Hahah..Another Gore prediction bites the dust.. (Page 4): This will not stop our administration from spending billions or trillions in a futile attempt to stop global warming.

GAClowers Loc: Tacoma, Washington

rpavich wrote:

This is classic Gore alarmist stuff; br br ______... (show quote)

This will not stop our administration from spending billions or trillions in a futile attempt to stop global warming.

DEBJENROB Loc: DELRAY BEACH FL

heyrob wrote:

If you bothered to read my entire post, and the talk by Dr. Feynman you would see that what he said was completely relevant to the topic, if not addressed specifically toward it. The present debate over what was originally called Anthropogenic Global Warming, and now just Climate Change fits perfectly within what Feynman called "Cargo Cult Science". Basically it boils down to people acting like they are doing real science, but the fact that they do not follow the scientific method, they do not publish both what they claim works in their theories, as well as what does not, is proof positive that these people have a preconceived idea of what they wish to prove. In their quest to push a failked theory they will either manipulate the data (Remember Climategate?) or if an experiments sort of works once, but is not repeatable, they don't make that fact known, but only publish the data that works, and bury the part that fails. If you're not too proud to take a chance on learning something about science, watch the 20 minute video at the link I posted in that previous post. Maybe you'll learn what science is supposed to be about and how it's is supposed to be pursued.

While I clearly stated in that previous post that Feynman was not around when the global warming hype took off, the non-sense that is climate change extremism, has been around since at least the 1970's. Newsweek published and article in April 1976 link here:
http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf - about how we were heading into another mini-Ice Age, fast forward 15 to 20 years and the Global Warming doom and gloom began, and now that didn't pan out, so we'll just call it Climate Change and all the bases are covered. Funny how the scaremongers keep changing the rules of the game to try to stay relevant. Only the truly brain dead would fail to see through this BS. Ask yourself why after years of being told that higher CO2 levels were going to make the climate too warm to live, but despite the growing co2 levels the temperature has stayed pretty level for the past decade, and is now showing signs of decline. If one was true, how can it now be the opposite. Wake up people it's all a bunch of lies to separate you from your money, PERIOD.
His talk on Cargo Cult Science speaks directly of the type of pseudoscience that the present group of climate scaremongers practice.

If you bothered to read my entire post, and the ta... (show quote)

You are correct .... I should have read your comments .... mea culpa ... however most of your comments border on bullshit .... so I generally skim over them ... this time I was wrong .... maybe Feynman was a better Hollywood actor than scientist ...

fantom Loc: Colorado

DEBJENROB wrote:

What is wrong with you .... you quote a physicist who died in 1988 to make a point about a 21st Century problem .... global warming wasn't a perceived problem in 1988 ..... unless you have the ability to channel him ... find better experts to support your minority opinion ...

Wake up. Global warming was considered an issue in 1988, but it apparently it had not yet been adopted by the libs as another political issue they could exploit. Thats probably why you never heard of it. Ever hear the term "Greenhouse efftect"? When do you think that term was adopted?

Scoutman Loc: Orlando, FL

heyrob wrote:

Be careful of your sources... http://www.techspot.com/news/28000-wikipedia-banned-in-schools.html

And the article goes on to say that the reason is that it is a secondary source. Similarly to Encyclopedia Britannica.

Both are good starting points for a beginning investigation. Students are directed to primary sources by searching databases. Such as Index Medicus, if the topic were medical. Numerous other such indexes which offer bibliographic control over the world's scholarly publishing. Teachers also will direct students to journals which are peer reviewed.

Such a journal is "Nature."

"Nature" has done a study comparing Wikipedia with Encyclopedia Britannica. Copied below. Having worked for years in libraries, Wikipedia represents a pretty good source for answering reference questions. Libraries over the years have been pretty good about selecting material that represent state-of-the-art knowledge.

"
December 15, 2005 3:35 PM PST
Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica
By Daniel Terdiman
Staff Writer, CNET News
Related Stories
In search of the Wikipedia prankster
December 15, 2005
Is Wikipedia safe from libel liability?
December 7, 2005
Growing pains for Wikipedia
December 5, 2005
Wikipedia is about as good a source of accurate information as Britannica, the venerable standard-bearer of facts about the world around us, according to a study published this week in the journal Nature.
Over the last couple of weeks, Wikipedia, the free, open-access encyclopedia, has taken a great deal of flak in the press for problems related to the credibility of its authors and its general accountability.
In particular, Wikipedia has taken hits for its inclusion, for four months, of an anonymously written article linking former journalist John Seigenthaler to the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and John F. Kennedy. At the same time, the blogosphere was buzzing for several days about podcasting pioneer Adam Curry's being accused of anonymously deleting references to others' seminal work on the technology.
Related story
Growing pains for Wikipedia
After two scandals in one week, Wikipedia's founder decides to make a change to the anyone-can-contribute encyclopedia.
In response to situations like these and others in its history, Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has always maintained that the service and its community are built around a self-policing and self-cleaning nature that is supposed to ensure its articles are accurate."

Nature is a prestigious peer reviewed journal.

libdemtex

The level of ignorance shown in many of these comments is astounding.

gmcase Loc: Galt's Gulch

GSQRD1 wrote:

3. I especially want to know your answer to the following: What do you believe is the most abundant green house gas in our atmosphere?

The steam off the massive piles of BS from dishonest scientists, power and money grabbing politicians and progressives that are constantly pontificating on how everyone else should be ruled by force of law.

Old Boots Loc: Caldwell Co., Texas

Harvey wrote:

Much is said and true about the rising of the sea levels - BUT - not anything is said about them "Rising to previous levels" - All of Florida and the Yucatan Peninsula of MX is "Old Sea Bed" those are the two I know of - I know there are many more that I don't know of..

How about West Texas and Arizona?
Lee

rocketride Loc: Upstate NY

DEBJENROB wrote:

What is wrong with you .... you quote a physicist who died in 1988 to make a point about a 21st Century problem .... global warming wasn't a perceived problem in 1988 ..... unless you have the ability to channel him ... find better experts to support your minority opinion ...

At the time, the cargo cult "scientists" were still Chicken Littling about global cooling.

rocketride Loc: Upstate NY

gmcase wrote:

The steam off the massive piles of BS from dishonest scientists, power and money grabbing politicians and progressives that are constantly pontificating on how everyone else should be ruled by force of law.

In other words, plain old water vapor. . . But nicely fielded! Bravo!

rocketride Loc: Upstate NY

Scoutman wrote:

And the article goes on to say that the reason is ... (show quote)

Generally pretty safe for subjects (especially in the hard sciences and technology) that nobody has managed to politicize.

Otherwise, the gnomes of Wikipedia seem a lot more eager to respond to complaints from the left about what they deem to be inaccurate or unflattering portrayals than to similar complaints from the right.

hondo812 Loc: Massachusetts

imntrt1 wrote:

.......... Building cities and towns in coastal areas might just be a recipe for disaster.........

Generally speaking that is a fairly accurate assessment. Human beings are as individuals fairly bright and intelligent. As a collective...not so much. History has recorded that people congregate in areas know for natural disasters. Mount Vesuvius buried Pompei and Hurculaneum. And yet 15 million people now live in its shadow. New Orleans is built at the transition of a flood plain of the Mississippi and the Gulf of Mexico below sea level. The state of Florida is an average of 11 feet above sea level and a natural target for Hurricanes. San Fransisco and L.A. are built along major fault lines. It's not a question of if. It's a question of when.

The Yellowstone Caldera was in the news recently. They discovered the magma chamber is roughly 100 times the size they thought it was. When will it go? Could be next month or 100,000 years from now, but it will go. And when it does, everything from the Mississippi to the west will be wiped out by either the blast or the ash. The rest of the planet would not do so well either.

As for Al Gore? He's sleazy like a used car salesman. He pushed his "slideshow" to make money and he's made a pile of it. There are always going to be theories of how the "end is near". It hasn't happened yet.

fantom Loc: Colorado

libdemtex wrote:

The level of ignorance shown in many of these comments is astounding.

It feels good when you confess and face up to something doesn't it? In the long run, honest self-evaluations will make you a better person. Keep up the good work!

rocketride Loc: Upstate NY

fantom wrote:

It feels good when you confess and face up to something doesn't it? In the long run, honest self-evaluations will make you a better person. Keep up the good work!

Somehow, I don't think the goober was referring to his own posts. :)

venturer9 Loc: Newton, Il.

sb wrote:

He wasn't wrong - he only missed it by a few years perhaps. The arctic is still melting, and has become a new geopolitical battlefield with countries vying for oil drilling rights and shipping lanes in the thawed-out arctic.

*************************************************
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/the-good-news-there-has-been-a-dramatic-increase-in-arctic-sea-ice-the-bad-its-still-half-the-level-is-was-in-the-1980s-9008388.html

Here is a paragraph taken out of the total article, the URL has the full article....

The 9,000 cubic kilometres we measured in October is still very much smaller than the 20,000 cubic kilometres we estimate for the same time in the early 1980s. So today's minimum still ranks among the lowest for the past 30 years," Professor Shepherd said.

The OCTOBER ice was MEASURED
THE Early 1980's ice is ESTIMATED....

maybe we should pay alittle less attention to estimations and more to measurements..

Mike

heyrob Loc: Western Washington

Scoutman wrote:

And the article goes on to say that the reason is ... (show quote)

The is another good reason why Wikipedia is not allowed in some schools, it's because the editors/reviewers are not unbiased. Edit an entry that goes against the political leanings of their reviewers and you'll find your input deleted before the day is out. A friend in the field of climatology made some corrections to the entry on Global Warming eight or ten years ago, and when he told me to go take a look I called him back to say I couldn't find his work. He called me back later to say that his corrections had been deleted by the reviewer and so he did it again, and again it was deleted. The problem was that despite his rock hard data, it contradicted the scaremongers BS and since the reviewer was of that mind set his input never lasted on the site. I haven't trusted Wikipedia since.

I will frequently look at what is there, and I will likely trust innocuous stuff, like an old celebrity bio or something, but I view anything with any scientific or political threads with suspicion until I can corroborate the info elsewhere.