Global Warming - Page 40 - Speedzilla Motorcycle Message Forums
Speedzilla Motorcycle Message Forums  

Go Back   Speedzilla Motorcycle Message Forums > Misc / Off Topic Area > War Room

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #781 (permalink)  
Old 10-14-2007, 10:41 PM
DanST4's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,282
Default




Gore gets a cold shoulder

Steve Lytte
October 14, 2007

ONE of the world's foremost meteorologists has called the theory that helped Al Gore share the Nobel Peace Prize "ridiculous" and the product of "people who don't understand how the atmosphere works".

Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, told a packed lecture hall at the University of North Carolina that humans were not responsible for the warming of the earth.

His comments came on the same day that the Nobel committee honoured Mr Gore for his work in support of the link between humans and global warming.
"We're brainwashing our children," said Dr Gray, 78, a long-time professor at Colorado State University. "They're going to the Gore movie [An Inconvenient Truth] and being fed all this. It's ridiculous."

At his first appearance since the award was announced in Oslo, Mr Gore said: "We have to quickly find a way to change the world's consciousness about exactly what we're facing."

Mr Gore shared the Nobel prize with the United Nations climate panel for their work in helping to galvanise international action against global warming.
But Dr Gray, whose annual forecasts of the number of tropical storms and hurricanes are widely publicised, said a natural cycle of ocean water temperatures - related to the amount of salt in ocean water - was responsible for the global warming that he acknowledges has taken place.

However, he said, that same cycle meant a period of cooling would begin soon and last for several years.
"We'll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realise how foolish it was," Dr Gray said.
During his speech to a crowd of about 300 that included meteorology students and a host of professional meteorologists, Dr Gray also said those who had linked global warming to the increased number of hurricanes in recent years were in error.

He cited statistics showing there were 101 hurricanes from 1900 to 1949, in a period of cooler global temperatures, compared to 83 from 1957 to 2006 when the earth warmed.

"The human impact on the atmosphere is simply too small to have a major effect on global temperatures," Dr Gray said.

He said his beliefs had made him an outsider in popular science.

"It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong," he said. "But they also know that they'd never get any grants if they spoke out. I don't care about grants."


This story was found at: Gore gets a cold shoulder - Environment - smh.com.au
__________________
2001 ST4
2013 K1600GT


Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #782 (permalink)  
Old 10-14-2007, 10:57 PM
Gog's Avatar
Gog Gog is offline
Naturally Exasperated
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 4,019
Default

Dan,

How many damn smokestacks do you see scattered throughout the countries of the earht? How many industrialized countries can you count? How much deforestation takes place? How many places have been burned, cleared, paved? What is the threshold, and how close are we to it, that endangers us? At what point to you drop your asinine claims that nothing is wrong, there is no danger, change is not happening and no response is needed for this changing atmosphere?

A child could put two and two together but you guys... no it's gotta be refuted and argued no matter what common sense screams out. If Bush has a special interest group tell you that second hand cigarette smoke is not dangerous I suppose you would then condone teachers and students smoking in school? Classrooms full of exhaled smoke, no problem, tell your kids to just grin and bear it? Try to picture the earth as a smoky room, who needs it? Who wants it? You sound like the fools who said the Levees are fine in New Orleans, c'mon man give it up, grow up!
Reply With Quote
  #783 (permalink)  
Old 10-14-2007, 11:25 PM
DanST4's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,282
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gog View Post
but you guys... no it's gotta be refuted and argued no matter what common sense screams out.
You really have to be careful when you see the words "common sense". Many things are not as they seem. It really is that simple.

"We'll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realize how foolish it was," Dr Gray said.

And hopefully we will not have made expensive, restrictive, foolish decisions.

Amen.
Reply With Quote
  #784 (permalink)  
Old 10-15-2007, 01:53 AM
nero's Avatar
...clink...!
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Dallas, Tx
Posts: 1,725
Default

I get it now, Gog. For you treehugging moonbats this is a religion . MMGW replaces conventional religion and contains all the same elements . Faith, repentance, salvation and forgiveness . Worship in peace brother, feels good to believe in something , eh ?
Reply With Quote
  #785 (permalink)  
Old 10-15-2007, 02:13 AM
Gog's Avatar
Gog Gog is offline
Naturally Exasperated
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 4,019
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nero View Post
I get it now, Gog. For you treehugging moonbats this is a religion . MMGW replaces conventional religion and contains all the same elements . Faith, repentance, salvation and forgiveness . Worship in peace brother, feels good to believe in something , eh ?
If you want to call common sense a religion then, by all means, go ahead. What you get without it is evident in the results of the Bush M.O., and right wing dingaling philosophies. Just look at the results. Just take stock of the sheer volume of failures, divisions, alienations, debt, death, ill will, contempt... blah blah blah. The list is sooo extensive. But here come the Rush Limblahs and Co. To convince the stupid flocks of Robertson, Haggard, Coulter and they, in turn, convince the other hillbilly Yankoffs that Christ wants you to make money by soiling his fathers creation, he wants to to kill other people in his name and spread hatred, conceit, lies and disunity throughout your country and the world. Oh and BTW he wants you to believe that science and common sense are the devil's handiwork.
WTG fellas, Falwell[he did fall well didn't he?] is waiting with open arms for you and raptureville. I remember seeing Jimmy Baker justifying why he had 13 limos and counting. God's earth provided the holy metal and Jesus told him to... blah blah blah. What utter childishness. Next to Gore and the majority of concerned earthlings, you fools look like the crew of the Titanic.
Reply With Quote
  #786 (permalink)  
Old 10-15-2007, 05:17 PM
Le Kiwi's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: In the warmth of a warming world
Posts: 2,519
Default

No, Nero, it's not a religion, but excuse us if we're sceptical about the sceptics, like the afore-mentioned Dr William Gray (retired), because his credentials and his theories move around on some thin ice sometimes. The fact that it was presented with glee in a right-wing denier paper is just the ice on the cake, as it were....

RealClimate » Gray and Muddy Thinking about Global Warming

William M. Gray - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Sydney Morning Herald - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reply With Quote
  #787 (permalink)  
Old 10-15-2007, 08:03 PM
247 247 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,993
Default

No, it's not easy, it is hard work. But, it's really difficult to not do well if you have sufficient funding for business's needs, work hard and make decent decisions.

I have an idea for a nice little business that could be started with very little capital that is in high demand right now, PM for details if you're interested.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #788 (permalink)  
Old 10-15-2007, 08:58 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,374
Red face

For burning lots of jet fuel spreading panic around the globe, Al Gore gets a Nobel Peace Prize. But if he really thinks his global warming theory could withstand public scrutiny, why not run for president?

The former vice president is supposedly the greatest debater in the world. CNN's "Larry King Live" saw him wipe the floor with Ross Perot on NAFTA in 1993. He also out-soundbited Jack Kemp in the 1996 vice-presidential debate.

But in 2000, an unlikely challenger — a Texan given to mangling language — was to puncture Gore's aura of invincibility. Al's sighs of impatience while debating George W. Bush symbolized the frustration of the liberal elite when confounded by simple horse sense.

Maybe those seven-year-old chinks in his armor are why Gore steadfastly refuses to debate climate experts who challenge his alarmist hypotheses. As the Cato Institute's Patrick Michaels points out: "The fact is that Al has ducked, feinted, dived away from, or fluffed each and every opportunity for a reasoned debate with any global warming scientist not of his choice."

Earlier this year, Gore at the last minute scaredy-catted out of an interview with Denmark's biggest newspaper and "Skeptical Environmentalist" author Bjorn Lomborg. Gauntlets have also been thrown down by Cato and Chicago's Heartland Institute.

Look at some of Gore's distortions:

• He conveniently ignores the 98% of Antarctica that has actually cooled in the last 35 years to focus on the 2% that is warming.

• His film "An Inconvenient Truth" depicts Florida going underwater, yet that would take a 13-foot ocean rise; the U.N. forecasts a mean sea-level increase of only 13 inches by the century's end.

• Gore's movie shows a polar bear drowning in search of icebergs; the polar bear population has quintupled in 40 years.

If Al Gore really believes all that hot air, then why not enter the world's brightest spotlight: the presidential sweepstakes?

(Don't hold your breath.)

Reply With Quote
  #789 (permalink)  
Old 10-16-2007, 07:35 AM
Le Kiwi's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: In the warmth of a warming world
Posts: 2,519
Default

I wish you WOULD hold your breath, Bigcliff. A hundred years would be good. Then you could see clearly just how wrong you are, and we wouldn't have to bother reading your drivel and this odd right-wing ranting that seems to drip off the pages of IBD where you seem to get most of your opinions from.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_O'Neil

Here, this will help you to become informed, so you don't appear to be such a right-wing dingaling and fawning toadie of the neocon "Rape, pillage and burn" gang of in-denial idiots...

RealClimate » How much future sea level rise? More evidence from models and ice sheet observations.

Here is just the footnote, but the full article is a good read. Remember kids, ignorance can kill you...

*Note that we don't actually have good constrains on the rate of sea level rise from the penultimate glacial period (~140,000 years ago) to the last interglacial (LIG, ~125,000 years ago). However, we have very good data on the more recent glacial-to-interglacial transition, between about 14,000 and 7,000 years ago. During that time, sea levels rose at an average rate of about 11 mm/year, and at rates much higher than that for short intervals.
**Consider for example, that 1 m of sea level rise would change the frequency of what are now 100-year floods in metropolitan New York to once in every four years events. (See here and Rosenzweig, C. and W.D. Solecki (Eds.). 2001. Climate Change and a Global City: The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change - Metro East Coast (MEC). Report for the U.S. Global Change Research Program, National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change for the United States, Columbia Earth Institute, New York. 224 pp)


Because your ignorance makes me sad, Bigicecliff, here is some information on Polar Bears.
Polar bears in recent decades

Even more information, with verifiable links. You may point out the parts where they say the Polar Bear population is increasing, if you like.
Polar bear - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bjorn Lomborg, a man after your own heart, Bigcliff. An assistant professor of statistics, no less. The climate is in good hands !
Bjørn Lomborg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bjorn Lomborg - SourceWatch
Reply With Quote
  #790 (permalink)  
Old 10-16-2007, 11:26 AM
Le Kiwi's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: In the warmth of a warming world
Posts: 2,519
Default

...and because 50,000 motorcycles racing all day, 24/24 and 365 days a year up and down the canyons behind Los Angeles create less pollution than ONE B-52 and it's WMD cargo, not to mention the smoke and fumes from it's target, here is an interesting article.

Greenhouse gas and war: How they are related


Oh, and before I forget, here is something, with valid links, from climate scientists about "Antarctic cooling".
Before you post such denier ranting, Bigmeltdown, you may want to verify that you're not just copying and pasting nonsense which makes you as credible as William Kristol.

RealClimate » Antarctic cooling, global warming?
Reply With Quote
  #791 (permalink)  
Old 10-16-2007, 02:33 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,374
Post The Warming Debate's Gray Area



A top climate scientist calls the theory that won Al Gore an Oscar and a Nobel Peace Prize "ridiculous." Others would speak out, he says, if they didn't fear retribution from those who put ideology over science.

Dr. William Gray, professor emeritus of the atmospheric department at Colorado State University, who has become known as America's most reliable hurricane forecaster, made that assessment at the University of North Carolina over the weekend.

"We'll look back at this in 10 or 15 years and realize how foolish it was," he said.

Meantime, said Gray, "We're brainwashing our children. They're going to the Gore movie and being fed all this. It's ridiculous."

Not schooled as a politician or showman like Gore, he told the group of 300, including meteorology students, that "the human impact on the atmosphere is simply too small to have a major impact on global temperatures."

Gray said that a natural cycle of ocean temperatures related to the amount of salt in ocean water was responsible for global warming, which he acknowledges has taken place. As part of this natural cycle, global temperatures will eventually cool again.

He says that fluctuations in hurricane intensity and frequency, Exhibit A in Gore's inquisition, have nothing to do with carbon dioxide levels or human activity, but with changing ocean currents.

He noted that there were 101 hurricanes from 1900 to 1949, in a period of cooler global temperatures, compared with 83 from 1957 to 2006, when the earth warmed.

At a National Hurricane Conference held earlier this year in, appropriately enough, New Orleans, Gray said that this phenomenon "goes back thousands of years. These are natural processes. We shouldn't blame them on humans or CO2."

At 78, Gray stands on his record as a pioneer in seasonal hurricane forecasts and no longer fears the career death that many of his like-minded peers risk if they dare to stray from the politically popular climate orthodoxy that gave Gore his Nobel Prize for activities that have nothing to do with world peace.

"It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong," Gray said. "But they also know that they'd never get any grants if they spoke out. I don't care about grants."

Gore says he will give his $1.5 million prize to a green charity, the Alliance for Climate Change in Palo Alto, Calif. But as a group of economists, including four Nobel Prize winners, reported in 2004, there are better ways to help the planet.

They found that one dollar spent fighting HIV/AIDS produced $40 in social benefits, and that one dollar spent on fighting malnutrition yielded about $30 in social benefits, but that one dollar fighting to lower CO2 emissions yielded between 2 and 25 cents in benefits.

And, as we've said before, what greenies propose stunts economic growth and is a recipe for global poverty.

In an Associated Press interview at the hurricane conference, Gray said of Gore: "He's one of those guys that preaches the end-of-the-world type of things. I think he's doing a great disservice and he doesn't know what he's talking about."

Neither, apparently, does the Nobel Prize committee.
Reply With Quote
  #792 (permalink)  
Old 10-16-2007, 02:41 PM
Gog's Avatar
Gog Gog is offline
Naturally Exasperated
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 4,019
Default

It's like preaching to the inverted.
Reply With Quote
  #793 (permalink)  
Old 10-16-2007, 03:32 PM
Le Kiwi's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: In the warmth of a warming world
Posts: 2,519
Default

He/it obviously didn't read the climate scientists take on the good, retired professor's somewhat out-of-date and mildly discredited views. The World is no longer flat, but maybe these guy's don't know this ?

Still, he suits his corporate masters well, despite his avowed disinterest and moral qualms about taking oil company money.

I thought this was an excellent article. Nero and Dan, you may well enjoy this.

The Tempest - washingtonpost.com
Reply With Quote
  #794 (permalink)  
Old 10-16-2007, 03:46 PM
Gog's Avatar
Gog Gog is offline
Naturally Exasperated
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 4,019
Default

You know, it's one thing to argue abstract concepts, hypothesis, transcendental meditations or even taste preferences but, jeepers creepers, why does it have to start with trying to establish basic science, common sense or obvious predicaments? What possible benefit can be enjoyed by denying that industrialization, development and 'progress' are making a chartable, discernible and detrimental effect of our world?

All good engineers will look at leak, squeaks and off gases of their products unless... unless there's easy money to be made by ignoring problems and draw backs. If we allow them to make money with products that damage our precious resources for living, or dissuade them from inventing adaptive, productive and lucrative alternatives, WTF good is basing an economy on that?

Such rubbish to even begin to claim that we NEED this, we must have it, gimme, gimme, gimme. God damned RW neocons want to stifle new ideas, safe changes, smart decisions and adaptive approaches to a changing world. They are the first ones to criticize others and the last ones to admit their blatant, mountainous failures. How many of us are sick to death of their childish, overt incompetence? When will they be driven back under the moss covered rocks they slithered out from under?

The center for disease control had a chance to COMPLETELY eradicate the Small Pox Virus but; it was decided that it was safer to hold a sample in this world in order for future generations to study and learn from. The risk of it falling into the wrong hands was deemed worthwhile considering the possible lesson that COULD be learned from it in the future. Seems like a wise idea but not when you think of the hundreds ofmillions of people who died because if it. Just get rid of it right?
I say that right wing fundementalism is worse! They must be eradicated through education! Educate out the hate, greed, stupidity, arrogance, racism, and anti Christian motivations that have slandered many a good soul that suffers next door to these bigoted fools. Dont let them slither under a rock bed to regroup and organize their next Putsch. They really have brought nothing but bad news, bad faith and bad business to America.
Reply With Quote
  #795 (permalink)  
Old 10-17-2007, 10:54 AM
Le Kiwi's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: In the warmth of a warming world
Posts: 2,519
Default

This is interesting. Proof that the "Mankind influenced Global Climate change" deniers are totally unbiased and in no way politically motivated in their criticism of Al Gore and his attempts to stimulate wide-ranging debate and encourage urgent action on a global scale through his film, finally taking the problems facing us, as a race and as a planet, out of the academic sphere and into mass conciousness....

Revealed: the man behind court attack on Gore film



Fuel and mining magnate backed UK challenge to An Inconvenient Truth

Jamie Doward, home affairs editor
Sunday October 14, 2007
The Observer


The school governor who challenged the screening of Al Gore's climate change documentary in secondary schools was funded by a Scottish quarrying magnate who established a controversial lobbying group to attack environmentalists' claims about global warming.Stewart Dimmock's high-profile fight to ban the film being shown in schools was depicted as a David and Goliath battle, with the Kent school governor taking on the state by arguing that the government was 'brainwashing' pupils.


A High Court ruling last week that the Oscar-winning documentary would have to be screened with guidance notes to balance its claims was welcomed by climate-change sceptics.The Observer has established that Dimmock's case was supported by a powerful network of business interests with close links to the fuel and mining lobbies. He was also supported by a Conservative councillor in Hampshire, Derek Tipp.
Dimmock credited the little-known New Party with supporting him in the test case but did not elaborate on its involvement. The obscure Scotland-based party calls itself 'centre right' and campaigns for lower taxes and expanding nuclear power.
Records filed at the Electoral Commission show the New Party has received nearly all of its money - almost £1m between 2004 and 2006 - from Cloburn Quarry Limited, based in Lanarkshire.
The company's owner and chairman of the New Party, Robert Durward, is a long-time critic of environmentalists. With Mark Adams, a former private secretary to Tony Blair, he set up the Scientific Alliance, a not-for-profit body comprising scientists and non-scientists, which aims to challenge many of the claims about global warming.
The alliance issued a press release welcoming last week's court ruling and helped publicise Dimmock's case on its website. It also advised Channel 4 on the Great Global Warming Swindle, a controversial documentary screened earlier this year that attempted to challenge claims made about climate change.
In 2004 the alliance co-authored a report with the George C Marshall Institute, a US body funded by Exxon Mobil, that attacked climate change claims. 'Climate change science has fallen victim to heated political and media rhetoric ... the result is extensive misunderstanding,' the report's authors said.
Martin Livermore, director of the alliance, confirmed Durward continued to support its work. 'He provides funds with other members,' Livermore said.
In the Nineties, Durward established the British Aggregates Association to campaign against a tax on sand, gravel and rock extracted from quarries. Durward does not talk to the media and calls to the association requesting an interview were not returned last week. However, he has written letters to newspapers setting out his personal philosophy. One letter claimed: 'It is time for Tony Blair to try the "fourth way", declare martial law and let the army sort out our schools, hospitals and roads.'
He later clarified his comments saying he was merely pointing out that the army had done a 'fantastic job' in dealing with the foot and mouth crisis. He has also asked whether there has been a 'witch-hunt against drunk drivers'.
Dimmock also received support from a new organisation, Straightteaching.com, which calls for politics to be left out of the classroom. The organisation, which established an online payment system for people to make contributions to Dimmock's campaign, was set up by Tipp and several others. Its website was registered last month to an anonymous Arizona-based internet company.
Tipp, who is described on the website as having been a science teacher in the Seventies and Eighties, declines to talk about who else is backing it. 'There are other people involved but I don't think they want to be revealed,' he said.
He said he thought his organisation could bring more cases against the government. 'There are a lot of people who feel the climate change debate is being hyped up,' Tipp said. 'To try to scare people into believing the end is nigh is not helpful. We've been contacted by other teachers who raised concerns. There's a lot of interest, especially from people in the US.'


Reply With Quote
  #796 (permalink)  
Old 10-18-2007, 04:56 PM
Le Kiwi's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: In the warmth of a warming world
Posts: 2,519
Default

Drat ! Those pesky durned Scientists just won't let the Deniers alone...!!

Ancient Fossil Evidence Supports Carbon Dioxide As Driver Of Global Warming

Science Daily A team of American and Canadian scientists has devised a new way to study Earth's past climate by analyzing the chemical composition of ancient marine fossils. The first published tests with the method further support the view that atmospheric CO2 has contributed to dramatic climate variations in the past, and strengthen projections that human CO2 emissions could cause global warming.
In the current issue of the journal Nature, geologists and environmental scientists from the California Institute of Technology, the University of Ottawa, the Memorial University of Newfoundland, Brock University, and the Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve report the results of a new method for determining the growth temperatures of carbonate fossils such as shells and corals. This method looks at the percentage of rare isotopes of oxygen and carbon that bond with each other rather than being randomly distributed through their mineral lattices.
Because these bonds between oxygen-18 and carbon-13 form in greater abundance at low temperatures and lesser abundance at higher temperatures, a precise measurement of their concentration in a carbonate fossil can quantify the temperature of seawater in which the organisms lived. By comparing this record of temperature change with previous estimates of past atmospheric CO2 concentrations, the study demonstrates a strong coupling of atmospheric temperatures and carbon dioxide concentrations across one of Earth's major environmental shifts.
According to Rosemarie Came, a postdoctoral scholar in geochemistry at Caltech and lead author of the article, only about 60 parts per million of the carbonate molecular groups that make up the mineral structures of carbonate fossils are a combination of both oxygen-18 and carbon-13, but the amount varies predictably with temperature. Therefore, knowing the age of the sample and how much of these exotic carbonate groups are present allows one to create a record of the planet's temperature through time.
"This clumped-isotope method has an advantage over previous approaches because we're looking at the distribution of rare isotopes inside a single shell or coral," Came says. "All the information needed to study the surface temperature at the time the animal lived is stored in the fossil itself."
In this way, the method contrasts with previous approaches that require knowledge of the chemistry of seawater in the distant past--something that is poorly known.
The study contrasts the growth temperatures of fossils from two times in the distant geological past. The Silurian period, approximately 400 million years ago, is thought to have been a time of highly elevated atmospheric CO2 (more than 10 times the modern concentration), and was found by the researchers to be a time of exceptionally warm shallow-ocean temperatures--nearly 35 degrees C. In contrast, the Carboniferous period, roughly 300 million years ago, appears to have been characterized by far lower levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (similar to modern values) and had shallow marine temperatures similar to or slightly cooler than today-about 25 degrees C. Thus, the draw-down of atmospheric CO2 coincided with strong global cooling.
"This is a huge change in temperature," says John Eiler, a professor of geochemistry at Caltech and a coauthor of the study. "It shows that carbon dioxide really has been a powerful driver of climate change in Earth's past."
The title of the Nature paper is "Coupling of surface temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations during the Paleozoic era." The other authors are Jan Veizer of the University of Ottawa, Karem Azmy of Memorial University of Newfoundland, Uwe Brand of Brock University, and Christopher R. Weidman of the Waquoit National Estuarine Research Reserve, Massachusetts.
Reply With Quote
  #797 (permalink)  
Old 10-18-2007, 05:11 PM
DanST4's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,282
Default

But let us not forget (just look back over the past 1300 years):

In summary -

What the record of temperature, icehouses, and transgressions really doesn't match up with is the history of carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere. Veizer and Shaviv cite three different studies on CO2 levels.

The studies do not agree very well, but they do agree on two things: (1) the rise and fall of CO2 is unrelated to the rise and fall of temperature, and (2) the concentration of CO2 right now is at a historic low.

Reply With Quote
  #798 (permalink)  
Old 10-18-2007, 05:40 PM
Le Kiwi's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: In the warmth of a warming world
Posts: 2,519
Default

Uh oh ! The Deniers look like being caught with their pants down, and may get nasty sunburn from all that solar radiation, so quick, whip out a Veiser and Shaviv and ward of those reality rays...

Nir Shaviv is a very good scientist, a rising star, apparently, but don't forget, he accepts that man-made global warming is a fact, only he believes it is less important than the solar and extra-terrestrial effects that play around with the upper atmosphere.

He walks a lonely path here, but kudos to him and Veiser for sticking to their guns against all other scientific opinion. How strange that they have been whipped up by all the forces of obscurity on the Deniers side of the debate. At least their grants are now no longer a problem.
Reply With Quote
  #799 (permalink)  
Old 10-18-2007, 06:02 PM
247 247 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,993
Default

Check this one out, cliffy!

Courtesy www.Spinitbaby.com




In public relations, spin is a usually pejorative term signifying a heavily biased portrayal in one's own favor of an event or situation. While traditional public relations may also rely on creative presentation of the facts, "spin" often, though not always, implies disingenuous, deceptive and/or highly manipulative tactics. Politicians are often accused of spin by their political opponents.
The term is borrowed from ball sports such as cricket, where a spin bowler may impart spin on the ball during a delivery so that it will curve through the air or bounce in an advantageous manner.
Because of the frequent association between "spin" and press conferences (especially government press conferences), the room in which these take place is sometimes described as a spin room. A group of people who develop spin may be referred to as "spin doctors" who engage in "spin doctoring" for the person or group that hired them.
Contents [hide]
1 Overview
2 See also
3 Fictional Spin Doctors
4 External links


[edit] Overview
The techniques of spin include:
Selectively presenting facts and quotes that support one's position (cherry picking)
Non-denial denial
Phrasing in a way that assumes unproven truths
Euphemisms to disguise or promote one's agenda
Another spin technique involves the delay in the release of bad news so it can be hidden in the "shadow" of more important or favorable news or events. A famous reference to this practice occurred when UK government press officer Jo Moore used the phrase It's now a very good day to get out anything we want to bury in an email sent on September 11, 2001. The furore caused when this email was reported in the press eventually caused her to resign.
Skilled practitioners of spin are sometimes called "spin doctors", though probably not to their faces unless it is said facetiously. It is the PR equivalent of calling a writer a "hack." Perhaps the most well-known person in the UK often described as a "spin doctor" is Alastair Campbell, who was involved with Tony Blair's public relations between 1994 and 2003, and also played a controversial role as press relations officer to the British and Irish Lions rugby side during their 2005 tour of New Zealand.
The American talk and radio show-host Bill O'Reilly calls his show the No Spin Zone to emphasize his dislike of the phenomenon, although the show has itself been accused of spin.
State-run media in many countries also engage in spin by only allowing news stories that are favorable to the government while censoring anything that could be considered critical.

[edit] See also
Apologetics
Astroturfing
Bullshit
Code word (figure of speech)
Doublespeak
Framing (social sciences)
Information subsidy
Managing the news
Media manipulation
Propaganda
Soundbite
Weasel word
[edit] Fictional Spin Doctors
Nick Naylor - Protagonist of Christopher Buckley's bestseller Thank You for Smoking.
Deputy Mayor Mike Flaherty in the American sitcom Spin City.
Malcolm Tucker - enforcer from Number 10 in the BBC comedy The Thick of It.
[edit] External links
Christian Science Monitor: The spin room - oily engine of the political meat grinder
Outfoxed: OUTFOXED: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism
Spin of the Day - Center for Media and Democracy
Spinwatch monitors spin and propaganda
Retrieved from "Spin (public relations) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #800 (permalink)  
Old 10-20-2007, 05:47 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,374
Thumbs down The Nobel Peace Prize for 'Gorebal Warming'

Now that Al Gore has managed to snag a Nobel Prize, some critics are worried that his words will be taken much too seriously.

By Burt Prelutsky


From now on, Al Gore will no longer be best known as the man who lost the presidency because he couldn’t even carry his own home state.

People may even begin overlooking the fact that the most fascinating thing about him is that his head is as large as the pumpkin that sits atop Barry Bonds’ neck.

Those are just two of the reasons that Mr. Gore can be grateful that, along with his Oscar, he now has a Peace Prize on his mantel.

There is probably nothing that people would rather have mentioned in their obituaries than the fact that along life’s torturous path, they managed to snag a Nobel Prize.

The reason for that isn’t just all the tax-free cash that accompanies the honor, but that forever after your words on any topic under the sun will be taken much too seriously by a very gullible public.

There’s no getting around the fact that some pretty impressive people have been Nobel laureates. Just a few of them were Ivan Pavlov, Sir Alexander Fleming, Marie and Pierre Curie, Niels Bohr, Enrico Fermi and Albert Einstein.

Personally, I have no problem when the award is made in recognition of scientific and technological advances. I mean, even though what I know about chemistry, medicine, physiology and physics, could be inscribed on the head of a pin, I am willing to accept that their accomplishments were remarkable. And if Alfred Nobel had left it at that, I’d be willing to live and let live.

But it does seem a little silly to hand out the Prizes to economists and, for that matter, to writers. If economics is a science, Charles Ponzi was a philosopher king. No matter how loopy a theory an economist comes up with, he stands a darn good chance of winning a cool million in the Swedish lottery.

In fact, several years ago, one very savvy American woman, in her divorce settlement from a professor of economics, stipulated that she’d get half the loot if he copped a Prize within the following 10 years. Sure enough, nine years later, he did, and she was $500,000 richer. Frankly, for being that prescient, I think she should have won her own Nobel Prize for Economics! As for literature, what do the Swedes know about books and poetry written in Hungarian, Japanese and Hebrew? Who are we kidding?

Besides, these are the same folks who kept snubbing Mark Twain while recognizing the likes of Sully Prudhomme, Henryk Sienkiewicz, Rudolf Eucken and Selma Lagerlof.

The Peace Prize, however, is the most questionable item of all. I mean, the money aside, who would really want to accept an award that has been bestowed on such ne’er-do-wells as Le Duc Tho, Kofi Annan, Yasir Arafat and Jimmy Carter? Well, Al Gore, for one.

As if it’s not bad enough that such unrepentant thugs and rascals as the aforementioned have copped the Peace Prize, it’s equally enlightening to consider the people who haven’t won it.

Namely, those gallant souls who don’t back down when confronted by evil, but who, instead, take up arms and, on occasion, sacrifice their lives in the never ending battle.

I mean, really, ask yourselves: who has done more to promote peace on earth — Al Gore and Jimmy Carter or Winston Churchill and the American G.I.?

Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT. The time now is 01:49 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
© 2011, Speedzilla.com, Inc