Climate Change? We've Been Lied To

Yes, we've been lied to, played for fools, defrauded, and worse; we've been and are being deceived by the mainstream media who pretend they are so caring and honest (think Brian Williams of NBC), and once reputable newspapers like the New York Times actively hide the truth or simply ignore it.

Then consider the garbage continually spewed out about the dangers of climate change by Newsweek Magazine, NBC and MSNBC, totally ignoring, or yes, denying the fact that man-caused global warming has been shown to be a complete fraud. Of course one must remember that these operations are purely propaganda mills for their owner, General Electric (GE).

Do you ever wonder why the Obama Administration is pushing so hard for "cap and trade" and regulating and taxing "carbon emissions"? Could it be that GE, a staunch supporter and financial contributor to Obama, happens to have Billions at stake with their "clean coal technology", wind turbines, solar panels, nuclear power plants, and light bulbs. This is big, dirty business folks, and we Americans, in fact everyone on Earth is being screwed by these people, organizations, and the naive , "useful idiots" who have swallowed this man-caused global warming nonsense and "save Mother Earth" ideology. We had better wake up and stop this lunacy now!
Peter

The ‘snow job’ we know as global warming

FROM- The Times Herald

By DEROY MURDOCK

Some 49 of these 50 United States simultaneously laughed at so-called “global warming.” Every state but Hawaii had measurable snow on Feb. 13. An average eight inches covered 68.1 percent of the continental U.S., well above January’s more typical 51.2 percent.

Warmists correctly retort that a cold snap is no pattern. Instead, listen to East Anglia University climatologist Dr. Phil Jones. This world-famous advocate of so-called “global warming” conceded to the BBC that Earth’s positive temperature trend between 1995 and 2009 is “not significant.”

Jones, the chief figure in the “Climategate” e-mails scandal, rejected the oft-stated claim that “warming”-related science is settled. “This is not my view,” Jones said. “There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties...”

Thus, it has become nearly impossible to hear about “global warming” without giggling. The so-called “global warming” that Albert Gore promised has yielded to global cooling. Meanwhile, Gore’s vaunted scientific “consensus” has collapsed, like a roof buckled beneath too much snow:

• NASA is fending off charges that it “dramatically trimmed the number and cherry-picked the locations of weather observation stations they use to produce the data set on which temperature record reports are based,” according to Weather Channel founder John Coleman. Average global temperatures are calculated based on observations from some 1,500 weather stations today, versus about 6,000 in the 1970s. Canadian stations have fallen to 35 from 600.

Icecap.us meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo, another Weather Channel veteran, says NASA has removed “higher-latitude, high-altitude” locations from its sample. Andean weather gauges, for instance, are overlooked, while regional temperatures now are based on readings “on the coast or in the Amazon,” D’Aleo says. He compares this to calculating Minneapolis’ average temperature by checking thermometers in St. Louis and Kansas City.

•The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) purports to be for “warming” science what the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is to U.S. fiscal policy. If CBO were caught with a broken abacus making multiple errors, however, some politically motivated, it might face IPCC’s current level of embarrassment.

•In its Nobel Prize-winning 2007 report, IPCC’s Dr. Murari Lal asserts that so-called “global warming” would melt Himalayan glaciers by 2035, first drowning Asians in flash floods, and then dehydrating them beside desiccated rivers. Dr. Lal’s source for this apocalyptic vision was a non-scientific, 2005 World Wildlife Fund report, one of 16 non-peer-reviewed WWF papers that IPCC considered “evidence.” WWF, in turn, recycled two 1999 magazine interviews with glaciologist Syed Hasnain. WWF’s study also featured a massive mathematical mistake. It stated that a glacier receded at 134 meters (439 feet) annually. The correct distance was 23 meters (75 feet). WWF calculated annual shrinkage by dividing 121 years of glacier loss by 21, not 121. Oops!

•IPCC claimed that African, Alpine, and Andean mountain tops had lost ice between 1900 and 2000 “due to changes in the cryosphere produced by warming.” One source for this conclusion was an unpublished master’s-degree geography thesis that quoted observations from Swiss mountain guides. IPCC also cited a 2002 “Climbing” magazine article that quoted mountaineers who had scaled glaciers since the 1970s.

“There is no way current climbers and mountain guides can give anecdotal evidence back to the 1900s, so what they claim is complete nonsense,” Professor Richard Tol of Dublin’s Economic and Social Research Institute, said in January 30’s London Daily Telegraph.

Such monkeyshines have dominated this issue for four decades. As IPCC author Stephen Schneider told Discover magazine in 1989: “To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest.”

These revelations of slipshod and sinister “global-warming science” have crippled cap-and-trade energy taxes, job-killing international “climate change” treaties, and other self-destructive policies.

The fact that America is buried in snow is the icing on the cake.


More...

MSNBC Censorship

MSNBC and NBC and General electric has closed down our excellent Discussion Board on the Environment, and broken many friendships and buried much valuable information. The site is shut-down but still accessible to read what has been posted for years. This is availbable here:

http://boards.msn.com/MSNBCboards/board.aspx?BoardID=781


Many people who were on this board have migrated here:
http://boards.msn.com/UKNewsboards/board.aspx?BoardID=809

join us.
Peter

MSNBC Censorship....A Rat Behind The Scenes

MSNBC, which of course is owned by General Electric (GE), along with NBC, Newsweek Magazine, and The Weather Channel, often accused here and elsewhere as being a literal propaganda tool of the Obama Administration, has closed their web-based "discussion board" titled "Environment". That discussion board allowed and fostered much open, free-form discussion of the many related elements of global warming and so-called climate change.

The dominant message of this discussion was the absurdity of the idea that man's activities, particularly the emission of carbon dioxide gas from the burning of "fossil fuels" was and is, causing global warming and climate change. So MSNBC closed this site, for what they said was "business reasons".

Could it be that General Electric, builder and seller of fluorescent light bulbs, wind turbines, solar panels, "clean coal" technology, and owner of a financial trading subsidiary, hopes to make BILLIONS of dollars if the pending "cap and trade" legislation is passed might want to suppress any dissenting, or contrary views? Could the Obama Administration, which desperately wants to pass this "cap and tax" legislation, have "leaned", Mafia-style, on GE to shut down this form of free and open communication???? I don't know, but I smell a rat.

See the old MSNBC site and read some old posts here:
and see where the diehard challengers of the myth of man-caused global warming have migrated here.
Peter

Family Feud At General Electric

As has been pointed out here (do a search on General Electric) many times, General Electric Corporation (GE), which owns NBC, MSNBC, "Newsweek Magazine", The Weather Channel and the Discovery Channel, is accused of broadcasting misinformation about global warming for their own monetary benefit.

In other words, this large corporation which manufactures and sells things such as wind turbines, solar panels, fluorescent light bulbs, "clean coal technology", and nuclear power plants, and has a huge stake in the "cap and trade" carbon hustle---- this same corporation operates and maintains its own propaganda machine. They have been pouring out a consistent stream of inaccurate "news" about the catastrophes awaiting us all if we do not immediately act to prevent global warming and climate change. Interestingly, the things they propose to save us, all come back to buying GE products or having the government grant them subsidies, tax credits, or outright grants, loans, and now "economic stimulus" money.

This has been reported on here and elsewhere in the non-mainstream media, but now it seems even NBC affiliates are beginning to smell the rot and stink of GE activity. Hopefully this will all be brought out into the fresh air for the public to see.
Peter

NBC Affiliate Meteorologist Rips MSNBC for Apocalyptic Global Warming Special

Michigan affiliate's chief meteorologist slams disingenuousness of MSNBC's 'Future Earth' special; GE's financial stake in cap-and-trade passage.
By Jeff Poor Business & Media Institute
4/27/2009 4:19:36 PM

NBC Universal and its networks have been criticized for the global warming alarmism it parades on a regular basis. However, now the criticism is coming from its own affiliates.

Prior to its April 26 airing on MSNBC, shows on NBC had been promoting the first part of the climate special “Future Earth” – an MSNBC program that used computer animation to show the possibilities of a polar icecap melting. That prompted Bill Steffen, a meteorologist for NBC’s Grand Rapids, Mich. affiliate, to call out MSNBC for that special.

Steffen challenged several premises of “Future Earth: Journey to the End of the World,” on his WoodTV.com blog. Steffen debunked the entire series premise that is posted on the MSNBC Web site: “Find out why Earth’s climate machine — the North Pole — is melting alarmingly fast. Learn about our planet’s future, and how you can stop its decline.”

“First, the North Pole is not ‘Earth’s Climate Machine,’” Steffen wrote. “There is far more heat and area in the Tropics than at the North Pole. Second, YOU can’t stop its decline (assuming it’s declining)! Nature is big - you personally are insignificant compared to nature. Don’t you wish you had the power to control icecaps! If you don’t mind some profanity, check out George Carlin’s take on ‘Saving the Planet.’ Third, MSNBC does not know ‘our planet’s future.’”

Steffen rebutted claims of the MSNBC special saying that ice in the Antarctic has actually been expanding and that polar ice melting alone would not cause sea level to rise as depicted in the “Future Earth.”

“Keep in mind that if the Polar icecap (without Greenland) melted…it would hardly cause sea level to rise, because the icecap is currently displacing water in the Arctic Ocean,” Steffen wrote.

Steffen also pointed out, as many others have, the financial stake NBC Universal’s parent company General Electric (NYSE:GE) has invested in cap-and-trade becoming law.

“One last point, MSNBC is owned by General Electric,” Steffen wrote. “GE is already making money off the issue with their Carbon Credit Master Card (link from ‘Treehugger,’ no less). Here’s CNN’s story on the new credit card.”

Steffen even showed how much GE has spent lobbying for environmental causes, originally reported by the Washington Examiner on March 3.

“Interesting note: In the fourth quarter of 2008 as GE/NBC stock fell 30 percent, GE spent $4.26 million on lobbying — that’s $46,304 each day, including weekends, Thanksgiving and Christmas,” Steffen wrote. “In 2008, the company spent a grand total of $18.66 million on lobbying. Reviewing their lobbying filings, GE’s specific lobbying issues included the ‘Climate Stewardship Act,’ ‘Electric Utility Cap and Trade Act,’ ‘Global Warming Reduction Act,’ ‘Federal Government Greenhouse Gas Registry Act,’ ‘Low Carbon Economy Act,’ and ‘Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act.’ Do you think this ‘big business’ is just concerned about the environment?”

War Going On Over Global Warming

The war is between those seeking to increase tax revenue and control the economy and hence the people of the world, and those who see through the myth of man-caused global warming. See the following article. (note: I am "geo-Pete")
Peter

There Is A War Going On, And It Is Not About The Environment
geo-Pete
Message #103/13/09 12:08 AM (this debate on MSNBC can be followed here)

The war is ideological. It is between one group of people who see using global warming and its supposedly frightful consequences as a means of controlling the world's "carbon-based" economy and thus controlling the world's people. Call this group liberals, "greenies", socialists, communists, or whatever.

The other side is composed of people who value freedom, liberty, respect for the individual, and reward for free enterprise. Above all, call them Americans. The following article also comes from the total biased, liberal-left supporting MSNBC. The nature and magnitude of the gap between the two sides is shockingly wide. GP

Climate experts warn of 'irreversible' shifts
'Worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories ... are being realized,' they warn
The Associated Press
updated 3:08 p.m. CT, Thurs., March. 12, 2009

COPENHAGEN - Hundreds of leading climate scientists wrapped up a three-day conference with a warning Thursday that global warming is accelerating beyond the worst predictions and threatening to trigger "irreversible" shifts on the planet.

Attended by some 2,000 experts, the conference aimed at updating the findings of a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ahead of U.N. talks in December on a new global climate treaty.

"The worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories (or even worse) are being realized," a team of scientists wrote in a concluding statement. "There is a significant risk that many of the trends will accelerate, leading to an increasing risk of abrupt or irreversible climatic shifts."

The IPCC predicted a sea level rise of 7 to 23 inches by the end of the century, which could flood low-lying areas and force millions to flee. But more recent research presented at the conference suggested that melting glaciers and ice sheets could help push the sea level up at least 20 inches, and possibly as much as 39 inches.

'Highly vulnerable'"Recent observations show that societies are highly vulnerable to even modest levels of climate change with poor nations and communities particularly at risk," the statement said.

It noted that policy-makers already have a range of tools to mitigate global warming. "But they must be vigorously and widely implemented to achieve the societal transformation required to de-carbonize economies," it said.

(the key phrase here, that reveals their true intentions is "societal transformation required"....GP)

The conclusions of the congress will be presented to politicians when they meet in Copenhagen in December to discuss a new global agreement on greenhouse gas emissions to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.
"We know from scientific evidence that climate change is a reality and that

(of course climate change is a reality...you morons!!!! GP)

climate change will have damaging effects on the economy all over the world," said Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, one of the politicians attending the scientific conference. "Therefore we need an agreement and we need an agreement this year."

Recession an opportunity?
Earlier Thursday, British economist Nicholas Stern, the author of a major British government report detailing the cost of climate change, told the conference that the global recession presents an opportunity to build a more energy-efficient economy.

"Coming out of this we have got to lay the foundations for a low-carbon growth, which is going to be like the railways, like the electricity, like the motorcars, this is going to be over the next two, three decades the big driver in investment," Stern said.
Stern said green investments make sense because energy-efficient economies will be more sustainable in the future.
"We know from this crisis that if we postpone looking risk in the face, it will bite us much more deeply," he said.

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29658424/

The following compilation of information and links comes from DocNavy on the MSNBC Discussion Board titled "Environment".
http://boards.msn.com/MSNBCboards/thread.aspx?threadid=403516&boardsparam=Page%3D1


DocNavy
Message #1 - 09/20/07 02:17 PM
Greetings all! Here for your perusal are a number of Articles, and Websites that help explain Global Warming. As this is a complex subject that is EASILY spun in a number of directions I have attempted to pull together a few resources that start at a basic level and work their way up to the more technical aspects of Climate Change. All of these sites contain referenced material, and bibliographies if you wish to go more in depth.
If anyone finds/has more educational information that they'd like to include, please post it. Please make sure that your posts contain active links, and the material can be understood by the Layperson. I invite both "Pro-AGW" and "Skeptics" alike. Thanks.
Doc
**Disclaimer** A number of sites I list could be classified as "Skeptic", but even those sites endeavor to show accurate, referenced, scientific data. The terms "AGW" and "GW" Stand for "Anthropogenic Global Warming", and ""Global Warming" respectively.
*Revised* A decent referenced primer that covers most everything related to AGW, HERE.
An easily read investigative article on the foundations and history of AGW, HERE.
A somewhat brash, though still good article on what might be causing GW, HERE.
An engaging academic DEBATE between Pro-AGW authorities and "Skeptics".
*UPDATED* A transcript of "An Inconvenient Truth" and a LINK to the Video, accompanied by a LINK (Pt.1), LINK (Pt.2) to Pacific Research Institute's documetary about AIT's presentation of scientific "Facts".
LINK to "The great Global Warming Swindle" Documentary that is the Skeptical response to "An Inconvenient Truth."
An interesting article on the historical Climate Change Crises claims, HERE.
An interactive explanation of what "The Greenhouse Effect" is, HERE.
An explanation of what "Carbon Sequestering" or a "Carbon Sink" is, HERE.
The "Hockey Stick", a peer reviewed, referenced paper on exactly what it is, HERE.
A peer reviewed paper on the science of Climate Change, HERE.
*Revised* A referenced article explaining some of the more esoteric and confusing mathematical expressions often cited in IPCC TAR Report used to express actual warming, HERE.
Transcript of the Testimony of Richard S. Lindzen before the Senate Commerce Committee on 1 May 2001 on Global Warming and The Kyoto Protocol.
A peer reviewed paper explaining Climate Change, The Kyoto Protocol, it's results and how it effects the average person, HERE.
A peer reviewed paper discussing the effect of a warmer, CO2 enhanced World on Human Health, HERE. --==One of my personal FAVORITE reads!!==--
*NEW!* An outstanding and easily understood article on Water Vapor and it's relationship to the Greenhouse Effect, HERE. (Thanks DietDew)
An interesting article from the WASHINGTON POST about the "Fuzzy Math" used by mainstream media about Climate Change, HERE.
An excellent site explaining what thermal inversions, and Photochemical Smog are, HERE. (Thanks LtDan)
A DEVASTATING documentary on the attitudes and motivations behind the modern Eco/Enviro movement, and the disparity between what is seen in the media and what is done in real life, HERE.

**UPDATED!!** 27Nov2007
-Moved from previous thread to here 20Sept07-

Jim Hansen, NASA Temperature Data, and Lies

I have to post this dialogue and save it for posterity because I have a feeling it will be important. I'm somewhat involved in a personal way, so it warrants my saving it. The debate over global warming is not "over", as many people want us to believe. Perhaps it is just beginning.
Peter

from: http://boards.msn.com/MSNBCboards/thread.aspx?threadid=388913&boardsparam=page%3D44


GCB Stokes
Message #52209/26/07 12:36 AM
Sky Hunter,

"So are you getting paid to post Marc Morano's disingenuous garbage he calls the
Senate EPW blog all over this forum?"

Classic pro-warming, you've been train very well. I'm sure Al Gore and Big Dad Jim and very proud.

"Is Steve McIntyre slipping you a little extra to cut and paste his lies onto
these threads?"

For some as smart as you, that's a really stupid statement and it put you in the same class as Rabid Roy. Tell us, just what is he lying about? Fact is Sky Hunter, his "lies" exposed Hansen's flawed data and method. Hansen has been forced to change them because Steve McIntrye was not lying, he was right. Have you seen Hansen changing things on the NASA Web Site? It's hard keeping up, but if you check in daily, you can see it yourself, and you won't have to read it from Steve McIntyre.

"All this effort to discredit Hansen and then you guys scream fouls whenever
someone questions the credibility of bloggers that are not even scientists, Like
Moarano, who is a political hack, and McIntyre, who is an advocate for the
mining industry."

Hansen is the political hack, the whiny little candy a$$ would call Al Gore to report on what the others at NASA were doing and saying. He would set with people and ask them questions pertaining to their research, and he would gain their trust. Then when he had the information, he would run into his office and call Al Gore on his cell phone and rat people out, "Al guess what! This person did this, and he saying that and put this and that into his research, you got to stop him Al, you got to do something!" He even pasted Al Gore notes the night before he gave his testimony at the Senate Hearings in 1998, on what to ask and how to ask it, when it was his turn to question him in the hearing. Give me a break Sky Hunter, you don't know the first thing about what your talking about here, you only know what you hear in the warming cycle. And your being a hypocrite.

"I am terribly disappointed in both you and GeoPeter
for a total lack of original thinking on this issue of late. Posting the climate
deniers talking points is what I would expect from lesser intellects."

This is not attempt at original thinking, it an informative threat, and I'm
posting the updates and posting/reporting what the liberal news media and
Al Gore lovers won't in order to protect Al Gore and his trained pet rat
James Hansen

.

GCB Stokes
Message #52309/26/07 12:37 AM

"All this effort to discredit Hansen and then you guys scream fouls whenever
someone questions the credibility of bloggers that are not even scientists, Like
Moarano, who is a political hack, and McIntyre, who is an advocate for the
mining industry."

Hansen has discredited himself way back, form his flip-flop from raving about the new ice age coming within 50 years and we must act now before it too late, and then not 10 years later started raving about global warming and we must act now before it too late. And his numbers, data and methods speak for themselves. I don't have to discredit him, he's doing a fine job of that on his own. Advocate of the mining industry? Oh, you mean his an advocate of Al Gore's mining industry with that zinc mine of his?

"I can refute every single example you have posted, most are just Morano
misrepresenting the studies. But for instance the Joseph D'Alio is an example of
distorting the facts beyond recognition."

I'm sure in you mind you can. That's interesting Sky Hunter, because many of the climate researchers from NASA, NOAA and Met Office can't. Perhaps I'll put in the good word and get you a job, and you can get in there and tell them how things are to be done.

"What he is doing is dishonest and he knows it. So here you have another proven
liar and yet you are willing to trust him because he is on your side of the
argument."

Sky Hunter, don't take me for a fool, and don't think I don't run things past my people on these matters. And the fact is, McIntyre has expose errors and flaws, Hansen had to concede to this fact, and had to make the corrections and now has change his method. Some, of the studies reported my Morano have some question, just as the warming studies and Hansen's claims, other many don't. And they are based on peer-review research and just because Morano report them, does not change the fact, like him or not. If things are really as bad as you say, then the global warming thread has even less to stand on, being that some much garbage gets through the peer-review process.

"The simple truthis that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are
increasing as a result of human activity, and this increase in greenhouse gases,
particularly CO2 is causing an increase in radiative forcing, and as a result
the planet is warming. All the tricky arguments and lies told by the right wing
media and industry funded deniers does not change the physics. The Earth is
warming, and human activity is the cause."

I hate to break the news to you, but there many people, researchers including some of the world's best climate researchers who are vastly more knowable then you who disagree. And that list is growing.



GCB Stokes
Message #52409/26/07 12:38 AM

"Well I think that is your problem, you see this as a political issue, not a
science issue, so you are willing to believe people who support your
confirmation bias, even though as a trained scientist, you should know
better."

Yeah, that coming from a Hansen fan, that sure gives you a whole lot of creditability! Don't you think he should know better.

"I guess perhaps I gave you guys more credit for objective thinking than was
deserved."

The feeling is mutual, Sky Hunter.

Like it or not, the science is far from settled, and there are many researchers from around the world who agree, people you could not put a patch on the A$$ of. Including those who run the models.

And one more thing.

"I know he is only a meteorologist, but even a meteorologist knows that this is
not a logical argument, since isotopic fractionation of the carbon atom proves
that the additional CO2 in the atmosphere is from fossil sources."

Now that was stupid, and I'll give you some breaking news Sky Hunter. The overwhelming majority of climate researchers, include more then 75 percent of the climate modellers are just that, "only meteorologist." I really did take you for someone who knew what they were talking about, this prove that wrong. Fact be known, Hansen is not even a meteorologist, or an atmospheric researcher at all for that matter. Hansen was trained in "physics" and "astronomy." And it shows in his work.

I don't know what came over you, maybe you had some bad beans or something. Or perhaps you feel like the kid who was just told there really is no Santa, but here are the facts as science know them:

Global Warming is a radical theory proposed by a few scientists several decades ago. This theory was captured by environmentalist, antihuman ideologists and politicians and elevated into the status of a fear based religious belief. In science, theories are grounded by the evidence that supports the theory. Even though the Global Warming Theory has been under the microscope for the past few decades and even though billions of dollars have been thrown into research on this subject, the work has not been able to accumulate a strong foundation of data supporting this theory. On the contrary, the analysis by hundreds of top scientist indicates the evidence has been building up over the past few years to reject this theory. And all the temper tantrums in the world won't change the facts.



Massagatto
Message #52509/26/07 12:46 AM
Thank You, GCB, for cramming sense into Sky Hunter's empty head. I really could not abide his attack so I reprinted your posts. Instead of adhominem attacks by SKy Hunter, I would like to see him take each of your posts one by one and rebut them. I am sure he could never do that. Therefore, he descended into an adhominem attack. But you hit him right on the nose...Bravo!!!!

Message #526
This message may contain profanity and has been hidden.
Show message Edit settings
GCB Stokes
Message #52609/26/07 01:39 AM
Massagatto,
I really don't like having to do things like this, and having to deal with some of the want-a-be's out on this message board is one thing, but I really didn't expect Shy Hunter to go all hysterical and going into an Al Gore automated attack mode as some may true believes do. They don't like what their hearing and things don't go there way, and faced with facts contrary to their beliefs and all they have been conditioned to accept and it hurts. So, they attack and insult even people who called them a friend.

Some of the **** he was saying was absurd. I work with climate researchers, some of whom are IPCC contributors, one was a lead authors, and three are considered some of the very best in there field. And the guy I'm working with tonight, is a pro-warming researcher and he read over the reports that I posted, some he disagrees with, some he and other's don't have an answer for. He concedes that he believes in his models, but accepts their flaws, and there are opposing views that nobody can explain away. And what Sky Hunter said about McIntyre, was ludicrous. And when he read Sky Hunter's post, he laughed and said, "McIntrye sure knows enough to make an A$$ out of Hansen before the whole world. Let's hear him refute that fact!" And the part were he can refute everyone one of the studies, he just shook his and rolled his eye and said, "I can't wait for his reply and for him to refute each of those studies. Then I'll take them into work and give some pointers to all of the armatures." I guess Sky Hunter was a little full of himself tonight, or he was just acting hysterical, but that was a ridiculous statement as if he mastered these professional researchers and their peer-reviewed research. I could see if these guy wrote papers without supporting data or some other silly B.S. researchers put out there, but that's not the case here, at all.

And the fact is, this thread is a report of a researchers findings, the very findings that made Hansen concede flawed data, and forced him to even change his method along with some dirty tricks. I'm reporting findings that were proven correct, along with peer-review research. It's too bad he doesn't get so worked up over the ridiculous B.S. some of these guys post in support of his warming beliefs. Such as when CuriousPete, after getting a Peterson Field Guide and did some googling, and today tried playing ornithologist with me over some unsupported global warming hysteria regarding birds. I did my best not to insult him, even after he got all cocky. And after dealing with this ****, then SkyHunter had his spell, and I was just not in the mood for it, and I got the impression he thought he was talking to one of his fans who doesn't know any better or something. But he's not dealing with an idiot here, or some fool who doesn't know the difference between the hole in their backside and a gopher hole and try to play scientist on the message board.

I'm just upset/pi$$ed off, and I'm sure GeoPeter will tell me, "Your a trained researcher, don't conduct yourself in this manner!" And he'll be right of course. I guess people just got on my last nerve and I said things I should not have, and I'll feel bad about it later.
Well, I'm home now and need to take a hot shower, and then get into bed. Take care

A Friendly Debate On MSNBC "Climate Change"

Here is a somewhat typical exhange in a discussion forum hosted by MSNBC called "Climate Change". I'm "GeoPete"
Go here to see more: http://boards.msn.com/MSNBCboards/board.aspx?BoardID=946



SlucarelliMessage #87
04/23/07 12:12 PM You can think what you want, we are all entitled to our own opinions. I have looked at petes website and there are numerous area's in it where he leaves out certain information to encourage people to believe in his views. Not giving the public all the facts is a poor way to claim your views as truth.
ReplyReport AbuseEditDeleteHide Options

ChitownMattMessage #88
04/23/07 12:22 PM GeoPete,
Was it not the conclusion of the Vostok ice core data that we should currently be in a period of cooling?
Also, that silly web site you directed me to seems to be much more politically driven than factual. There were more things written about how Kerry and Gore are hypocritical liars than about data on the environment. And what data was presented was only in support of the idea that global warming is a myth with absolutely no counter-point. The articles written on that page are anything, but "emotionally unattached from the results."
That goes right back to my point that many of the posters here seem to be grasping at anything that will support their position as fact and dismissing anything that contradicts as "liberal media bias."



ReplyReport AbuseEditDeleteHide Options
geoPeterMessage #89
04/23/07 01:00 PM ChitownMatt,

Find something factual that supports man-induced global warming, and post it here. I'm seeking logical and reasonable debate. Leave a comment, direct me and others to something scientific that supports your beliefs.



What I have seen in the mainstream media, (especially our host MSNBC) is totally alarmist and sensational in their reporting. It seems impossible to have a rational discussion. People "believe" in global warming passionately, they "feel" certain in their "cause". This is not science. It is politics, and many people have equated environmentalism with a new religion. I agree it has many similar characteristics.



I am a scientist, a geologist for 34 years now. I've travelled, and worked in many environments. I've seen many of the proven and obvious indicators of climate change. I mean things like glaciers, beach terraces, surface and subsurface sedimentary rocks or rock layering. These are facts, science works. Scientists have to utilize measurements, facts, data and theories that are reproducible. But what I see in the arguments for man-caused global warming is not facts and not science, only theorizing, modeling, unproven.



I recognize hype, hysteria, scare tactics, and just plain old BS when I see it and hear it. If you have something rational to show me or tell me, I'm all for it. I'm certainly not going to be very impressed by the likes of Al Gore and now John Kerry, and the travelling global warming carnival of Crowe and David. They're nothing but a joke.


ReplyReport AbuseEditDeleteHide Options
geoPeterMessage #90
04/23/07 01:05 PM Slucarelli,

Of course I'm trying to convince others of my view on the subject of global warming. I'm upfront about that. I struggle to remain polite and I don't publish everything I see or read. There is way to much "stuff" out there to do that. I'm trying to use my experience and judgment to post relevant material. Look here again and you'll find far more logical and rational material than you will most other places.

Peter



ReplyReport AbuseEditDeleteHide Options