Who do you support for Governor in Oh...
xxxrayted

Berea, OH

#28472 May 16, 2014
woo-boy wrote:
<quoted text>It's proven, you just can't fix TUPID!!
And you are the perfect example of that.
xxxrayted

Berea, OH

#28473 May 16, 2014
Whoops! I guess that 97% went to 96%. One more honest scientist decided to leave the dark side:

Climategate II? Scientific community accused of muzzling dissent on global warming
By Doug McKelwayPublished May 16, 2014

A paper by Lennart Bengtsson, a respected research fellow and climatologist at Britain's University of Reading, was rejected last February by a leading academic journal after a reviewer found it "harmful" to the climate change agenda. The incident is prompting new charges that the scientific community is muzzling dissent when it comes to global warming.

"[Bengtsson] has been a very prolific publisher and was considered one of the top scientists in the mainstream climate community," said Marc Morano, of the website ClimateDepot.com , which is devoted to questioning global warming.

Bengtsson had grown increasingly skeptical of the scientific consensus, often cited by President Obama, that urgent action is needed to curb carbon emissions before climate change exacts an irreversible toll on the planet with extreme drought, storms and rising seas levels.

The president repeatedly has rejected naysayers in the climate debate -- most recently, when he spoke May 9 in Mountainview, Calif. "We've still got some climate deniers who shout loud, but they're wasting everybody's time on a settled debate,” he said.

The administration recently released a comprehensive climate report that critics worry will be used to justify additional environmental regulations.

Bengtsson's paper, submitted to the journal Environmental Research Letters, found that greenhouse gas emissions might be less harmful and cause less warming than computer models project. For that, Morano said, Bengtssonpaid a steep price.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/16/cl...

Oh! And since the common practice of the left is to attack the messenger and not the message, there are multiple outlets reporting the same story including the Canada Free Press and the Telegraph UK.
Ino

Ashburn, VA

#28474 May 16, 2014
They always attack the messenger because they have nothing to say in response to disagree with. Most articles can be cross referenced,but they never read anything posted from any source. Wait for a one liner stupid response to this for proof.
Old Guy

Mason, OH

#28475 May 16, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Oil companies don't need to sell oil. Oil sells itself.
Canton's point was that oil companies lobby the government. They do this through a variety of front groups. Denying climate change is just seen as being good for their business.

"The American Petroleum Institute (API), is the largest trade association for the oil and gas industry, claiming to represent around 400 corporations engaged in oil production, extraction (including hydrofracking), distribution, and other aspects of the industry. API is based in Washington, D.C. and has offices in 27 state capitals.

API is a powerful lobby, spending around $7.3 million on lobbying each year in 2010 and 2009, and spending $6.3 million in 2011.

It is also a major political spender, and has created numerous front groups to advance its political agenda. It also funds groups like Americans for Prosperity and the American Legislative Exchange Council."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...
Canton

Mount Vernon, OH

#28476 May 16, 2014
won't you go suck on a huge peter and get chocked on it and die. You are gonna die just by typing back at yourself you dickass fuckface.
Old Guy

Mason, OH

#28477 May 16, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
A paper by Lennart Bengtsson, a respected research fellow and climatologist at Britain's University of Reading, was rejected last February by a leading academic journal after a reviewer found it "harmful" to the climate change agenda.
"Nicola Gulley, editorial director at IOP Publishing, said: "The draft journal paper by Lennart Bengtsson that Environmental Research Letters declined to publish, which was the subject of this morning's front page story of The Times, contained errors, in our view did not provide a significant advancement in the field, and therefore could not be published in the journal."

She added: "The decision not to publish had absolutely nothing to do with any 'activism' on the part of the reviewers or the journal, as suggested in The Times' article; the rejection was solely based on the content of the paper not meeting the journal's high editorial standards. The referees selected to review this paper were of the highest calibre and are respected members of the international science community. The comments taken from the referee reports were taken out of context and therefore, in the interests of transparency, we have worked with the reviewers to make the full reports available."

In their reports, the reviewers stated that "the overall innovation of the manuscript is very low", and this meant it did not meet requirements for the papers in the journal to "significantly advance knowledge in the field".

They wrote: "The comparison between observation based estimates of [warming]… and model-based estimates is comparing apples and pears, as the models are calculating true global means, whereas the observations have limited coverage."

Other academics defended the peer-review process. Simon Lewis, reader in global change science at University College London, said: "What counts are the reasons the editor gave for rejection. They were because the paper contained important errors and didn't add enough that was new to warrant publication. Looking at all the comments by the reviewer they suggested how the paper might be rewritten in the future to make it a solid contribution to science. That's not suppressing a dissenting view, it's what scientists call peer review."

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/m...
Canton

Mount Vernon, OH

#28478 May 16, 2014
you have got to be the dumbest mfer on here. You are f.ing stupid you f.ing child molester, oh yes you are too. A f.ing sick'O bottton lines you are a pure dumb fuckeded.
Canton

Mount Vernon, OH

#28479 May 16, 2014
loves getting a big ole black cock in him, don't you canton, hey i got one perfect for your ass, i'm james by the way soory i didn't get your name at first. All hell canton just come and take me in, you know you want me!
woo-boy

Van Wert, OH

#28482 May 17, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
And you are the perfect example of that.
I suppose you think the same of Old Guy every time he corrects that sorry brain on those shoulders. Most of the time I just laugh at those teabagger professional victim posts that you put on here. No matter how many times you nutbags get proven wrong, just like clockwork you find some far right corporate paid for lies to try to prove a nutbag point. That is a proven FACT. And you never fail to disappoint on that fact.
woo-boy

Van Wert, OH

#28483 May 17, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Media Matters? HAHAHAHAHAH.
Fox News? HAHAHAHA Cnsnews? HAHAHAHA The Blaze? HAHAHAHA Breitbart? HAHAHAHA World Net Daily? HAHAHAHA InfoWars? HAHAHAHA
xxxrayted

Berea, OH

#28484 May 17, 2014
woo-boy wrote:
<quoted text>I suppose you think the same of Old Guy every time he corrects that sorry brain on those shoulders. Most of the time I just laugh at those teabagger professional victim posts that you put on here. No matter how many times you nutbags get proven wrong, just like clockwork you find some far right corporate paid for lies to try to prove a nutbag point. That is a proven FACT. And you never fail to disappoint on that fact.
Old Guy isn't a troll. You are. That's the difference.
xxxrayted

Berea, OH

#28485 May 17, 2014
Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Canton's point was that oil companies lobby the government. They do this through a variety of front groups. Denying climate change is just seen as being good for their business.
"The American Petroleum Institute (API), is the largest trade association for the oil and gas industry, claiming to represent around 400 corporations engaged in oil production, extraction (including hydrofracking), distribution, and other aspects of the industry. API is based in Washington, D.C. and has offices in 27 state capitals.
API is a powerful lobby, spending around $7.3 million on lobbying each year in 2010 and 2009, and spending $6.3 million in 2011.
It is also a major political spender, and has created numerous front groups to advance its political agenda. It also funds groups like Americans for Prosperity and the American Legislative Exchange Council."
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...
Canton's point is that he believes any scientist that doesn't believe man is controlling the climate must have ulterior motives. It just doesn't make sense to Canton that scientists disagree with global warming based on common sense and multiple factors that support their theory.

My point is that much of science gets their money through government. Government is hell bent on this global warming thing because if they can convince enough people that this theory is fact, the people will willingly surrender this control of our energy to the government.

No matter what, I'm always suspicious when government wants to take control over something. It's one of my main objections to Commie Care. The more control government has, the more power they have, and I think that government has way too much control over the people as it is.

If there is global warming, prove it, tell us what it would take to stop it, and tell us how much money it's going to cost us. Thus far, nobody has been able to do any of these things. That's why it's a farce.
woo-boy

Van Wert, OH

#28486 May 17, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Canton's point is that he believes any scientist that doesn't believe man is controlling the climate must have ulterior motives. It just doesn't make sense to Canton that scientists disagree with global warming based on common sense and multiple factors that support their theory.
My point is that much of science gets their money through government. Government is hell bent on this global warming thing because if they can convince enough people that this theory is fact, the people will willingly surrender this control of our energy to the government.
No matter what, I'm always suspicious when government wants to take control over something. It's one of my main objections to Commie Care. The more control government has, the more power they have, and I think that government has way too much control over the people as it is.
If there is global warming, prove it, tell us what it would take to stop it, and tell us how much money it's going to cost us. Thus far, nobody has been able to do any of these things. That's why it's a farce.
Most people would bet the bank that the false concern you have started exactly in 2008.
Helen Roper

Dublin, OH

#28487 May 17, 2014
Kasich is the best! Love him.
Old Guy

Mason, OH

#28488 May 17, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Canton's point is that he believes any scientist that doesn't believe man is controlling the climate must have ulterior motives. It just doesn't make sense to Canton that scientists disagree with global warming based on common sense and multiple factors that support their theory.
At this point in time, the vast majority of climate scientists believe in man-made climate change. Most of the few that don't are funded by energy companies that have a vested interest in maintaining our reliance on fossil fuels.
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
My point is that much of science gets their money through government. Government is hell bent on this global warming thing because if they can convince enough people that this theory is fact, the people will willingly surrender this control of our energy to the government.
This is where your argument breaks down for me. Who in the government originally came up with this vast conspiracy, that survives changes in administration?
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
If there is global warming, prove it, tell us what it would take to stop it, and tell us how much money it's going to cost us. Thus far, nobody has been able to do any of these things. That's why it's a farce.
When you go to your doctor, and he tells you that you are sick with cancer, do you ask what it going to take to completely stop it and how much it would cost, before you would begin any kind of treatment?

Scientists have been studying the idea of man-made climate change for a long time. As with most new ideas in science, it was rejected at first. It acceptance has been a slow process. The fact that the vast majority of climate scientist now accept the idea is due to an increasing amount of evidence that supports the theory.

"In 1896 a Swedish scientist published a new idea. As humanity burned fossil fuels such as coal, which added carbon dioxide gas to the Earth's atmosphere, we would raise the planet's average temperature. This "greenhouse effect" was only one of many speculations about climate change, however, and not the most plausible. Scientists found technical reasons to argue that our emissions could not change the climate. Indeed most thought it was obvious that puny humanity could never affect the vast climate cycles, which were governed by a benign "balance of nature." In any case major change seemed impossible except over tens of thousands of years.

In the 1930s, people realized that the United States and North Atlantic region had warmed significantly during the previous half-century. Scientists supposed this was just a phase of some mild natural cycle, with unknown causes. Only one lone voice, the amateur G.S. Callendar, insisted that greenhouse warming was on the way. Whatever the cause of warming, everyone thought that if it happened to continue for the next few centuries, so much the better.

In the 1950s, Callendar's claims provoked a few scientists to look into the question with improved techniques and calculations. What made that possible was a sharp increase of government funding, especially from military agencies with Cold War concerns about the weather and the seas. The new studies showed that, contrary to earlier crude estimates, carbon dioxide could indeed build up in the atmosphere and should bring warming. Painstaking measurements drove home the point in 1960 by showing that the level of the gas was in fact rising, year by year. "

"Moreover, by the late 1970s global temperatures had begun to rise again. Many climate scientists had become convinced that the rise was likely to continue as greenhouse gases accumulated. By around 2000, some predicted, an unprecedented global warming would become apparent. Their worries first caught wide public attention in the summer of 1988, the hottest on record till then.(Most since then have been hotter.)"

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.ht...
.
Old Guy

Mason, OH

#28489 May 17, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Canton's point is that he believes any scientist that doesn't believe man is controlling the climate must have ulterior motives. It just doesn't make sense to Canton that scientists disagree with global warming based on common sense and multiple factors that support their theory.
At this point in time, the vast majority of climate scientists believe in man-made climate change. Most of the few that don't are funded by energy companies that have a vested interest in maintaining our reliance on fossil fuels.
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
My point is that much of science gets their money through government. Government is hell bent on this global warming thing because if they can convince enough people that this theory is fact, the people will willingly surrender this control of our energy to the government.
This is where your argument breaks down for me. Who in the government originally came up with this vast conspiracy, that survives changes in administration?
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
If there is global warming, prove it, tell us what it would take to stop it, and tell us how much money it's going to cost us. Thus far, nobody has been able to do any of these things. That's why it's a farce.
When you go to your doctor, and he tells you that you are sick with cancer, do you ask what it going to take to completely stop it and how much it would cost, before you would begin any kind of treatment?

Scientists have been studying the idea of man-made climate change for a long time. As with most new ideas in science, it was rejected at first. It acceptance has been a slow process. The fact that the vast majority of climate scientist now accept the idea is due to an increasing amount of evidence that supports the theory.

"In 1896 a Swedish scientist published a new idea. As humanity burned fossil fuels such as coal, which added carbon dioxide gas to the Earth's atmosphere, we would raise the planet's average temperature. This "greenhouse effect" was only one of many speculations about climate change, however, and not the most plausible. Scientists found technical reasons to argue that our emissions could not change the climate. Indeed most thought it was obvious that puny humanity could never affect the vast climate cycles, which were governed by a benign "balance of nature." In any case major change seemed impossible except over tens of thousands of years.

In the 1930s, people realized that the United States and North Atlantic region had warmed significantly during the previous half-century. Scientists supposed this was just a phase of some mild natural cycle, with unknown causes. Only one lone voice, the amateur G.S. Callendar, insisted that greenhouse warming was on the way. Whatever the cause of warming, everyone thought that if it happened to continue for the next few centuries, so much the better.

In the 1950s, Callendar's claims provoked a few scientists to look into the question with improved techniques and calculations. What made that possible was a sharp increase of government funding, especially from military agencies with Cold War concerns about the weather and the seas. The new studies showed that, contrary to earlier crude estimates, carbon dioxide could indeed build up in the atmosphere and should bring warming. Painstaking measurements drove home the point in 1960 by showing that the level of the gas was in fact rising, year by year. "

"Moreover, by the late 1970s global temperatures had begun to rise again. Many climate scientists had become convinced that the rise was likely to continue as greenhouse gases accumulated. By around 2000, some predicted, an unprecedented global warming would become apparent. Their worries first caught wide public attention in the summer of 1988, the hottest on record till then.(Most since then have been hotter.)"

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.ht...
Old Guy

Mason, OH

#28490 May 17, 2014
"The world's governments had created a panel to give them the most reliable possible advice, as negotiated among thousands of climate experts and officials. By 2001 this Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) managed to establish a consensus, phrased so cautiously that scarcely any expert or government representative dissented. They announced that although the climate system was so complex that scientists would never reach complete certainty, it was much more likely than not that our civilization faced severe global warming. At that point the discovery of global warming was essentially completed. Scientists knew the most important things about how the climate could change during the 21st century. How the climate would actually change now depended chiefly on what policies humanity would choose for its greenhouse gas emissions.

Since 2001, greatly improved computer models and an abundance of data of many kinds strengthened the conclusion that human emissions are very likely to cause serious climate change. The IPCC's conclusions were reviewed and endorsed by the national science academies of every major nation from the United States to China, along with leading scientific societies and indeed virtually every organization that could speak for a scientific consensus."

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.ht...
xxxrayted

Berea, OH

#28491 May 17, 2014
Old Guy wrote:
"The world's governments had created a panel to give them the most reliable possible advice, as negotiated among thousands of climate experts and officials. By 2001 this Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) managed to establish a consensus, phrased so cautiously that scarcely any expert or government representative dissented. They announced that although the climate system was so complex that scientists would never reach complete certainty, it was much more likely than not that our civilization faced severe global warming. At that point the discovery of global warming was essentially completed. Scientists knew the most important things about how the climate could change during the 21st century. How the climate would actually change now depended chiefly on what policies humanity would choose for its greenhouse gas emissions.
Since 2001, greatly improved computer models and an abundance of data of many kinds strengthened the conclusion that human emissions are very likely to cause serious climate change. The IPCC's conclusions were reviewed and endorsed by the national science academies of every major nation from the United States to China, along with leading scientific societies and indeed virtually every organization that could speak for a scientific consensus."
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.ht...
Which would be fine if these computer models were accurate, but they are not:

Report: 95 percent of global warming models are wrong
3:30 PM 02/11/2014

Environmentalists and Democrats often cite a “97 percent” consensus among climate scientists about global warming. But they never cite estimates that 95 percent of climate models predicting global temperature rises have been wrong.

Former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer says that climate models used by government agencies to create policies “have failed miserably.” Spencer analyzed 90 climate models against surface temperature and satellite temperature data, and found that more than 95 percent of the models “have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH).”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/11/report-95-p...
xxxrayted

Berea, OH

#28492 May 17, 2014
Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
At this point in time, the vast majority of climate scientists believe in man-made climate change. Most of the few that don't are funded by energy companies that have a vested interest in maintaining our reliance on fossil fuels.
<quoted text>
This is where your argument breaks down for me. Who in the government originally came up with this vast conspiracy, that survives changes in administration?
<quoted text>
When you go to your doctor, and he tells you that you are sick with cancer, do you ask what it going to take to completely stop it and how much it would cost, before you would begin any kind of treatment?
.
Good question. If my doctor had empirical evidence that I did have cancer, then expense would be less of an issue. If my doctor just looked into my eyes, checked my pulse, and asked me to cough and stated he thought I had cancer, would I be willing to spend the thousands of dollars and the torture of chemo therapy over a hunch? See, that's what we are really talking about here.
Old Guy

Mason, OH

#28493 May 17, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer says that climate models used by government agencies to create policies “have failed miserably.”
Unfortunately, Dr. Spencer is an Evangelical Christian, and that informs his opinions regarding global warming.

"Spencer is a signatory to An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming, which states that "Earth and its ecosystems – created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting"."

"In TCS Daily, Spencer wrote, "Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as 'fact,' I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism. In the scientific community, I am not alone."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_%28s...

He may not be alone, but he's in a very small minority among scientists:

"An overwhelming majority of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity. Nearly every scientific society, representing hundreds of thousands of scientists, has issued statements rejecting intelligent design[ and a petition supporting the teaching of evolutionary biology was endorsed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Columbus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Should the GOP cut its loses? 11 min Slim Pickens 821
I wish our cat would die. 17 min Mimzy 51
News Hillary Clinton tops Donald Trump in battlegrou... 43 min d pants 203
Big Johnson 1 hr Catman Dave 4
Colin Powell NOT Advise Clinton on email Server 6 hr VoteForJill Stein... 4
Trump's accusations are unfounded and reflects ... 7 hr Pale Rider 30
Trump spent campaign monies on own book 8 hr 404 not found 3
Trump the Liar 9 hr Pale Rider 896
Powell advised Hillary.. 18 hr d pants 101

Columbus Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Columbus Mortgages