[tomder55]

Yes that's correct .You hit on the truth . Science doesn't know that the current warming (despite a decade long cooling ) is the result of human CO2 emissions . But the warmist zealots concocted a conclusion that it is to support a political agenda.

Evo Morales's Climate ambasssador to Copenhagen is advancing a proposal "Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth" that rejects cap and trade solutions, and instead demands that developed states pay damages done to the planet to compensate the developing nations as they rise.

The whole hidden political agenda here is wealth distribution and punishing the Western nations. [When Clete responds he will add a malthusian angle to the agenda also .There are just too many damn people exhaling ! ]

[speechlesstx]

Let me say it another way. Science, like algebra, has NO agenda... On the other hand, people who DENY science are the ones with the agenda. Yes, it DOES bother me.

Then why do so many libs complain about the health care industry daring to make a profit from what they do? How many scientific breakthroughs are the result of private enterprise with a profit motive? Are scientists free from any such influences? They have ideologies, they have to make a living, or do you think they're all just in it for the good of mankind? You're really not that naïve are you?

It should be obvious to you but when scientists engage in manipulating data, threatening to destroy data rather than release it under FOI requests, and suppress dissent, that's an agenda.

You speak about dumbing down students, but you don't want 'em to learn anything about sex. You don't want 'em to learn about evolution. You don't want 'em to learn biology... You don't want 'em to learn history... Frankly, looks to ME, like YOU folks are the ones dumbing the kids down.

As with us being anti-science that's just plain wrong. I don't want my kids learning a planned parenthood curriculum. I don't want my kids reading an Obama “Safe Schools” Czar Kevin Jennings reading list. I'm perfectly capable of teaching my kids about sex on my own and am not willing to surrender my parental rights to the leftist education establishment.

I don't care if they learn about evolution, as long as it's taught from a scientific basis and not an ideological point of view. Good luck with that one.

I'm a huge supporter of biology classes, as long as biology is what's being taught.

History is one of my favorite subjects, just not a revisionist history based on an ideology.

What surprises me is that you don't agree with my take. You probably hate the idea of any religious slant in public schools, but apparently can't see the religion in sex ed, evolution and climate science.

[speechlesstx]

There are just too may damn people exhaling ! ]

Hence my newly minted profile pic. :D

[frangipanis]

New era, Tom.

[paraclete]

No. Does that mean that the current global warming ISN'T caused by man? No.

That's the best you got?

excon

Hi ex I don't know why he bothers. It is clear you are a religious believer in Global Warming, that is a belief that man has become God and can make global scale changes in the weather and we must worship at the alter by overturning our technology

The evidence is, ex, seen over a long period, there are short periods of warming and long periods of cooling culminating in an ice age, that makes ice age the norm and what we are experiencing just a short term lull and that all this takes place without the intervention of man. Where did I get this information?from science, ex, well documented science. Do CO2 concentrations have anything to do with the warming periods, ex, well they may be a consequence of them

[tomder55]

Fraginpanis
It amazes me that there is a lack of alarm at the corruption of the scientific process. Perhaps you don't understand that all the conclusions are invalid or suspect because of that ?
Do you not realize that all the links you provide are the results of suspect research ?

[paraclete]

The whole hidden political agenda here is wealth distribution and punishing the Western nations. [When Clete responds he will add a malthusian angle to the agenda also .There are just too many damn people exhaling ! ]

I don't like people doing my thinking for me Tom as I have many points of view on climate change and the solutions.

The first solution is that we have to abandon the science fiction viewpoint; that is the view that our technology can overcome any problem

The next solution is that we must abandon the one world government viewpoint; that is the view that the UN or some other alleged Committee of the Whole can enforce a set of rules and penalties

The third solution is we must abandon is the everyone is entitled to develop to the same standard of living before taking responsibility: This is the view that we owe developing nations something.

The forth and only real solution is that we abandon the business as usual viewpoint; This is the view point that says we cannot act because of the economic consequences

And of course I have left the best until last because it is the only ultimate solution, not only do we need to return to pre-industrial levels of emissions but also to pre-industrial levels of population. This is the trogladite viewpoint.

So I know that realistically the world is not ready for any of these solutions and so back to business as usual but then we really don't need solutions if the problem really doesn't exist or it is a natural process which is what some leading scientists are telling us. This is the sky is isn't falling viewpoint.

If it is a natural process, a cycle associated with solar variability or variations in Earth's orbit then we may as well get used to the possibility that things are going to be difficult for a while. The Earth will heal itself and that might mean that human beings will have to get serious about many things they are doing

[frangipanis]

fraginpanis
It amazes me that there is a lack of alarm at the corruption of the scientific process. Perhaps you don't understand that all the conclusions are invalid or suspect because of that ?
Do you not realize that all the links you provide are the results of suspect research ?

Lol! Geez, Tom, you make me laugh :)

[inthebox]

Why don't those that have faith in AGW suggest increasing nuclear power ? Why have a conference in Copenhagen at all, when all the politicians and scientists and press traveling there are causing more CO2 production which they seek to decrease?

Frangi the first link is of CO2 levels but no corresponding temperature graph? Also remember that in science, correlation does not prove causality.

Ex made the comment that he does not look at the data??
How do you arrive at a conclusion without examining the data? If that data has been manipulated, made up, lost, altered etc. how can you trust in what conclusion comes from such data? That would be UNSCIENTIFIC.


G&P

[frangipanis]

How about supporting a larger investment in solar power? Recent breakthroughs will make it more efficient and affordable within the coming years and we're likely to see a big change, with most residential areas making use of solar power.

With buildings generating more than 40 percent of greenhouse gases worldwide, real estate has been identified as a leading industry for addressing climate change.

solar power, Andrew McInnon - Google Search

I don't pretend to be a scientist inthebox, but I've taken enough interest to have made a judgement call on whose opinion to trust based on their expert knowledge of science.

Garnaut Review Web Site: Home

[tomder55]

I am not opposed to the development of any alternative energy option. When they become commercially viable I am sure they will compete in the marketplace.

There have indeed been some breakthroughs in solar energy technology. But government putting the cart before the horse isn't going to make it happen any quicker. Edison had to invent a workable incandecent bulb first before the infrastructure was put in place to replace whale oil street lanterns.

[paraclete]

I am not opposed to the development of any alternative energy option. When they become commercially viable I am sure they will compete in the marketplace.

There have indeed been some breakthroughs in solar energy technology. But government putting the cart before the horse aint gonna make it happen any quicker. Edison had to invent a workable incandecent bulb first before the infrastructure was put in place to replace whale oil street lanterns.

Get real Tom I thought you further advanced than that. The scientific method requires demonstratable proof not computer models we might as well go back to consulting the oracle at Delphi. Solar power is along way from being practable

[tomder55]

My approval of the development of alternate energy has nothing at all to do with AGW. I am into energy independence and having sufficient energy to fuel the 21st century economy . My whole approach is "all hands on deck" and let the market decide.

[Catsmine]

the scientific method requires demonstratable proof not computer models

Aren't computer models what started the whole "global warming" religion in the first place?

[NeedKarma]

Aren't computer models what started the whole "global warming" religion in the first place?

It doesn't take much to become a religion I guess, but then again I always knew that. :)

[frangipanis]

This has nothing to do with religion. It's about the planet we live on. It's not about power or money.

[frangipanis]

Climate models driven by scenarios of greenhouse gas and aerosol (small particle) emissions estimate a rise in temperature of 1.4 to 5.8 degrees by 2100 assuming no actions to reduce climate change. While this is comparable to previously occurring climate change, it is occurring at an unprecedented pace and the changes would affect a larger and less mobile population.
Climate Change - Ask a Real Expert - Ask an expert - The Lab - Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Gateway to Science

Okay. I challenge each of you to seek out a respected climate change scientist and share your thoughts with them, then return here and let me know how it went.

[excon]

Aren't computer models what started the whole "global warming" religion in the first place?

Hello Cats:

Seems to me, that people who already HAVE religion are the one's calling the kettle black...

As a matter of fact, it's religion that PREVENTS some people from seeing the truth... You DID read Gals belief, on another thread, that climate is in God's purview - not man's.

Nope. I'm going to take the scientists word. Not your preachers...

excon

[speechlesstx]

Okay. I challenge each of you to seek out a respected climate change scientist and share your thoughts with them, then return here and let me know how it went.

I sent them my question, we'll see what happens. I did notice there weren't any questions on Climategate answered so I doubt mine will ever see the light of day.

[tomder55]

Fraginpanis looks like the expert is relying on that hockey stick graph[the graph that showed flat temperatures for centuries, then suddenly in the last century, rises sharply ] that doesn't even consider the Medieval Warming period even though it was clearly in the time depicted in the graph.

Ask the scientists how any of the conclusions can be trusted when there was manipulation of the data and data destruction. Can any scientific conclusions be made from corrupted and data lacking integrity ?

Ask the expert what the expert thinks about scientific work that can't be duplicated because of data destruction.

Ask the expert about New Zealand Government's chief climate advisory unit (NIWA )massaging climate data to show a global warming trend that wasn't there.

Here is the mushroom cloud from the mouth of Phil Jones that destroys all the evidence .

“I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline.”

You can't get away from that . It exposed the whole fraud.