Brad II

Remove politicians from climate debate

Another very well informed and knowledgeable scientist to read is Lindzen. There is a very telling debate on Youtube between Christy and another scientist, Schelisinger who is from a different discipline, not a climate scientist, who never the less tries debating Christy but without any facts he is left pretty much defenseless. In the debate Christy makes some very good points where he shows what the climate models have predicted and what in fact the data shows has happened. The models are not even close and sometimes the complete opposite of reality. These models, which Christy refers to as hypotheses, are what our politicians are basing our economic and public policy on. God help us. http://www.youtube .com/watch?v=z0ml9 zs9aZQ Above you will find the link for the first part of the debate. I found Schlesingers’ part of the debate rather boring and uninteresting while Christy has numbers and data to prove all his points. Christy also has some interesting insight on the IPCC climate panel of which at one time he was a lead author. (Friday | post #16)

Remove politicians from climate debate

One of the points that John Christy makes repeatedly is that the climate system is so complex and the scientists know so little about it how can they say they know what is causing global warming or try to predict what is going to happen even 5 years from now let alone 50 or 100. More problems for the AGW cult. It seems to me that since the Climategate scandal broke more of the main stream media are finally reporting stories from the so called AGW skeptics. Maybe we will finally get some honest debate and hear both sides of the argument in the media. For instance here is an interesting story today that reports that atmospheric CO2 has increased minimally if at all since 1850. “To assess whether the airborne fraction is indeed increasing, Wolfgang Knorr of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol reanalyzed available atmospheric carbon dioxide and emissions data since 1850 and considers the uncertainties in the data. In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades.” http://www.science daily.com/releases /2009/12/091230184 221.htm Whether you are a side with the AGW believers or the skeptics an open debate should be welcome. (Thursday Dec 31 | post #11)

We do see the true character of many on the left. (Wednesday Dec 30 | post #82)

Remove politicians from climate debate

Are you trying to say that Lake Oroville water levels are down because of AGW? If so then why are other parts of the country receiving record snow falls? Is that part of the warming or part of the cooling caused by the warming? Frank let me help you here. The climate does change, all the time. There were ice ages, there were hot spells, the 1930s for example were very hot and dry, remember the dust bowl. Speaking of Lake Oroville water levels and the drought we are currently experiencing in California. http://online.wsj. com/public/article /SB119387567378878 423.html Professor John Christy, who had a share in the Nobel awarded to Gore as a scientist on the IPCC panel, has studied the last 1000 years of weather patterns of the western United States and has come to the conclusion that our drought will not be over for a number of years. He doesn’t base this on CO2 increases or some jacked up climate modeling programs but on climate cycles that do repeat. On a side note Lake Oroville is going to start 2010 about 7ft closer to full than it did 2009. (Wednesday Dec 30 | post #6)

The big difference between your sources and the likes of Beck or Limbaugh is that they base their opinion on reality. You obviously don’t listen to Limbaugh, who by the way is right over 98% of the time, Hugh Hewitt, Medved or the like, otherwise you may learn something. Even though they are lefties Politico is more balanced than many on the left. Do yourself a favour and get informed. Read Hitchens, Paglia on Slate or Victor Davis Hanson and some of the other fine authors on NRO. I don’t agree with Hitchens or Paglia on a lot of their views but they do write well thought out columns that do make you think through your positions rather than just repeating the same old trash regurgitated by oneil or yourself. Then again you refuse to acknowledge the facts so why would you want to be informedAs I thought you didn’t really read the information that I posted. It is not just that the so called “rich” pay a higher proportion, their percentage of income tax did increase under Bushs’ presidency while the middle class and poor tax payers percentage went down. When the taxes the “rich” pay increased under Bush that is not a tax cut for the rich, no matter how often you repeat that lieEven though the information was given to you you refuse to read it. No wonder some of you lefties are so ignorant and ill informed. The data provided was from the IRS. (Wednesday Dec 30 | post #78)

As Scholar stated all you do is parrot opinions. You and your pal oneil repeat the lefty talking points and don’t bother to think about what you are parroting and whether there is any factual basis to any of it. There are so many inaccuracies in your posts I don’t have the time to dissect them all so I will chose one that you lefties always jump on. I was not a fan of either of the stimulus plans that Bush pushed through, cutting corporate tax rates would have helped get the economy moving a lot quicker. The fact is that the Bush tax cuts increased the number of Americans not paying income tax while increasing the tax rate for the top 1% of income earners. That means that the rich did pay more income tax during 2001-2007 than the middle and lower income tax payers did. The top 1% paid more in taxes than 95% of all tax payers. I would be more in favour of a flat tax where everyone who makes over $25K(we have to give the poor some help) pays the same tax rate. http://blog.americ an.com/?p=7951 “One could even argue that the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 were actually huge “tax cuts for the poor and middle class” because they helped to increase the number of “non-payers” by more than 14 million Americans between 2000 and 2007. Secondly, the tax burden on “the rich”—the top 1 percent of taxpayers—reached a record high in 2007 of more than 40 percent, and was higher after the Bush tax cuts than before.” “It also means that the burden of income taxes is falling on a shrinking percentage of income tax filers who actually pay taxes, especially higher income groups. As the chart below shows (data herehttp://www.tax foundation.org/pub lications/show/234 08.html), the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 40.42 percent of all income taxes collected in 2007 ($451 billion), the highest share in modern history for that group, and more for the first time ever than the entire bottom 95 percent of taxpayers, who paid $439 billion, or 39.4 percent of the total.” The data is from the IRS. I agree that Bush increased the size of government too much and spent too much but to use that to justify Obama’s quadrupling of our national debt while increasing government even more is completely ludicrous. Obama has done nothing to help the economy and the only job increases the dems have been responsible for are government jobs which do nothing to help the economy. We need less government not more; these politicians are creating a monster that will destroy this country as we knew it. http://www.youtube .com/watch?v=lyodO pUxgHA&feature =channel (Wednesday Dec 30 | post #76)

Yeah, group hug with Jaime, Rose and Frank. They all agree with each other. Who would ever have thought that would occur. (Tuesday Dec 29 | post #59)

O'Neill:Old orphans at Christmas time

Topix is not controlled by the Paradise Post. Anyone can report abuse if a post is abusive, myself, Oneill or who ever could have reported it as abusive and the Topix administrators would then pull your post. (Sunday Dec 20 | post #6)

The best you can do for a reference is Wikipedia? We are not talking generally about the green house effect. You are well aware of the fact that there is more than one gas in the atmosphere that causes the greenhouse effect. We are discussing mans' addition of CO2 to the atmosphere and whether or not that amount of CO2 has in fact warmed the earth. That has not been provenYou can say what you want but that does not constitute proof. I would rather trust climatologists such as Lindzen and Christy who say that the climate is much too complex for us to know that we are in fact contributing anything at all to the atmosphere that is changing the climate in any way. No matter how accurate your computer modeling programs are, if you feed garbage data into them you will get garbage out. “Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data. The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-sta tion data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country's territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations. The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century. The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations. On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations. IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations. The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world's land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.” http://en.rian.ru/ papers/20091216/15 7260660.html (Thursday Dec 17 | post #342)

Basic physics like gravity? You mean that we can make observations and make accurate predictions? Which predictions by the AGW crowd have come to pass? Increased hurricane activity? Rising sea levels? Is that like the prediction in the 70s that we were heading into an ice age and that all living in northern climes would freeze and or starve to death? You saying that mans’ additions to the existing CO2 levels in the atmosphere have caused global warming does not make it a fact. You have no proof. You still have 100 to go. (Wednesday Dec 16 | post #279)

Looking at reason no. 4 above has me wondering as to how much CO2 was put into the atmosphere during WW II. With all the manufacturing output, and all that is entailed in a massive war the size of WW II, the bombs, the planes, the ships, the tanks, all that equipment and all the explosives for 5 years the CO2 output must have been massive. (Tuesday Dec 15 | post #268)

Alright, for all the AGW believers it is time to do some real work. There is a list of 100 reasons not to believe in AGW, if AGW is a fact it should be easy for you to disprove all 100. You have until the end of the Copenhagen AGW believer’s party. Here are the first 10 reasons not to believe in AGW, for the rest follow the link. 1) There is “no real scientific proof” that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man’s activity. 2) Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history. 3) Warmer periods of the Earth’s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels. 4) After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940. 5) Throughout the Earth’s history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher – more than ten times as high. 6) Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. 7) The 0.7C increase in the average global temperature over the last hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends. 8) The IPCC theory is driven by just 60 scientists and favourable reviewers not the 4,000 usually cited. 9) Leaked e-mails from British climate scientists – in a scandal known as “Climate-gate” - suggest that that has been manipulated to exaggerate global warming 10) A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years. http://www.dailyex press.co.uk/posts/ view/146138 I have included some music that you can play while working on your rebuttal. http://www.youtube .com/watch?v=nrhf_ zgtmAg (Tuesday Dec 15 | post #265)

Actually Gore is the medias’ obsession and since you AGW believers have taken him as your spokesman we find it humorous when his inane predictions and dire warnings fall flat. Gore is the one having the last laugh, he worked you AGW believers as well as he worked the media, he has become a billionaire working this scam while increasing his carbon footprint. Can anyone say hypocrite? (Tuesday Dec 15 | post #241)

It appears that you jumped the gun with your celebrations. I don’t know that the UN predicted that the Arctic would be ice fee in 5-7 years. I did read where Al Gore, your climate god, made that prediction. Do you remember last fall when the AGW scientists also predicted that there would be no Arctic sea ice last winter? Again they were wrong. Getting back to Al Gore, he did predict that there would the Arctic would be ice free in 5 -7 years and then was slammed by the scientist whose data he was using. What a moron Al Gore has become. http://www.timeson line.co.uk/tol/new s/environment/cope nhagen/article6956 783.ece “Mr Gore, speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, stated the latest research showed that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years. In his speech, Mr Gore told the conference: “These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.” “It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at,” Dr Maslowski said. “I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.” Mr Gore’s office later admitted that the 75 per cent figure was one used by Dr Maslowksi as a “ballpark figure” several years ago in a conversation with Mr Gore. Perhaps Mr Gore had felt the need to gild the lily to buttress resolve. But his speech was roundly criticised by members of the climate science community. “This is an exaggeration that opens the science up to criticism from sceptics,” Professor Jim Overland, a leading oceanographer at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said. “You really don’t need to exaggerate the changes in the Arctic.” Others said that, even if quoted correctly, Dr Maslowski’s six-year projection for near-ice-free conditions is at the extreme end of the scale. Most climate scientists agree that a 20 to 30-year timescale is more likely for the near-disappearance of sea ice. “Maslowski’s work is very well respected, but he’s a bit out on a limb,” said Professor Peter Wadhams, a specialist in ocean physics at the University of Cambridge. Richard Lindzen, a climate scientist at the Massachusets Institute of Technology who does not believe that global warming is largely caused by man, said: “He’s just extrapolated from 2007, when there was a big retreat, and got zero.” There we have it. Once again there is no consensus and the science is indeed not settled. (Tuesday Dec 15 | post #224)