Global Warming Rope-a-Dope
Jan 11, 2014 10:53:33 #
For all of you trolls who constantly call me "racist".....read what an intelligent, educated black man has to say about global warming......
Global Warming Rope-a-Dope
Walter E. Williams | Dec 24, 2008
Americans have been rope-a-doped into believing that global warming is going to destroy our planet. Scientists who have been skeptical about manmade global warming have been called traitors or handmaidens of big oil. The Washington Post asserted on May 28, 2006 that there were only "a handful of skeptics" of manmade climate fears. Bill Blakemore on Aug. 30, 2006 said, "After extensive searches, ABC News has found no such (scientific) debate on global warming." U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer said it was "criminally irresponsible" to ignore the urgency of global warming. U.N. special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland on May 10, 2007 declared the climate debate "over" and added "it's completely immoral, even, to question" the U.N.'s scientific "consensus." In July 23, 2007, CNN's Miles O'Brien said, "The scientific debate is over." Earlier he said that scientific skeptics of manmade catastrophic global warming "are bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry, usually."
The global warming scare has provided a field day for politicians and others who wish to control our lives. After all, only the imagination limits the kind of laws and restrictions that can be written in the name of saving the planet. Recently, more and more scientists are summoning up the courage to speak out and present evidence against the global warming rope-a-dope. Atmospheric scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said, "It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming."
Dr. Goldenberg has the company of at least 650 noted scientists documented in the recently released U.S. Senate Minority Report: "More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims: Scientists Continue to Debunk 'Consensus' in 2008." The scientists, not environmental activists, include Ivar Giaever, Nobel Laureate in physics, who said, "I am a skeptic Global warming has become a new religion." Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an environmental physical chemist, said warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists." "So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming," said Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace member. Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh, said, "Many (scientists) are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined."
The fact of the matter is an increasing amount of climate research suggests a possibility of global cooling. Geologist Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Emeritus Professor at Western Washington University says, "Recent solar changes suggest that it could be fairly severe, perhaps more like the 1880 to 1915 cool cycle than the more moderate 1945-1977 cool cycle. A more drastic cooling, similar to that during the Dalton and Maunder minimums, could plunge the Earth into another Little Ice Age, but only time will tell if that is likely." Geologist Dr. David Gee, chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress, currently at Uppsala University in Sweden asks, "For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?"
That's a vital question for Americans to ask. Once laws are written, they are very difficult, if not impossible, to repeal. If a time would ever come when the permafrost returns to northern U.S., as far south as New Jersey as it once did, it's not inconceivable that Congress, caught in the grip of the global warming zealots, would keep all the laws on the books they wrote in the name of fighting global warming. Personally, I would not put it past them to write more.
Global Warming Rope-a-Dope
Walter E. Williams | Dec 24, 2008
Americans have been rope-a-doped into believing that global warming is going to destroy our planet. Scientists who have been skeptical about manmade global warming have been called traitors or handmaidens of big oil. The Washington Post asserted on May 28, 2006 that there were only "a handful of skeptics" of manmade climate fears. Bill Blakemore on Aug. 30, 2006 said, "After extensive searches, ABC News has found no such (scientific) debate on global warming." U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer said it was "criminally irresponsible" to ignore the urgency of global warming. U.N. special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland on May 10, 2007 declared the climate debate "over" and added "it's completely immoral, even, to question" the U.N.'s scientific "consensus." In July 23, 2007, CNN's Miles O'Brien said, "The scientific debate is over." Earlier he said that scientific skeptics of manmade catastrophic global warming "are bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry, usually."
The global warming scare has provided a field day for politicians and others who wish to control our lives. After all, only the imagination limits the kind of laws and restrictions that can be written in the name of saving the planet. Recently, more and more scientists are summoning up the courage to speak out and present evidence against the global warming rope-a-dope. Atmospheric scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said, "It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming."
Dr. Goldenberg has the company of at least 650 noted scientists documented in the recently released U.S. Senate Minority Report: "More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims: Scientists Continue to Debunk 'Consensus' in 2008." The scientists, not environmental activists, include Ivar Giaever, Nobel Laureate in physics, who said, "I am a skeptic Global warming has become a new religion." Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an environmental physical chemist, said warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists." "So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming," said Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace member. Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh, said, "Many (scientists) are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined."
The fact of the matter is an increasing amount of climate research suggests a possibility of global cooling. Geologist Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Emeritus Professor at Western Washington University says, "Recent solar changes suggest that it could be fairly severe, perhaps more like the 1880 to 1915 cool cycle than the more moderate 1945-1977 cool cycle. A more drastic cooling, similar to that during the Dalton and Maunder minimums, could plunge the Earth into another Little Ice Age, but only time will tell if that is likely." Geologist Dr. David Gee, chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress, currently at Uppsala University in Sweden asks, "For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?"
That's a vital question for Americans to ask. Once laws are written, they are very difficult, if not impossible, to repeal. If a time would ever come when the permafrost returns to northern U.S., as far south as New Jersey as it once did, it's not inconceivable that Congress, caught in the grip of the global warming zealots, would keep all the laws on the books they wrote in the name of fighting global warming. Personally, I would not put it past them to write more.
Jan 11, 2014 10:58:59 #
Jan 11, 2014 11:06:43 #
Can we admit that the climate is unstable at this time? Can we agree with scientists who state that the same unstableness is happening to the other planets in the system? CIA scientists(yes, the CIA has scientists working for them) predicted an ice age back in the late 60s. And since we have enjoyed a few thousand years of decent climate conditions, an ice age would not be out of the question.
Anyone with a cursory knowledge of ancient history understands that the solar system goes through cycles of weather as it rotates around the center of the galaxy. We are now moving into another cycle, and whether the cycle is going to be hot or cold is the question.
The ancients knew a lot more about these things than we do. Read their literature, read their carvings in caves, on monuments, in the land. They will teach us if we will listen.
But somehow, I don't think we are up to listening to anyone other than those we already agree with. And that is what could destroy us.
Anyone with a cursory knowledge of ancient history understands that the solar system goes through cycles of weather as it rotates around the center of the galaxy. We are now moving into another cycle, and whether the cycle is going to be hot or cold is the question.
The ancients knew a lot more about these things than we do. Read their literature, read their carvings in caves, on monuments, in the land. They will teach us if we will listen.
But somehow, I don't think we are up to listening to anyone other than those we already agree with. And that is what could destroy us.
Jan 11, 2014 11:12:20 #
ProPhoyo wrote:
Walter E Williams is a libertarian shill, and not a climate scientist.
If you believe that a degree is required to make an observation, what degree do you possess that gives you license to make observations about Walter Williams?
Jan 11, 2014 11:13:54 #
Dakota Boreas wrote:
If you believe that a degree is required to make an observation, what degree do you possess that gives you license to make observations about Walter Williams?
If you think that the ability to read someones credentials online, and the ability to make accurate scientific judgements require the same level of training and intelligence, you're pretty stupid.
Jan 11, 2014 11:25:15 #
The global warming sect very quietly revised their mantra from warming to change. Thus, they hedged their bets, and beliefs, to be correct whichever way it went.
It was that way with the freon mantra, probably started by DuPont. Do some research on what DuPont pulled off when their patent was near its expiration date, or how they managed to extend the patent for a longer than usual time.
It was that way with the freon mantra, probably started by DuPont. Do some research on what DuPont pulled off when their patent was near its expiration date, or how they managed to extend the patent for a longer than usual time.
Jan 11, 2014 11:27:06 #
rmalarz wrote:
The global warming sect very quietly revised their mantra from warming to change. Thus, they hedged their bets, and beliefs, to be correct whichever way it went.
It was that way with the freon mantra, probably started by DuPont. Do some research on what DuPont pulled off when their patent was near its expiration date, or how they managed to extend the patent for a longer than usual time.
It was that way with the freon mantra, probably started by DuPont. Do some research on what DuPont pulled off when their patent was near its expiration date, or how they managed to extend the patent for a longer than usual time.
Holy shit, you're mentally ill.
Jan 11, 2014 11:31:05 #
ProPhoyo wrote:
If you think that the ability to read someones credentials online, and the ability to make accurate scientific judgements require the same level of training and intelligence, you're pretty stupid.
Classy, name calling is always considered the high road.
But, if it takes a degree in a specific discipline to have an opinion on a subject, why do any of us read information or research on anything out of our field?
Jan 11, 2014 11:33:22 #
Jan 11, 2014 11:35:44 #
Gee, how about talking to the polar bear about shrinking ice and so forth?? He has no credentials that can be proven, but he may be able to indicate some conditions are causing certain documented changes.
Jan 11, 2014 11:38:31 #
Dakota Boreas wrote:
Classy, name calling is always considered the high road.
But, if it takes a degree in a specific discipline to have an opinion on a subject, why do any of us read information or research on anything out of our field?
But, if it takes a degree in a specific discipline to have an opinion on a subject, why do any of us read information or research on anything out of our field?
That's one classy straw man you got there. I hope you have a degree in logical fallacies, otherwise you are out of your depth.
Jan 11, 2014 11:49:47 #
Dakota Boreas wrote:
Classy, name calling is always considered the high road.
But, if it takes a degree in a specific discipline to have an opinion on a subject, why do any of us read information or research on anything out of our field?
But, if it takes a degree in a specific discipline to have an opinion on a subject, why do any of us read information or research on anything out of our field?
You still missed the point that judging someone's credentials is a lot easier than actually doing climate research.
Jan 11, 2014 12:08:03 #
I really like commentary with scientific evidence that's 6 or 8 years old on a subject that continues to have ongoing studies. Maybe I missed the point that this rhetoric got in the way of someone trying to prove he's not racist.
Jan 11, 2014 12:09:56 #
DaveO wrote:
I really like commentary with scientific evidence that's 6 or 8 years old on a subject that continues to have ongoing studies. Maybe I missed the point that this rhetoric got in the way of someone trying to prove he's not racist.
Look, I don't want to sound racist but damn is cold outside.
Jan 11, 2014 12:15:50 #
8piecesofpie wrote:
Look, I don't want to sound racist but damn is cold outside.
What are your credentials??? Is this observation several years old?? Did the Lone Ranger shoot six bad guys with one bullet??
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.