Discussion:
Why I am a Climate Change Skeptic
(too old to reply)
David Hartung
2015-03-21 23:14:52 UTC
Permalink
As is often the case with reports such as this, there are no cites to
support what Dr. Moore says, but given his background, I am inclined to
at least give his words consideration.


http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2015/03/20/why-i-am-climate-change-skeptic
[...]
Over the past 150 million years, carbon dioxide had been drawn down
steadily (by plants) from about 3,000 parts per million to about 280
parts per million before the Industrial Revolution. If this trend
continued, the carbon dioxide level would have become too low to support
life on Earth. Human fossil fuel use and clearing land for crops have
boosted carbon dioxide from its lowest level in the history of the Earth
back to 400 parts per million today.

At 400 parts per million, all our food crops, forests, and natural
ecosystems are still on a starvation diet for carbon dioxide. The
optimum level of carbon dioxide for plant growth, given enough water and
nutrients, is about 1,500 parts per million, nearly four times higher
than today. Greenhouse growers inject carbon-dioxide to increase yields.
Farms and forests will produce more if carbon-dioxide keeps rising.

We have no proof increased carbon dioxide is responsible for the earth’s
slight warming over the past 300 years. There has been no significant
warming for 18 years while we have emitted 25 per cent of all the carbon
dioxide ever emitted. Carbon dioxide is vital for life on Earth and
plants would like more of it. Which should we emphasize to our children?
[...]
Senator Jim Inhofe
2015-03-21 23:40:11 UTC
Permalink
As is often the case with reports such as this, there are no cites to support
what Dr. Moore says, but given his background, I am inclined to at least give
his words consideration.
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2015/03/20/why-i-am-climate-change-skeptic
[...]
Over the past 150 million years, carbon dioxide had been drawn down steadily
(by plants) from about 3,000 parts per million to about 280 parts per million
before the Industrial Revolution. If this trend continued, the carbon dioxide
level would have become too low to support life on Earth. Human fossil fuel
use and clearing land for crops have boosted carbon dioxide from its lowest
level in the history of the Earth back to 400 parts per million today.
At 400 parts per million, all our food crops, forests, and natural ecosystems
are still on a starvation diet for carbon dioxide. The optimum level of
carbon dioxide for plant growth, given enough water and nutrients, is about
1,500 parts per million, nearly four times higher than today. Greenhouse
growers inject carbon-dioxide to increase yields. Farms and forests will
produce more if carbon-dioxide keeps rising.
We have no proof increased carbon dioxide is responsible for the earth’s
slight warming over the past 300 years. There has been no significant warming
for 18 years while we have emitted 25 per cent of all the carbon dioxide ever
emitted. Carbon dioxide is vital for life on Earth and plants would like more
of it. Which should we emphasize to our children?
[...]
science is stupid. it's a religion under a different name. heck,
scientsts can't even tell us when a hurricane will hit and kill bible
thumpers in hurricane alley. i believe in Jesus Christ, a jewish guy
from the middle east who will one day return from the sky and prove
that the bible is a history book and not one of fables. One day we'll
all speak his language, Aramaic (not American).

NASA says that global warming is real, but they can't be trusted since
they faked Kennedy's moon landings.

see you in church tomorrow.
wy
2015-03-21 23:51:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Hartung
As is often the case with reports such as this, there are no cites to
support what Dr. Moore says, but given his background, I am inclined to
at least give his words consideration.
You mean the background of his being one of the 3% of scientists on the planet who are totally clueless about climatology? You always keep siding with the wrong people, no wonder you don't know anything.
Post by David Hartung
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2015/03/20/why-i-am-climate-change-skeptic
[...]
Over the past 150 million years, carbon dioxide had been drawn down
steadily (by plants) from about 3,000 parts per million to about 280
parts per million before the Industrial Revolution. If this trend
continued, the carbon dioxide level would have become too low to support
life on Earth. Human fossil fuel use and clearing land for crops have
boosted carbon dioxide from its lowest level in the history of the Earth
back to 400 parts per million today.
At 400 parts per million, all our food crops, forests, and natural
ecosystems are still on a starvation diet for carbon dioxide. The
optimum level of carbon dioxide for plant growth, given enough water and
nutrients, is about 1,500 parts per million, nearly four times higher
than today. Greenhouse growers inject carbon-dioxide to increase yields.
Farms and forests will produce more if carbon-dioxide keeps rising.
We have no proof increased carbon dioxide is responsible for the earth's
slight warming over the past 300 years. There has been no significant
warming for 18 years while we have emitted 25 per cent of all the carbon
dioxide ever emitted. Carbon dioxide is vital for life on Earth and
plants would like more of it. Which should we emphasize to our children?
[...]
Think pressure cooker, and maybe, with a visible fraction of a functioning lucid brain, you'll get it.
Willard Watts
2015-03-22 00:00:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by wy
You mean the background of his being one of the 3% of scientists on the
planet who are totally clueless about climatology? You always keep siding
with the wrong people, no wonder you don't know anything.
As long as there is at least one God fearing Republican out there who
is skeptical about the great socialist global warming conspiracy, the
debate over its veracity will continue to rage and there will never be
a consensus.

The Heritage foundation isn't funded by our evil Obama controlled
government like NASA and our military are, they're money comes from
individuals who have no special interests what so ever. Greenies are
luddites who want us to return to the days of the horse and buggy.
One day we'll go to Saturn's moon Titan, grab all them hydrocarbons and
ship them back here to power our SUVs. It's in Ted Cruz's master
plan.

Read my website. wattsupwiththat.com
wy
2015-03-22 00:09:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Willard Watts
Post by wy
You mean the background of his being one of the 3% of scientists on the
planet who are totally clueless about climatology? You always keep siding
with the wrong people, no wonder you don't know anything.
As long as there is at least one God fearing Republican out there who
is skeptical about the great socialist global warming conspiracy, the
debate over its veracity will continue to rage and there will never be
a consensus.
Yo talkin' like sum kind of bible thumpin' fool, boy.
Post by Willard Watts
The Heritage foundation isn't funded by our evil Obama controlled
government like NASA and our military are, they're money comes from
individuals who have no special interests what so ever. Greenies are
luddites who want us to return to the days of the horse and buggy.
One day we'll go to Saturn's moon Titan, grab all them hydrocarbons and
ship them back here to power our SUVs. It's in Ted Cruz's master
plan.
Read my website. wattsupwiththat.com
You got a website? Aha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-haaaa....... What's up with that?
AlleyCat
2015-03-22 04:05:10 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Mar 2015 17:09:03 -0700 (PDT), wy says...
Post by wy
Yo talkin' like sum kind of bible thumpin' fool, boy.
An yew jus keap on lian, fool. Da truoof wheel out.

The Myth of the Climate Change "97%"

What is the origin of the false belief, constantly repeated, that almost
all scientists agree about global warming?

Because OBAMA said that 97% of all scientists agree, is FURTHER proof,
that "that" is a LIE!

OBAMA SAID IT! LOL

Last week Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduating students at
Boston College of the "crippling consequences" of climate change. "Ninety-
seven percent of the world's scientists," he added, "tell us this is
urgent."

Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President
Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that "Ninety-seven percent of scientists
agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous." Or maybe from
NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, "Ninety-
seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over
the past century are very likely due to human activities."

Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a
man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from
a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been
contradicted by more reliable research.

One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay
published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at
Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published
in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported
the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed
warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.

Ms. Oreskes's definition of consensus covered "man-made" but left out
"dangerous" - and scores of articles by prominent scientists such as
Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who
question the consensus, were excluded. The methodology is also flawed. A
study published earlier this year in Nature noted that abstracts of
academic papers often contain claims that aren't substantiated in the
papers.

Another widely cited source for the consensus view is a 2009 article in
"Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union" by Maggie Kendall
Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, and her master's
thesis adviser Peter Doran. It reported the results of a two-question
online survey of selected scientists. Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman claimed
"97 percent of climate scientists agree" that global temperatures have
risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor.

The survey's questions don't reveal much of interest. Most scientists who
are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer
"yes" to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact
is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar
scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or
astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural
causes of climate change.

The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views
of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise
and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed
papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists-of the 3,146 who
responded to the survey-does not a consensus make.

In 2010, William R. Love Anderegg, then a student at Stanford University,
used Google Scholar to identify the views of the most prolific writers on
climate change. His findings were published in Proceedings of the National
Academies of Sciences. Mr. Love Anderegg found that 97% to 98% of the 200
most prolific writers on climate change believe "anthropogenic greenhouse
gases have been responsible for 'most' of the 'unequivocal' warming."
There was no mention of how dangerous this climate change might be; and,
of course, 200 researchers out of the thousands who have contributed to
the climate science debate is not evidence of consensus.

In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends
reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011.
Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or
implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming.
His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.

Mr. Cook's work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August
2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the
University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic
Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and
found "only 41 papers-0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent
of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent-had been found to
endorse" the claim that human activity is causing most of the current
warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola
Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils- Axel Morner, whose research questions
the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented
their work.

Rigorous international surveys conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray
and Hans von Storch -most recently published in Environmental Science &
Policy in 2010-have found that most climate scientists disagree with the
consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and
computer models. They do not believe that climate processes such as cloud
formation and precipitation are sufficiently understood to predict future
climate change.

Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged
consensus. Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who
responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous.

Finally, the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change-which claims
to speak for more than 2,500 scientists-is probably the most frequently
cited source for the consensus. Its latest report claims that "human
interference with the climate system is occurring, and climate change
poses risks for human and natural systems." Yet relatively few have either
written on or reviewed research having to do with the key question: How
much of the temperature increase and other climate changes observed in the
20th century was caused by man-made greenhouse-gas emissions? The IPCC
lists only 41 authors and editors of the relevant chapter of the Fifth
Assessment Report addressing "anthropogenic and natural radiative
forcing."

Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by
scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and
physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most
signatures-more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most
recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed
since 2007. The petition states that "there is no convincing scientific
evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other
greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause
catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the
Earth's climate."

We could go on, but the larger point is plain. There is no basis for the
claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a
dangerous problem.

Mr. Bast is president of the Heartland Institute. Dr. Spencer is a
principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville
and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning
Radiometer on NASA's Aqua satellite.
--
A "teabagger" is a male Liberal who performs fellatio on another male
Liberal... either sucking his balls or laying his genitals on his
partner's face. <snicker>
wy
2015-03-22 04:13:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by AlleyCat
On Sat, 21 Mar 2015 17:09:03 -0700 (PDT), wy says...
Post by wy
Yo talkin' like sum kind of bible thumpin' fool, boy.
An yew jus keap on lian, fool. Da truoof wheel out.
Hey, that's pretty black of you. Sounds almost genetic. You sure your momma didn't go partying up in a gang bang with some home boys before she popped you out of her well-used oven?
DoD
2015-03-22 06:00:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by wy
Post by AlleyCat
On Sat, 21 Mar 2015 17:09:03 -0700 (PDT), wy says...
Post by wy
Yo talkin' like sum kind of bible thumpin' fool, boy.
An yew jus keap on lian, fool. Da truoof wheel out.
Hey, that's pretty black of you. Sounds almost genetic. You sure your
momma didn't go partying up in a gang bang with some home boys before she
popped you out of her well-used oven?
Ummm.. he just thumped your 3 % argument... and all you can do is make 3rd
grade insults?
David Hartung
2015-03-22 00:29:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by wy
Post by David Hartung
As is often the case with reports such as this, there are no cites to
support what Dr. Moore says, but given his background, I am inclined to
at least give his words consideration.
You mean the background of his being one of the 3% of scientists on the planet who are totally clueless about climatology? You always keep siding with the wrong people, no wonder you don't know anything.
From what you post, you lack the knowledge and the training to make
such a judgment.
wy
2015-03-22 00:32:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Hartung
Post by wy
Post by David Hartung
As is often the case with reports such as this, there are no cites to
support what Dr. Moore says, but given his background, I am inclined to
at least give his words consideration.
You mean the background of his being one of the 3% of scientists on the planet who are totally clueless about climatology? You always keep siding with the wrong people, no wonder you don't know anything.
From what you post, you lack the knowledge and the training to make
such a judgment.
Says the preacher man who can't even get the Bible right.
AlleyCat
2015-03-22 04:06:40 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Mar 2015 17:32:51 -0700 (PDT), wy says...
Post by wy
Says the preacher man who can't even get the Bible right.
Sez the dumbass Cuntnadian who can't tell the truth about anything.

The Myth of the Climate Change "97%"

What is the origin of the false belief, constantly repeated, that almost
all scientists agree about global warming?

Because OBAMA said that 97% of all scientists agree, is FURTHER proof,
that "that" is a LIE!

OBAMA SAID IT! LOL

Last week Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduating students at
Boston College of the "crippling consequences" of climate change. "Ninety-
seven percent of the world's scientists," he added, "tell us this is
urgent."

Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President
Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that "Ninety-seven percent of scientists
agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous." Or maybe from
NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, "Ninety-
seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over
the past century are very likely due to human activities."

Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a
man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from
a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been
contradicted by more reliable research.

One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay
published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at
Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published
in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported
the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed
warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.

Ms. Oreskes's definition of consensus covered "man-made" but left out
"dangerous" - and scores of articles by prominent scientists such as
Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who
question the consensus, were excluded. The methodology is also flawed. A
study published earlier this year in Nature noted that abstracts of
academic papers often contain claims that aren't substantiated in the
papers.

Another widely cited source for the consensus view is a 2009 article in
"Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union" by Maggie Kendall
Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, and her master's
thesis adviser Peter Doran. It reported the results of a two-question
online survey of selected scientists. Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman claimed
"97 percent of climate scientists agree" that global temperatures have
risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor.

The survey's questions don't reveal much of interest. Most scientists who
are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer
"yes" to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact
is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar
scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or
astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural
causes of climate change.

The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views
of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise
and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed
papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists-of the 3,146 who
responded to the survey-does not a consensus make.

In 2010, William R. Love Anderegg, then a student at Stanford University,
used Google Scholar to identify the views of the most prolific writers on
climate change. His findings were published in Proceedings of the National
Academies of Sciences. Mr. Love Anderegg found that 97% to 98% of the 200
most prolific writers on climate change believe "anthropogenic greenhouse
gases have been responsible for 'most' of the 'unequivocal' warming."
There was no mention of how dangerous this climate change might be; and,
of course, 200 researchers out of the thousands who have contributed to
the climate science debate is not evidence of consensus.

In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends
reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011.
Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or
implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming.
His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.

Mr. Cook's work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August
2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the
University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic
Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and
found "only 41 papers-0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent
of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent-had been found to
endorse" the claim that human activity is causing most of the current
warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola
Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils- Axel Morner, whose research questions
the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented
their work.

Rigorous international surveys conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray
and Hans von Storch -most recently published in Environmental Science &
Policy in 2010-have found that most climate scientists disagree with the
consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and
computer models. They do not believe that climate processes such as cloud
formation and precipitation are sufficiently understood to predict future
climate change.

Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged
consensus. Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who
responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous.

Finally, the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change-which claims
to speak for more than 2,500 scientists-is probably the most frequently
cited source for the consensus. Its latest report claims that "human
interference with the climate system is occurring, and climate change
poses risks for human and natural systems." Yet relatively few have either
written on or reviewed research having to do with the key question: How
much of the temperature increase and other climate changes observed in the
20th century was caused by man-made greenhouse-gas emissions? The IPCC
lists only 41 authors and editors of the relevant chapter of the Fifth
Assessment Report addressing "anthropogenic and natural radiative
forcing."

Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by
scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and
physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most
signatures-more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most
recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed
since 2007. The petition states that "there is no convincing scientific
evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other
greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause
catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the
Earth's climate."

We could go on, but the larger point is plain. There is no basis for the
claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a
dangerous problem.

Mr. Bast is president of the Heartland Institute. Dr. Spencer is a
principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville
and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning
Radiometer on NASA's Aqua satellite.
--
A "teabagger" is a male Liberal who performs fellatio on another male
Liberal... either sucking his balls or laying his genitals on his
partner's face. <snicker>
DoD
2015-03-22 06:03:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by wy
Post by David Hartung
Post by wy
Post by David Hartung
As is often the case with reports such as this, there are no cites to
support what Dr. Moore says, but given his background, I am inclined to
at least give his words consideration.
You mean the background of his being one of the 3% of scientists on the
planet who are totally clueless about climatology? You always keep
siding with the wrong people, no wonder you don't know anything.
From what you post, you lack the knowledge and the training to make
such a judgment.
Says the preacher man who can't even get the Bible right.
Chew on this a while and learn something for a change...


A new scientific paper has driven yet another nail into the coffin of
Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. (H/T Bishop Hill)

The paper - Rethinking the lower bound on aerosol radiative forcing by Bjorn
Stevens of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, Germany,
published in the American Meteorological Society journal - finds that the
effects of aerosols on climate are much smaller than those in almost all the
computer models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Aerosols are the minute particles added to the atmosphere by burning fossil
fuels (as well as by non-anthropogenic sources, like volcanoes). The reason
they are important is that they are so often cited by alarmists to excuse
the awkward fact that the world has stubbornly failed to warm at the
disastrous rate they predicted it would.
David Hartung
2015-03-22 10:17:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by DoD
Post by wy
Post by wy
Post by David Hartung
As is often the case with reports such as this, there are no cites to
support what Dr. Moore says, but given his background, I am
inclined >> to
Post by wy
Post by David Hartung
at least give his words consideration.
You mean the background of his being one of the 3% of scientists on
the > planet who are totally clueless about climatology? You always
keep > siding with the wrong people, no wonder you don't know anything.
From what you post, you lack the knowledge and the training to make
such a judgment.
Says the preacher man who can't even get the Bible right.
Chew on this a while and learn something for a change...
A new scientific paper has driven yet another nail into the coffin of
Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. (H/T Bishop Hill)
The paper - Rethinking the lower bound on aerosol radiative forcing by
Bjorn Stevens of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg,
Germany, published in the American Meteorological Society journal -
finds that the effects of aerosols on climate are much smaller than
those in almost all the computer models used by the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change.
Aerosols are the minute particles added to the atmosphere by burning
fossil fuels (as well as by non-anthropogenic sources, like volcanoes).
The reason they are important is that they are so often cited by
alarmists to excuse the awkward fact that the world has stubbornly
failed to warm at the disastrous rate they predicted it would.
Is this what you refer to?

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00656.1
Tom Sr.
2015-03-22 17:18:43 UTC
Permalink
----------------
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121257/poll-90-percent-12-year-olds-accept-climate-change

*A Bunch of 12-Year-Olds Are Schooling Republican Senators on Climate Change*
by Rebecca Leber
March 10, 2015

A group of kids hope to teach Republicans politicians a lesson about climate change on Tuesday. In an event organized by the advocacy group Avaaz, they will visit a dozen offices to ask senators--including Mitch McConnell, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul--to take a simple elementary school quiz on climate change science. Many of those senators would probably fail it. In the past, in response to questions about climate change, McConnell and Rubio have both told the press they are "not scientists."

The senators could learn something from the six students, who come from Georgia, Florida, Nebraska, and North Carolina. "When our world's top scientists at NASA release information stating that humans are impacting the climate, I tend to believe them more," said Jack Levy, an 18-year-old student from Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. "Scientists have noticed that this was a problem for a really long time, like, maybe 20 years ago? Longer than I've been alive," said Nadia Sheppard, a 16-year-old from North Carolina.

Or, the lawmakers could turn to practically any 12-year-old for an explanation. Avaaz, which helped organize the People's Climate March in New York City last September, commissioned a poll from Ipsos on how 12-year-olds view climate change. Out of 1,002 eighth-grade students surveyed, 90 percent responded that climate change is real and it's "significantly" driven by human activity.

The Senate voted in January on a series of amendments over whether climate change is real and driven by human activity. Only 50 percent voted to approve a Democratic amendment asserting that climate change is real and is significantly caused by human activity, a number that rose to 59 percent for a similar amendment that dropped the word "significantly."
----------------




Well, now we *know* for certain that KKKat and the other far-right Denier Loooooosers KooKS here(*waves* at Daffy!) are NOT as *smart* as the vast majority of American 12-year olds.


How not surprising.

















. . .
DoD
2015-03-22 23:11:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Hartung
Is this what you refer to?
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00656.1
Yep... did you notice nobody can deal with it?
David Hartung
2015-03-23 01:36:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by DoD
Post by David Hartung
Is this what you refer to?
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00656.1
Yep... did you notice nobody can deal with it?
I notice that Tom refuses to even consider it.
DoD
2015-03-23 02:06:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Hartung
Post by DoD
Post by David Hartung
Is this what you refer to?
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00656.1
Yep... did you notice nobody can deal with it?
I notice that Tom refuses to even consider it.
Tom is not very bright
AlleyCat
2015-03-22 04:02:19 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Mar 2015 16:51:39 -0700 (PDT), wy says...
Post by wy
You mean the background of his being one of the 3% of scientists
The Myth of the Climate Change "97%"

What is the origin of the false belief, constantly repeated, that almost
all scientists agree about global warming?

Because OBAMA said that 97% of all scientists agree, is FURTHER proof,
that "that" is a LIE!

OBAMA SAID IT! LOL

Last week Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduating students at
Boston College of the "crippling consequences" of climate change. "Ninety-
seven percent of the world's scientists," he added, "tell us this is
urgent."

Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President
Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that "Ninety-seven percent of scientists
agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous." Or maybe from
NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, "Ninety-
seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over
the past century are very likely due to human activities."

Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a
man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from
a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been
contradicted by more reliable research.

One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay
published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at
Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published
in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported
the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed
warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.

Ms. Oreskes's definition of consensus covered "man-made" but left out
"dangerous" - and scores of articles by prominent scientists such as
Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who
question the consensus, were excluded. The methodology is also flawed. A
study published earlier this year in Nature noted that abstracts of
academic papers often contain claims that aren't substantiated in the
papers.

Another widely cited source for the consensus view is a 2009 article in
"Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union" by Maggie Kendall
Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, and her master's
thesis adviser Peter Doran. It reported the results of a two-question
online survey of selected scientists. Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman claimed
"97 percent of climate scientists agree" that global temperatures have
risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor.

The survey's questions don't reveal much of interest. Most scientists who
are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer
"yes" to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact
is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar
scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or
astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural
causes of climate change.

The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views
of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise
and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed
papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists-of the 3,146 who
responded to the survey-does not a consensus make.

In 2010, William R. Love Anderegg, then a student at Stanford University,
used Google Scholar to identify the views of the most prolific writers on
climate change. His findings were published in Proceedings of the National
Academies of Sciences. Mr. Love Anderegg found that 97% to 98% of the 200
most prolific writers on climate change believe "anthropogenic greenhouse
gases have been responsible for 'most' of the 'unequivocal' warming."
There was no mention of how dangerous this climate change might be; and,
of course, 200 researchers out of the thousands who have contributed to
the climate science debate is not evidence of consensus.

In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends
reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011.
Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or
implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming.
His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.

Mr. Cook's work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August
2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the
University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic
Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and
found "only 41 papers-0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent
of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent-had been found to
endorse" the claim that human activity is causing most of the current
warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola
Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils- Axel Morner, whose research questions
the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented
their work.

Rigorous international surveys conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray
and Hans von Storch -most recently published in Environmental Science &
Policy in 2010-have found that most climate scientists disagree with the
consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and
computer models. They do not believe that climate processes such as cloud
formation and precipitation are sufficiently understood to predict future
climate change.

Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged
consensus. Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who
responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous.

Finally, the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change-which claims
to speak for more than 2,500 scientists-is probably the most frequently
cited source for the consensus. Its latest report claims that "human
interference with the climate system is occurring, and climate change
poses risks for human and natural systems." Yet relatively few have either
written on or reviewed research having to do with the key question: How
much of the temperature increase and other climate changes observed in the
20th century was caused by man-made greenhouse-gas emissions? The IPCC
lists only 41 authors and editors of the relevant chapter of the Fifth
Assessment Report addressing "anthropogenic and natural radiative
forcing."

Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by
scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and
physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most
signatures-more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most
recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed
since 2007. The petition states that "there is no convincing scientific
evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other
greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause
catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the
Earth's climate."

We could go on, but the larger point is plain. There is no basis for the
claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a
dangerous problem.

Mr. Bast is president of the Heartland Institute. Dr. Spencer is a
principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville
and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning
Radiometer on NASA's Aqua satellite.
--
A "teabagger" is a male Liberal who performs fellatio on another male
Liberal... either sucking his balls or laying his genitals on his
partner's face. <snicker>
Tom Sr.
2015-03-22 01:08:54 UTC
Permalink
As is often the case with reports such as this, there are no cites to support
Any professional scientist should know if he was doing a "report", that he would, of course, need to present citations with it for his *claims*.
...what Dr. Moore says, but given his background,
Dr. Patrick Moore's Background:

---------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_(environmentalist)

Education: PhD in Ecology (1974), B.Sc. in Forest Biology (1969)
---------

Moore has no degree or is there any reference to him having professional studies climate change. His specialty is trees.


---------
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Patrick_Moore

In 2014 Moore said that he "fear[s] a global cooling" and insisted that recent statistics show the US is cooling and that there has been "no global warming for nearly 18 years". Speaking at a conference hosted by the Heartland Institute, a denier think tank, Moore went on to say "Let's hope for a little warming as opposed to a little cooling. I would rather it got a little warmer. If it warms two degrees, hopefully more in Canada in the North...maybe it would be a good thing if it did." He went on to suggest that unless changes are made to the way children are taught about climate change, "there will be a whole generation of people who are just blindly following this climate hysteria."
---------

"...fear a global cooling...."


---------
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2015/03/20/why-i-am-climate-change-skeptic

"Moore received the 2014 Speaks Truth to Power Award [http://climateconferences.heartland.org/patrick-moore-award-iccc9/]at the Ninth International Conference on Climate Change" [http://climateconferences.heartland.org/iccc-9/]
---------

In other words, Dr. Moore received an award GIVEN by The Heartland Institute -- at a conference HELD by The Heartland Institute.
I am inclined to at least give his words consideration.
His background with the Heartland Institute?

----------------
https://greenfyre.wordpress.com/denier-vs-skeptic/denier-myths-debunked/the-heartland-institute/

*The Heartland Institute

=[NOTE: Use the above link to access the individual links given below.]=

A collection of links exposing the Heartland Institute's bogus list of 500 skeptical scientists:

Distinguished Scientist Calls Heartland 500 List "Offensive and Wrong"

The Heartland Institute

Exposed: Fake List of 500 global warming skeptics scientist

500 Scientists with Documented Doubts - about the Heartland Institute?

Heartland Institute Spreads FUD & Lies About Global Warming

Heartland Institute deniers denied by 'U' profs

Top Scientists Demand Names Removed From Climate List

Heartland "500" Still Co-Authors

Heartland Institute publishes bogus list of 500 scientists who doubt anthropogenic climate change

The Heartland Institute's "500 scientist" list

What if you held a conference, and no (real) scientists came?

Four hundred skeptics? Try 19


*More on Heartland

Research on the "sponsors" behind the Heartland's New York Climate Change Conference

The Heartland Institute and the Academy of Tobacco Studies

Heartland Institute trying to make the old new

Heartland Institute's 2009 Climate Conference in New York: funding history of the sponsors

Heartland Institute's "Journalist Guide on Global Warming Experts" Misguided

The Heartland Conference 2009

Heartland Conference Celebrates Science for Sale

Joseph Bast

National Post Disgraces Itself Again

A Climate Deniers take on Tobacco Smoke

Heartland Institute Condemned for "Major Ethical Transgression"

Former Astronaut in Bed with Big Oil?

Kenneth Green

The Heartland Institute touts a long list of global warming "experts"

Rush Limbaugh and the Heartland Institute: I am Ignorance, Hear Me Roar

Last Cries From The Climate Denial Extremists

Canadians front and centre at 2nd Heartland Conference

Heartland Comedy Revue returns

Deniers totally lose it and stop even pretending they do science
---------


---------
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2015/03/20/why-i-am-climate-change-skeptic
[...]
We have no proof increased carbon dioxide is responsible for the earth's
slight warming over the past 300 years....
---------


HOWEVER...

--------------------



NASA | Six Decades of a Warming Earth [1950-2013]

--------------------



NASA | Temperature Data: 1880-2011

--------------------

These two video maps show the obvious and extensive increase in Global Temperatures from 1880-2011 and then from 1950-2013


...AND...


--------------
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/

*First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxide's Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earth's Surface*

Berkeley Lab researchers link rising CO2 levels from fossil fuels to an upward trend in radiative forcing at two locations
by Dan Krotz
February 25, 2015

Scientists have observed an increase in carbon dioxide's greenhouse effect at the Earth's surface for the first time. The researchers, led by scientists from the US Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab), measured atmospheric carbon dioxide's increasing capacity to absorb thermal radiation emitted from the Earth's surface over an eleven-year period at two locations in North America. They attributed this upward trend to rising CO2 levels from fossil fuel emissions.

The influence of atmospheric CO2 on the balance between incoming energy from the Sun and outgoing heat from the Earth (also called the planet's energy balance) is well established. But this effect has not been experimentally confirmed outside the laboratory until now. The research is reported Wednesday, Feb. 25, in the advance online publication of the journal Nature.

The results agree with theoretical predictions of the greenhouse effect due to human activity. The research also provides further confirmation that the calculations used in today's climate models are on track when it comes to representing the impact of CO2.

[GRAPHS: These graphs show carbon dioxide's increasing greenhouse effect at two locations on the Earth's surface. The first graph shows CO2 radiative forcing measurements obtained at a research facility in Oklahoma. As the atmospheric concentration of CO2 (blue) increased from 2000 to the end of 2010, so did surface radiative forcing due to CO2 (orange), and both quantities have upward trends. This means the Earth absorbed more energy from solar radiation than it emitted as heat back to space. The seasonal fluctuations are caused by plant-based photosynthetic activity. The second graph shows similar upward trends at a research facility on the North Slope of Alaska. (Credit: Berkeley Lab)]


The scientists measured atmospheric carbon dioxide's contribution to radiative forcing at two sites, one in Oklahoma and one on the North Slope of Alaska, from 2000 to the end of 2010. Radiative forcing is a measure of how much the planet's energy balance is perturbed by atmospheric changes. Positive radiative forcing occurs when the Earth absorbs more energy from solar radiation than it emits as thermal radiation back to space. It can be measured at the Earth's surface or high in the atmosphere. In this research, the scientists focused on the surface.

They found that CO2 was responsible for a significant uptick in radiative forcing at both locations, about two-tenths of a Watt per square meter per decade. They linked this trend to the 22 parts-per-million increase in atmospheric CO2 between 2000 and 2010. Much of this CO2 is from the burning of fossil fuels, according to a modeling system that tracks CO2 sources around the world.

"We see, for the first time in the field, the amplification of the greenhouse effect because there's more CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb what the Earth emits in response to incoming solar radiation," says Daniel Feldman, a scientist in Berkeley Lab's Earth Sciences Division and lead author of the Nature paper.

"Numerous studies show rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations, but our study provides the critical link between those concentrations and the addition of energy to the system, or the greenhouse effect," Feldman adds.

He conducted the research with fellow Berkeley Lab scientists Bill Collins and Margaret Torn, as well as Jonathan Gero of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Timothy Shippert of Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, and Eli Mlawer of Atmospheric and Environmental Research.

The scientists used incredibly precise spectroscopic instruments operated by the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Climate Research Facility, a DOE Office of Science User Facility. These instruments, located at ARM research sites in Oklahoma and Alaska, measure thermal infrared energy that travels down through the atmosphere to the surface. They can detect the unique spectral signature of infrared energy from CO2.

Other instruments at the two locations detect the unique signatures of phenomena that can also emit infrared energy, such as clouds and water vapor. The combination of these measurements enabled the scientists to isolate the signals attributed solely to CO2.

"We measured radiation in the form of infrared energy. Then we controlled for other factors that would impact our measurements, such as a weather system moving through the area," says Feldman.

The result is two time-series from two very different locations. Each series spans from 2000 to the end of 2010, and includes 3300 measurements from Alaska and 8300 measurements from Oklahoma obtained on a near-daily basis.

Both series showed the same trend: atmospheric CO2 emitted an increasing amount of infrared energy, to the tune of 0.2 Watts per square meter per decade. This increase is about ten percent of the trend from all sources of infrared energy such as clouds and water vapor.

Based on an analysis of data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's CarbonTracker system, the scientists linked this upswing in CO2-attributed radiative forcing to fossil fuel emissions and fires.

The measurements also enabled the scientists to detect, for the first time, the influence of photosynthesis on the balance of energy at the surface. They found that CO2-attributed radiative forcing dipped in the spring as flourishing photosynthetic activity pulled more of the greenhouse gas from the air.

The scientists used the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center (NERSC), a DOE Office of Science User Facility located at Berkeley Lab, to conduct some of the research.

The research was supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Science.

###

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory addresses the world's most urgent scientific challenges by advancing sustainable energy, protecting human health, creating new materials, and revealing the origin and fate of the universe. Founded in 1931, Berkeley Lab's scientific expertise has been recognized with 13 Nobel prizes. The University of California manages Berkeley Lab for the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science. For more, visit www.lbl.gov.

DOE's Office of Science is the single largest supporter of basic research in the physical sciences in the United States, and is working to address some of the most pressing challenges of our time. For more information, please visit the Office of Science website at science.energy.gov/.
--------------


This is in-the-field, direct observational, scientific proof -- published in February 2015 -- that CO2 from fossil fuels DOES cause greenhouse effect warming.



Climate Change Denier Dr. Patrick Moore is wrong -- as are you, Hartung.













. . .
David Hartung
2015-03-22 02:25:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Sr.
His background with the Heartland Institute?
Which has always been more credible and more rational than you.
David Hartung
2015-03-22 02:28:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Sr.
As is often the case with reports such as this, there are no cites to support
Any professional scientist should know if he was doing a "report", that he would, of course, need to present citations with it for his *claims*.
If he had been writing a professional paper, yes.

My guess is that the reason you don't lie this guy is that as a
former(founder?) member of Greenpeace, he has deserted to the enemy, and
you are fearful that other "green" activists might have similar changes
of heart.
wy
2015-03-22 02:48:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Hartung
Post by Tom Sr.
As is often the case with reports such as this, there are no cites to support
Any professional scientist should know if he was doing a "report", that he would, of course, need to present citations with it for his *claims*.
If he had been writing a professional paper, yes.
My guess is that the reason you don't lie this guy is that as a
former(founder?) member of Greenpeace, he has deserted to the enemy, and
you are fearful that other "green" activists might have similar changes
of heart.
So you admit that your side is the enemy. Of course it is, we've always known that.
Tom Sr.
2015-03-22 17:26:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Hartung
My guess is that the reason you don't lie this guy is that as a
former(founder?) member of Greenpeace, he has deserted to the enemy, and
you are fearful that other "green" activists might have similar changes
of heart.
Then you would be wrong, *again*, Hartung.


I strongly dislike people who spread misinformation and lies as
"the truth".


As I have stated before, you have NO understanding of how I actually think. You just proved this again.


Your blantant misinformation and lies are a BIG reason I dislike you, Hartung. Among many other reasons, of course: your stupidity, your ignorance, your lack of compassion, your bigotry, your complete unwillingness to learn, your hypocritical Christian beliefs, and so on.





















. . .
m***@gmail.com
2015-03-22 03:32:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Hartung
As is often the case with reports such as this, there are no cites to
support what Dr. Moore says, but given his background, I am inclined to
at least give his words consideration.
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2015/03/20/why-i-am-climate-change-skeptic
[...]
Over the past 150 million years, carbon dioxide had been drawn down
steadily (by plants) from about 3,000 parts per million to about 280
parts per million before the Industrial Revolution. If this trend
continued, the carbon dioxide level would have become too low to support
life on Earth. Human fossil fuel use and clearing land for crops have
boosted carbon dioxide from its lowest level in the history of the Earth
back to 400 parts per million today.
At 400 parts per million, all our food crops, forests, and natural
ecosystems are still on a starvation diet for carbon dioxide. The
optimum level of carbon dioxide for plant growth, given enough water and
nutrients, is about 1,500 parts per million, nearly four times higher
than today. Greenhouse growers inject carbon-dioxide to increase yields.
Farms and forests will produce more if carbon-dioxide keeps rising.
We have no proof increased carbon dioxide is responsible for the earth's
slight warming over the past 300 years. There has been no significant
warming for 18 years while we have emitted 25 per cent of all the carbon
dioxide ever emitted. Carbon dioxide is vital for life on Earth and
plants would like more of it. Which should we emphasize to our children?
[...]
This isn't skepticism. ALL scientists are naturally skeptical, anyway, so skepticism should be expected. But this isn't it.

First of all, it doesn't really matter WHY climate change is happening. You're right; we really don't know why it's happening. We could be in a natural cycle of some sort, and we may not be causing it. That's skepticism, and that's healthy.

But claiming it's not happening despite the data showing a steady increase in global temperature? That goes beyond skepticism. We don't know what's causing it, or whether it is part of a cycle, or whatever. But it IS HAPPENING. We don't know how long it may last, either. It may begin to reverse itself within a few years, but it may also continue for another couple of decades, or even a century or two.

We don't know; on that we agree. But that's exactly why we have to take this seriously. We don't have to "Chicken Little" this, but we do have to act to prevent what we might be facing in the future.

This whole "argument" based on "carbion dioxide" is vital for life on Earth" is the dumbest argument anyone can make. Water is essential for human life, but we can still drown. Food is essential for human life, but you can still eat yourself to death. The human body need traces amounts of lead, cadmium and arsenic, and yet, if we get more than a trace, all of them can do major damage and possibly kill us.

All life is about balance, and it doesn't always take much imbalance to throw us into trouble. But in reality, all that matters is this:

The Earth's temperature is rising, and we have to deal with the possibility that it won't stop for awhile. THAT is what this issue is about.
Steve
2015-03-22 09:18:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Hartung
As is often the case with reports such as this, there are no cites to
support what Dr. Moore says, but given his background, I am inclined to
at least give his words consideration.
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2015/03/20/why-i-am-climate-change-skeptic
[...]
Over the past 150 million years, carbon dioxide had been drawn down
steadily (by plants) from about 3,000 parts per million to about 280
parts per million before the Industrial Revolution. If this trend
continued, the carbon dioxide level would have become too low to support
life on Earth. Human fossil fuel use and clearing land for crops have
boosted carbon dioxide from its lowest level in the history of the Earth
back to 400 parts per million today.
At 400 parts per million, all our food crops, forests, and natural
ecosystems are still on a starvation diet for carbon dioxide. The
optimum level of carbon dioxide for plant growth, given enough water and
nutrients, is about 1,500 parts per million, nearly four times higher
than today. Greenhouse growers inject carbon-dioxide to increase yields.
Farms and forests will produce more if carbon-dioxide keeps rising.
We have no proof increased carbon dioxide is responsible for the earth's
slight warming over the past 300 years. There has been no significant
warming for 18 years while we have emitted 25 per cent of all the carbon
dioxide ever emitted. Carbon dioxide is vital for life on Earth and
plants would like more of it. Which should we emphasize to our children?
[...]
This isn't skepticism. ALL scientists are naturally skeptical, anyway, so skepticism should be expected. But this isn't it.
First of all,
<SNIP> Shook has lots of undocumented opinions. Here some more...
--
Any doubt that Milt Shook is a Usenet Network moron is erased by the following.

"I said that it's not entirely beyond the realm of possibility
that the US government created the AIDS virus, "
--Milt Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/7c9c1d3963761e64

"It doesn't matter if it's state property or not; the state doesn't
have to power to limit access to a public area. They can charge to
access it, but they can't force people to have a state ID card or
something. It's right in the 14th Amendment; if you allow one person
to get in for free, then all people have to be allowed in for free, if
it's public property."
--Milt Shook.. more ignorance of the law
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/83e117a21b818c9b

"No person pays corporate taxes. The corporation pays those."[...] the
corporation is not made up of people. It is made up of paper.
--Milt Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.liberalism/msg/f7a3aebb956b7ff7

"I'm at a loss as to why you think increasing the
necessary collateral, while not decreasing the
value of the loan, is not a net loss."
Milt Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.bush/msg/eca4b4662ef2cc82?hl=en&

"Yeah. If you bought the stock at $50 a share and it's now worth $25,
the shares have a negative equity of 50%. I mean, DUH!
-- Milt.Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/cdf601a5bedc09d4?hl=en&

"I was hit by buckshot by accident once when I was a kid. I
have a scar to show for it. But no matter where it would have hit me,
it wouldn't have killed me, because I was running away from it."
--Milt Shook
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=383b35e7.10549606%40news.earthlink.net

"And one of the ironies of this entire discussion is that a company
that pays corporate income taxes one year can deduct them as a
business expense the next.
--Milt Shook, Feb 4, 2008 who claims to have been a business
consultant and have his own corporation.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/b0151278e691117b.

"The law doesn't "allow" any gender discrimination."
--Milt Shook
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=prqdnVQM8LfCsdLdRVn-ig%40comcast.com

"the private insurance company is answerable to no
legal authority"
--Milt Shook Jun 1 2008
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/610d6e9e4a15f116?hl=en

"And if I sell stock, my asset level is reduced by the
amount of that stock, EVEN IF the stock I sell is sold
for more than I paid for it."
--Milt Shook.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.bush/msg/0f58111c6acb0ce8?hl=en&

"I mean, Jesus, you moron; basically what you're arguing is that the
Bill of Rights only protects you from the government. That's insane."
--Milt Shook
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=rOednTyGe5IzVjvd4p2dnA%40comcast.com

"Anyone who doesn't deal with fiction has no clue how the world works,
because most real truth is found in fiction. I'll also note that all
"reality" is perception, and there really is no such thing."
--Milt Shook Apr 9, 2008
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/77781222624b4444

"I have checked e-mails from at eight other people who live around here
and use Comcast, and two of them sport the same IP as me"
--Milt Shook
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=49983a09.0407141830.56a3a1e%40posting.google.com

"I just pinged your sorry ass and found three open ports, as well."
--Milt Shook
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=49983a09.0407231847.76c7fc4e%40posting.google.com

"The FBI can't even arrest someone on a city street without
getting permission from the local cops. "
--Milt Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/8eef396715c15c93?hl=en
,
2doorPost
2015-03-22 16:50:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
We don't know; on that we agree.
Or begging?


http://www.gofundme.com/PCTCNetwork?pc=flwdgt
It’s time smart liberals had our own media voice.

The right boobs need to be drowned out, but so do the PUBs/emos and
professional lefties who often do little more than amplify the right
boobs’ message. This network will do that. But we can only do it with
your support.

And our financials will also be public, making for a more transparent
operation than you have ever seen. Put it this way: when you give to
other liberal blogs – the ones who claim they need tens of thousands per
month just to continue existence – do you really know where the money
goes? You will here.
Rudy Canoza
2015-03-28 05:40:51 UTC
Permalink
Ok, to clarify, you are spewing meaningless jabber and nothing of
scientific plausibility.
So you're not prepared for the zombie plague?
I thought it was already taking place.
After all, people seem to be getting dumber and dumber each decade.
I love how you assholes quote The Heritage Foundation and can't think on
your own.
Show us your own published peer reviewed scientific publications on
"climate change", cocksucker. Post the citations right here.

You stupid fat fuck.
--
Your first duty is to th' country...is to th' flag, and then...and then
th' army,
and then to...and then to god. Flag, Army, God - F.A.G.

Mark Wieber
75th Rangers, 1971-1973
Scout
2015-03-28 07:05:28 UTC
Permalink
Ok, to clarify, you are spewing meaningless jabber and nothing of
scientific plausibility.
So you're not prepared for the zombie plague?
I thought it was already taking place.
After all, people seem to be getting dumber and dumber each decade.
I love how you assholes quote The Heritage Foundation and can't think on
your own.
Cite that I quote The Heritage Foundation.....otherwise, seems your bigotry
got the better of you.
One Party System
2015-03-28 12:50:26 UTC
Permalink
Ok, to clarify, you are spewing meaningless jabber and nothing of
scientific plausibility.
So you're not prepared for the zombie plague?
I thought it was already taking place.
After all, people seem to be getting dumber and dumber each decade.
I love how you assholes quote The Heritage Foundation and can't think
on your own.
It's funded mostly by the brothers Koch.
They never made money the old fashioned way.
They inherited it from Daddy!
Which is why slaves like you bow to them. They are like a Royal
Family. Ordained to tell you what to think.
Actually, Donald Trump's the same. And he hates Ted Cruz and Obama,
calling both of the un american.
Limbaugh made his money the new way, just like that fucking socialist
billionaire Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and so on.
I bet they had a radio show listened to by millions of assholes during
the afternoon, because they were afraid to hold down a job and weren't
out looking for one.
Ya know, I never even heard of the Kock Bros till you mental patients
started going on about them.

Of course we could always change the conversation to Tom Stryer.

Hpw bout this ionstead, when you have something iontelligent to contibute,
when you have a fact to share, do so. Until them, fuck off.
--
There is a certain class of race-problem solvers who don’t want the patient
to get well, because as long as the disease holds out they have not only an
easy means of making a living, but also an easy medium through which to
make themselves prominent before the public.

Booker T. Washington
m***@hotmail.com
2015-03-28 15:10:29 UTC
Permalink
Ok, to clarify, you are spewing meaningless jabber and nothing of
scientific plausibility.
So you're not prepared for the zombie plague?
I thought it was already taking place.
After all, people seem to be getting dumber and dumber each decade.
Perspective; people are just as capable in their environments as they
always were. The problem from older person's viewpoint is that they are
not as capable in the environment thery encountered.
No, there is a measurable deterioration of standards from every
generation to the next. I'm 62, and I have a university degree from an
accredited university. My mother would be 93 if alive, and I know for
certain she had to work harder and master more difficult subjects, and
more of them, when she graduated from high school and headed to
university. And I know I had to work harder and master more difficult
subjects than any Gen X / Gen Y or Millennial has done.
In days gone by, educated people were truly educated. They
studied philosophy, rhetoric, mathematics, foreign languages,
and they learned to think critically. What passes for "education"
today in university is narrow technical instruction, at best;
Or, if you're a liberal arts major, you learn the first century
AD had only 99 years and to ask "do you want fries with that?"
You are trying to guess and quantify and qualify what is taught before and during college now and in the past and that's impossible.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...