To: EPW Comm Team
That is why I stopped my subscription to Nature. They stated outright, years ago, that they too considered the global warming issue settled and would not publish any papers contradicting it.
I never thought I would live to see science become so politicized that one of the two top science journals would become no more than a propaganda organ.
It teaches you to raise your level of skepticism in science even higher. Now I have to filter it for political content.
Talk about garbage...
2 posted on
03/06/2008 4:21:26 PM PST by
bioqubit
To: EPW Comm Team
Good old open minded science.
3 posted on
03/06/2008 4:22:02 PM PST by
mylife
(The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
To: EPW Comm Team
Notice how the term “Global Warming” is losing ground to the term “Climate Change”. Whatever the weather does, they want to blame it on mankind, especially Americans.
4 posted on
03/06/2008 4:30:20 PM PST by
whipitgood
(Neither of, by, nor for the people any longer...)
To: EPW Comm Team
This whole Global Warming scam is nothing more than the Global Communists attempting to take control of the Global economy.
5 posted on
03/06/2008 4:31:30 PM PST by
Desron13
(If you constantly vote between the lesser of two evils then evil is your ultimate destination.)
To: EPW Comm Team
Whhaaaaattt!??!!??!
Purely motivated and logicaly detached scientists? Nawww
7 posted on
03/06/2008 4:34:32 PM PST by
ovrtaxt
(Member of the irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.)
To: EPW Comm Team
Prominent Hungarian Physicist Dr. Miklós Zágoni, who recently reversed his views about man-made climate fears and is now a skeptic, explained at the conference that he resigned from his post working with NASA because he was disgusted with the agencys lack of scientific freedom. On one hand we have Dr. James Hansen, NASA GIS, alleging that he was being suppressed from presenting his work showing that global warming is caused by mankind. On the other hand Dr. Miklós Zágoni is complaining that his skeptical views about man-made global warming were being suppressed by NASA officials. Which is it? Who are these NASA officials?
9 posted on
03/06/2008 4:42:41 PM PST by
olezip
To: EPW Comm Team
I had the bright idea the other day of developing a test for the proposition that increased CO2 would result in “Greenhouse” effect or cause “warming” by inhibitting cooling.
First step was to look at local planets and planteoids for atmospheric componenets and what I found was tha every instance of high % of CO2 was coincident with drastically high temperatures.
Seems to support the Greenhouse effect.
(I am not an astronomer or climatologist).
To: EPW Comm Team
11 posted on
03/06/2008 4:45:49 PM PST by
Free Vulcan
(Don't think I can vote for you John, I'm feelin' like a maverick.)
To: EPW Comm Team
The damage to the reputation of scientists and science caused by this global warming scam will last for many years. The Creationists will use this GW garbage as a part of their arguments.
I fear a Chicken Little effect:
Bird Flu, Global Warming Etc.
12 posted on
03/06/2008 4:46:34 PM PST by
Codeflier
(No way in Hell I will vote for McCain - under any circumstance imaginable!)
To: WL-law; Genesis defender; proud_yank; FrPR; CygnusXI; enough_idiocy; rdl6989; ...
Global Warming Scam News & Views
|
Christopher Horner Video: "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming"
|
To: EPW Comm Team
16 posted on
03/06/2008 5:11:23 PM PST by
cookcounty
(Obama reach across the aisle? He's so far to the left, he'll need a roadmap to FIND the aisle.)
To: EPW Comm Team
17 posted on
03/06/2008 5:13:36 PM PST by
preacher
(A government which robs from Peter to pay Paul will always have the support of Paul.)
To: EPW Comm Team
Where do the Creationists stand on this political matter?
18 posted on
03/06/2008 5:15:14 PM PST by
RightWhale
(Clam down! avoid ataque de nervosa)
To: EPW Comm Team
It seems the verified evidence does point to increasing CO2 leading to increasing temperature.
But the question has always been “But By How Much?”
The verified evidence points to a lower “How Much” which indicates global warming will not be a catastrophe but will be a nice minimal increase in temperatures which should be good for the planet (considering ice ages cannot exactly be good for the planet.)
I think we are all better off just accepting that increased CO2 leads to higher temperatures (because it really should according to the physics.)
But the verified evidence points to a minimal impact which is nothing to worry about if it is not, indeed, a positive thing.
To: EPW Comm Team
37 posted on
03/06/2008 8:23:56 PM PST by
Thickman
(Term limits are the answer.)
To: EPW Comm Team
When I said, in my opening speech for the launch of UNEP's (United Nations Environment Program) Global Environment Outlook-4 in Beirut: There is now irrevocable evidence that climate change is taking place... I was reading from a statement prepared by UNEP. Faith-based science it may be, but who has time to review all the evidence? I'll continue to act on the basis of anthropogenic climate change, but I really need to put some more time into this, Zurayk wrote. Now that's back-peddling.
38 posted on
03/06/2008 8:35:17 PM PST by
GOPJ
(Do the editors of the L.A. Times realize that illegal immigration is, you know, illegal? Patterico)
To: Mrs Zip
42 posted on
03/06/2008 10:41:35 PM PST by
zip
(((Remember: DimocRat lies told often enough become truth to 48% of all Americans (NRA)))))
To: 75thOVI; AFPhys; aimhigh; Alice in Wonderland; AndrewC; aristotleman; Avoiding_Sulla; BenLurkin; ...
Hey, shut up, the debate is over. This isn't suppression, this is peer review in action, and your peers have determined that you're going to be burned at the stake, uh, using big mirrors reflecting the sunlight, so there's no emissions.
43 posted on
03/06/2008 11:06:09 PM PST by
SunkenCiv
(https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/______________________Profile updated Saturday, March 1, 2008)
To: EPW Comm Team; 11B40; A Balrog of Morgoth; A message; ACelt; Aeronaut; AFPhys; AlexW; ...
52 posted on
03/07/2008 10:58:07 AM PST by
Tolerance Sucks Rocks
(Cloverfield 2008! Why vote for a lesser monster?)
To: EPW Comm Team; ml/nj; firebrand; SunkenCiv; Clintonfatigued; jazusamo; fieldmarshaldj; romanesq; ...
The shocker here is that the
New York Times, of all sources, revealed that the notion of climate change is a controversial subject in the scientific community, and that there are many credible scientists who disagree.
One wonders whether their lefty friends who rule Congress now may have second thoughts about ramming through foolish legislation, such as "cap and trade," that is allegedly "necessary" to combat purported "man-made global warming."
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson