Vet; ...
+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.

Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment

Obama: “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”

33 posted on 12/01/2009 8:14:46 PM PST by narses ('in an odd way this is cheering news!'.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sonic109
They have us by the b*lls folks. Total control over the new media.Note tag line.

Not exactly. They now have to produce something from Copenhagen. Their brainwashed sheeple assume their future world depends on that meeting. After that agreement, we will have them by the balls. The sheeple will have just watched their entire future lives, signed away to eco-slavery. And then during the deepest and darkest hours of the Progressive Dark Ages, we arrive with the keys. Not a betting person myself, but the entire situation could make for a decent nexus for a global revolution. We will be following in the steps of the Free People of Honduras. Removing our dictators and saving our people. Theoretically speaking of course.

34 posted on 12/01/2009 10:25:01 PM PST by justa-hairyape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: ricks_place
Last night the head of the CRU, Professor Phil Jones, said he would stand down while an independent review took place.

Unfortunately, with all BS being sprayed by the perps, such an "independent review" is impossible, until all the tentacles of the conspiracy are identified.

To my knowledge, no such attempt to identify them all has even been started!

We know that there are at least 43.
It would not surprise me if there are twice or three times that number worldwide.

Needless to say they are all instantly disqualified for membership in any "independent review panel!"

35 posted on 12/01/2009 10:27:48 PM PST by Publius6961 (Â…he's not America, he's an employee who hasn't risen to minimal expectations.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justa-hairyape

I think you are right about the Progressive Dark Ages.I think it will end there .


36 posted on 12/02/2009 2:44:11 AM PST by sonic109 (and...what are we going to do about it ? NOTHING ?..so shut up and take it !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: ricks_place; OKSooner; honolulugal; Killing Time; Beowulf; Mr. Peabody; RW_Whacko; SideoutFred; ...
Image and video hosting by TinyPic

FReepmail me to get on or off

Ping me if you find one I've missed.



37 posted on 12/02/2009 3:54:42 AM PST by xcamel (The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rlbedfor
The issue is that the science used by the “global warming” crowd is flawed. Mixed models, corrected to match real data with no scientific rational reason to do so, with very unclean messy data, is very flawed.

They don't use science. When you fudge data, use inappropriate models, and bend interpretations to fit your theory that is not science. No more is it science to state that because they are guilty of research misconduct and fraud their hypothesis is false.

Their hypothesis is no more false because of what conservatives say than it is true because of what they say. The truth value of the hypothesis is unknown. Period.

38 posted on 12/02/2009 3:57:27 AM PST by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson
No...that'd be parts per thousand. We're talking parts per million.

387 ppm is .000387. 1000 times that is .387.

39 posted on 12/02/2009 6:44:16 AM PST by B Knotts (Calvin Coolidge Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts; AndyJackson

Oops. I forgot we’re talking percent. So, the corrected numbers would be .0387%. 1000 times that is indeed 38.7%. I was confused because you had both in your example. He must have meant 10 times higher, because they’ve definitely been that high in the past (.387%).


40 posted on 12/02/2009 6:54:06 AM PST by B Knotts (Calvin Coolidge Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-44 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson