U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

Global warming? Shovel my sidewalk and start my car tonight and then tell me about above normal temps...LOL:D J/K
 
I'll second that Craig lol. I'm a$$hole deep in snow over here in Wichita. Where is the global warming when you need it.
Seriously though, this is a bit off topic, but not really. This summer when there were forest fires in the West, two cat. fives in the Caribbean, etc. there was a lot of talk about how AGW was causing it. Every weather related event (and some events that weren't weather related) was being pinned down on AGW by the media. There isn't much talk now when the midwest is getting belted with one winter storm after another. I'm just relieved that I get a six month break from listening to individual weather events being blamed on AGW.
 
I'm afraid you hit the nail squarely on the head Mikey.

We have the same problems here amplified by appalling media spin.

To warm or mild...AGW.

Too windy...AGW.

They even blame too much snow on AGW.

It doesn't matter a jot anymore what kind of weather you have...it will be blamed on AGW.

To make matter worse...when the planet heads (naturally) out of the warming phase...they'll say we saved ourselves by increasingly taxing aircraft flights, stopping people buying Range Rovers and charging residents tax to drive into the city they actually live in.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Martin North said:
I'm afraid you hit the nail squarely on the head Mikey.

We have the same problems here amplified by appalling media spin.

To warm or mild...AGW.

Too windy...AGW.

They even blame too much snow on AGW.

It doesn't matter a jot anymore what kind of weather you have...it will be blamed on AGW.

To make matter worse...when the planet heads (naturally) out of the warming phase...they'll say we saved ourselves by increasingly taxing aircraft flights, stopping people buying Range Rovers and charging residents tax to drive into the city they actually live in.
Click to expand...

Martin,

I have heard you have a green tax in the UK. Can you confirm this? How do they collect this tax if so? Is it in any way connected to the global warming scare? How was it sold to the populace there?
 
It isn't sold Sir.

There are green taxes going on all sorts of things. You get taxed more (annually) for the larger engined car that you have...claiming it helps the environment. Btw...4 x 4 vehicles are the most heavily taxed of all.

The London Congestion Charge (also a tax primarily touted as a environment saver) is going up again for larger engined cars soon.

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

Aircraft flights have had increased taxes laid on them with long haul flights absolutely crucified.

Petrol is being taxed even more now to make it almost unaffordable to some. To you $2.00 a litre...

I could go on...but I won't...
 
Martin North said:
It isn't sold Sir.

There are green taxes going on all sorts of things. You get taxed more (annually) for the larger engined car that you have...claiming it helps the environment. Btw...4 x 4 vehicles are the most heavily taxed of all.

The London Congestion Charge (also a tax primarily touted as a environment saver) is going up again for larger engined cars soon.

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

Aircraft flights have had increased taxes laid on them with long haul flights absolutely crucified.

Petrol is being taxed even more now to make it almost unaffordable to some. To you $2.00 a litre...

I could go on...but I won't...
Click to expand...


Fair enough..

Would it be safe to say that in the UK one would pay aprox. $1,200 USD a year for green taxes? Or would you say more or maybe less ? Can you give a rough estimate of what green taxes costs the average UK resident per year?

Lets say your a stormchaser in the UK and drive 10k to 15k miles chasing alone per year and drive a a 4x4 vehicle.. lol

I realize that it may be so out of control you have no idea what you pay in taxes to save the environment.
 
Joe Zemek said:
They spend plenty of money on research with the specific goal of disproving AGW
Click to expand...

What is wrong with that? If they make a scientific breakthrough that disproves AGW it would be a wonderful thing (as would a breakthrough that proves AGW). Don't we all want science to advance regardless of where it takes us?


Joe Zemek said:
They also spend lobbyist money to promote their oil-based agendas and obstruct any agenda they do not like.
Click to expand...

You mean like Greenpeace, Sierra Club, etc., lobby and spend money to promote their agendas? In a free society, any group should be able to promote whatever it wants.


Joe Zemek said:
Exxon appears to be number one but Shell, Texaco, etc. are all actively spending in what they see as an investment in their future profit. They are decidedly more interested in that than the integrity of the science.
Click to expand...

"Investing in future profit." Isn't that what businesses do? "They are decidedly more interested in that than ... integrity of science." As I asked before where is your evidence that they lack "integrity" when it comes to the science they promote? You have contended this, twice, but provided no evidence.


Joe Zemek said:
There is no industry comparably financially invested in proving AGW. There is no solar giant or windpower giant out there competing with the oil giants for political influence. They are oppressed Davids against the favored Goliaths.
Click to expand...

Here's one: www.generationim.com/ Owned, in part, by Al Gore.



Joe Zemek said:
As far as the research money goes, the reasoning has a huge flaw. Is AGW not a legitimate issue for research? Because if it is, then it deserves research dollars. However, if the science being done is not tainted by exterior economic interest--which is clearly one-sided against AGW--then generally speaking there is no projected outcome, only aggregate hypothetical posits. Conversely, a general oppposition to funding more AGW research--which is often called for by "skeptics" whose true motive is always economic--suggests an attitude that the science is settled on that side, which would involve a degree of hypocrisy (not that there isn't plenty to go around in this overheated issue).

If the contention is that grant money is given (by whom??) only to scientists that intend to prove AGW, that would be an issue, but I seriously doubt that contention and would need to see evidence of that. What's the motivation of so doing that would favor such scientists? Who stands to benefit on an economic level approaching that of oil-based industries?
Click to expand...

I don't know where to start on this one. Are you saying the pro-AGW side isn't getting funding? If so, I think you need to look at the huge grants being given by NSF, NASA, etc.

If something can be scientifically proven it doesn't matter who does it or where the money comes from. That is the great thing about science. It is about objective truth.
 
fplowman said:
Fair enough..

Would it be safe to say that in the UK one would pay aprox. $1,200 USD a year for green taxes? Or would you say more or maybe less ? Can you give a rough estimate of what green taxes costs the average UK resident per year?

Lets say your a stormchaser in the UK and drive 10k to 15k miles chasing alone per year and drive a a 4x4 vehicle.. lol

I realize that it may be so out of control you have no idea what you pay in taxes to save the environment.
Click to expand...

I couldn't say for sure. We are charged even at Local Council level for 'green' reasons.

If I sell my house...I have to provide a home information pack (at $1200) outlining all the modifications made to my house to be more environmentally friendly. It's nonsense...and I'll tell you why.

A person I know in Cumbria (one of the windiest places in the UK) put up a wind-turbine on his house in the middle of nowhere. It was to privide electricity in order to cut costs amongst other things. The national government are actually crowing about how we should have these and solar panels et al. Well the local council told him to take it down because he didn't have building control. It came down. He applied for building control and was refused because it was thought (by these people) that it was not aesthetically pleasing and fitting in with the National Park.

Let me show you a photo link to the area he lives in to see what it looks like...

It's all just so pointless. We have all this nonsense with green tax after green tax and Britain is responsible for only 3% of all worldwide emissions.

What the hell is the point of all these raxes when China and India for instance are chucking out massive amounts of CO2 and don't even have to pay anything.

The only good thing to come out of this fiasco is the fact the government have decided to proceed with the construction of several brand new nuclear power stations.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
David Deming is a geophysicist, an adjunct scholar with the National Center for Policy Analysis, and associate professor of Arts and Sciences at the University of Oklahoma.
Click to expand...

For you OU folks... isn't this the professor that Dr. Karoly wiped the floor with at the climate debate earlier this year? On a side note, does it need to be mentioned that you can have record low temps and still have globally averaged warming?
 
Jeff Snyder said:
[FONT=times new roman,times]
That's not a bad thing... I think the some media and celebrities have of more of a detriment than anything else. In such cases, the messenger is doing harm to the message. However, that does not necessarily mean that the message itself is incorrect. Exaggerated? Likely. Correct at its most basic level? Most likely.

It's worth noting that the report only addresses "man-made global warming", so it's an article about folks who dispute anthropogenic forcing. It does not indicate those scientists dispute global warming itself. Just as some anthropogenic global warming folks likely fudge their research to support the trend, I think there are also plenty of scientists against the idea of anthropogenic forcing who are doing so only to get their 10 minutes of fame. Interestingly, the most fervent "deniers" that I can think of in Oklahoma are not meteorologists or atmospheric scientists (I'm thinking of a Senator, a mathematician, etc). [/FONT]
Click to expand...

Well, I'm a Ph.D. student in math, so I can relieve the name of good mathematicians everywhere when I say that I believe exactly what you wrote here:

Exaggerated? Likely. Correct at its most basic level? Most likely.
Click to expand...
 
Aaron Kennedy said:
For you OU folks... isn't this the professor that Dr. Karoly wiped the floor with at the climate debate earlier this year? On a side note, does it need to be mentioned that you can have record low temps and still have globally averaged warming?
Click to expand...

Yessir, it is possible.

Projections for the next one hundred years over the central plains, according to one of the professors here at Iowa State University who shared in the Big Prize, is going to be around (if I remember correctly) one degree F in the positive. Plus or minus a tenth or two tenths or so.

However, the coastal regions aren't expected to be treated so nicely. They're projected (again, if I recall correctly) to jump about six or seven degrees F in yearly average temperature by 2100. THAT one is a stunner.

Prepare for all of the nice, safe, empty fields of our chasing regime to be populated by clueless coastal migrants :D
 
I'll believe a 7 degree rise when I see it. We've risen one degree in the last hundred years, so why am I supposed to buy into the idea that we'll rise seven in some locations over the next hundred?
 
Mikey Gribble said:
I'll believe a 7 degree rise when I see it. We've risen one degree in the last hundred years, so why am I supposed to buy into the idea that we'll rise seven in some locations over the next hundred?
Click to expand...

The data from the late 90's and early 00's has been analyzed crucially for this. I'm absolutely no expert, but I take the plains-to-coast massive disparity as being a local issue, caused by aftereffects of vastly expanding urbanization that necessarily has to grow with the boom of folks moving out there for work and having children, an issue that has grown at a much higher rate over the past, say, twenty years than in relative significance to the rest of the century before that. If I recall correctly, there was a brief drop in global temps in the 50's, 60's, and/or 70's - my clouded mind can't really remember - that led to a brief concern over the possibility of global cooling.

As for warming itself, there's near zero issue with IF we're doing something, but every issue with HOW MUCH.

Don't get me wrong - I'm (mostly) a libertarian. I think that putting in harsh government restrictions will lead to a disintegration. But I don't think that will happen. A better solution is for the population to see what's ahead and move back here and even things out. I also wouldn't mind private groups - or in the case of immediately impending doom, government grants from taxes - to help fund great minds to invent some good, clean materials to help the U.S. both clean up and grow less dependent on foreign oil.

But that's a different topic altogether ... the question is, IF even a small change in average temperature occurs, what will become of the so-called Tornado Alley? Will it drift north?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top