FReepmail me to get on or off
Click pn POGW graphic for full GW rundown
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
Um... yes.
Posted on 03/01/2007 12:53:07 PM PST by verbosevet
Lacking directly observable evidence, the IPCC must rely on the the study of paleoclimatology, the observation of tree rings and various forms of geological evidence or "proxy data", such as carbon dating, ice cores or sediment layers, along with multiple inferences about the meaning of this proxy data.
The proxy data is then combined with a very limited historical record, in an attempt to support the conclusions. The problem with relying on these substitutes for hard observation, is that they tend to also have seasonal, as well as decadal variations that are, in themselves, not readily explained by modern science.
Therefore, the IPCC must approach global warming as a statistical signal-to-noise problem. In simple English, mankind's stress on his environment is the "signal" to be separated from the "noise" that is all of those other things; solar cycles and polar shifts, volcanic and geothermal activity, plate tectonics, natural convection, cloud dynamics, and all of the other influences on the Earth's temperature. This approach is flawed, because it implies that there is a detectable signal (man's interference) out there among the noise to begin with, and then sets about using other controversial methods to validate that assumption.
(Excerpt) Read more at warofwits.org ...
Global Warming has never been about using science, but using group think to force people to accept it. It is a cult.
Yeah, but now they're giving out freakin' Oscars if you lie about it...
Awarding those who deceive is all part of cultist philosophy.
Click pn POGW graphic for full GW rundown
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
bookmark for later
Not exactly the best approach, since right off the bat the article fails to make it clear that the discussion is not about global warming, but about
a)Man's role in it (if it's possible to separate);
b)The magnitude of man's contribution (if any) and
c) The reliance on fatally flawed computer models to "demonstrate proof" of the answer before the question is clearly scientifically defined.
Changing the subject to "Global Warming", or "Climate Change" is a losing game.
The only way to win is not to play!
Disagree. It's about taxing the middle class to fund a bogus "market" in carbon credits off which the corporate aristocracy will feed, dropping the occasional dime on their captive academic and activist minions.
Publius - I think it's pretty clear to anyone who pays any attention at all to this debate, that the central issue is the manipulation of science by those with an agenda...
I know for a fact that global warming is a hoax. How do I know? Because Al Gore says it is real.
keepin this one
But how Gore buys his "carbon offsets," as revealed by The Tennessean raises serious questions. According to the newspaper's report, Gore buys his carbon offsets through Generation Investment Management:
Gore helped found Generation Investment Management, through which he and others pay for offsets. The firm invests the money in solar, wind and other projects that reduce energy consumption around the globe . . .Gore is chairman of the firm and, presumably, draws an income or will make money as its investments prosper. In other words, he "buys" his "carbon offsets" from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own investments and return a profit to himself. To be blunt, Gore doesn't buy "carbon offsets" through Generation Investment Management--he buys stocks. . . .
Gore probably gets a tax deduction for buying carbon credits from himself.
They're doing it on behalf of all of us, "for the earth." Isn't that precious? /s
I'll second THAT!!
Thanks Edge
BUMP!
True, but it is accomplished through cult-like thinking
Disagree, but perhaps only in terms of means. The timing of this corporate MSM/adcademic full press is too integrated to attribute to popular culture. The elitists truly believe that the current such is easy to manipulate, and by all appearances to a degree they are right.
I only took two science classes in college...but the professor left me with iron-clad fact...nothing in science is absolute. Everything can be found to be different than first thought or modeled. Discoveries will eventually lead to some Einstein ideas being revamped...even most scientists agree on that.
So when these guys run around and say their models and facts are absolute...to never challenge them...to simply believe them period...there is a smell in the air. This is no longer a science and starts to become something very unscientific. If it is possible to develop cults out of religion....then we might as well use the same logic and say that cults could develop out of science as well.
But I will add this juicy item...this week when Al Gore's electrical usage report came out...and he is using ten times the normal amount of power that a regular family uses...and the same story for natural gas as well...then that opened a glimpse into their lifestyles. Everytime one of these Hollywood characters or politicans talks of a carbon tax or global warming...we need to ask the question to them...what is their energy consumption. After a while...mostly refusing to answer...the public will start laugh when they come up for interviews. This will eventually force them off the media front line and we can get back to important stuff...like Anne Nicole's funeral or Paris Hilton going to the slammer for 30 days.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.