Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Paul Rosenberg is a California-based writer/activist, senior editor for Random Lengths News, and a columnist for Al Jazeera English.
1 posted on 04/19/2014 2:12:56 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-59 next last
To: 2ndDivisionVet

I seem to recall that Galileo was a ‘denier of scientific consensus’ in his day.


2 posted on 04/19/2014 2:14:00 PM PDT by relictele (Principiis obsta & Finem respice - Resist The Beginnings & Consider The End)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Climate deniers just don’t have their heads screwed up their collective rectums and inhale the smoke being blown up their butts.


3 posted on 04/19/2014 2:15:27 PM PDT by vetvetdoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Climate Deniers?

Dogma of the Skank Whores.


4 posted on 04/19/2014 2:15:50 PM PDT by Gene Eric (Don't be a statist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Blather only a Chomsky could love.


5 posted on 04/19/2014 2:20:17 PM PDT by tet68 ( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

There is not a scientific consensus. As a PhD scientist with peer-reviewed published work in climatology, I can assure you that a large number of the best scientists in physics, geology, meteorology believe that the climate activists are exaggerating the effect of man on global temperatures for political and financial reasons.


6 posted on 04/19/2014 2:23:20 PM PDT by expat2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Just received a mailer from PG&E that refers to 'climate change' as if it were fact and what we can do about it.

They obviously have no interest in the truth of the matter. They are moving ahead and its gonna cost us big time.

7 posted on 04/19/2014 2:23:56 PM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

If the nut jobs had such a good thing ,why did they have to change the name from Global Warming to Climate Change and I think Algore tried to change it a few times more ,like Dirty Weather ,LOL


8 posted on 04/19/2014 2:24:03 PM PDT by molson209 (Blank)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Like a “writer/activist” has any credibility on this subject.


9 posted on 04/19/2014 2:25:19 PM PDT by Menehune56 ("Let them hate so long as they fear" (Oderint Dum Metuant), Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Liberals of course manipulate science to advance profound irrational goals.

Climate change has not been scientifically established as a fact. All the proponents by their own admission, are guessing! If was true we’d have facts to substantiate it.

There are none. And earth’s weather patterns are still poorly understood - not to the point that it justifies controversial changes in economic and social policies.

To the author, ridicule the critics and hope they don’t notice the Climate Change Emperor Wears No Clothes. An ad hominem argument is not a sound strategy.


10 posted on 04/19/2014 2:25:25 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Is it global warming or climate change now? I forget.

Every prediction by ALGORE and his ilk has been an epic fail - no warming in 17 years, 5 million+ square miles of Arctic ice, quite a bit more than his 2008 prediction that the Arctic would be ice free in 5 years, no cat 3+ hurricanes in almost a decade, least amount of tornadic activity in my lifetime, polar bears are multiplying, Florida still above water, and on and on...

Pretty graphics and more deceptive explanations will never trump TRUTH.


13 posted on 04/19/2014 2:28:32 PM PDT by Kandy Atz ("Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want for bread.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

When will they address the models don’t match observations, until then, these climate scientists are living in a fantasy land.


14 posted on 04/19/2014 2:28:50 PM PDT by dila813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Twisted psychology = The ability to spot a con when one sees one.


15 posted on 04/19/2014 2:30:54 PM PDT by Nachoman (Wisdom is learned, cynicism is earned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
There's a reason why overwhelming evidence hasn't spurred public action against global warming.

You mean like there isn't any evidence of global warming to begin with?

Here in Northeast Illinois, we just had the four coldest months ON RECORD.

We've had more days below freezing (109) during the winter than any other winter. That's a record.

We've had more days start out below zero than any other winter in recorded history. Another record.

We've had more consecutive days below zero than any other time in recorded history. Another record.

The average daily temperature this winter was anywhere from 15-23 degrees below normal. On the coldest days of the winter where the temperature hit -35 degrees we were well over 50 degrees BELOW NORMAL TEMPERATURE. More records shattered.

We've had the third snowiest winter on record with over 82 inches of snow (normal is 30-32 inches.)

The Great Lakes were 97% frozen over for the first time in recorded history, and they had the thickest ice ever recorded.

In fact, the Great Lakes are STILL 40% frozen over and here we are in late April. That's never happened before either.

The ice that remains on the Great Lakes isn't expected to fully melt until well into May keeping Great Lakes water temperatures well below their norms, and affecting the temperature around the Great Lakes area.

Tell me again about this "global warming" .... we could really use some here!

16 posted on 04/19/2014 2:32:56 PM PDT by usconservative (When The Ballot Box No Longer Counts, The Ammunition Box Does. (What's In Your Ammo Box?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
My problem with them is that all I ever hear in rebuttal to criticism are ad hominems. I'm OK with science establishing global warming, if that were the outcome of a full public discussion of the criticisms, even though it would be an area where my political philosophy were found wanting. But they don't even address the obvious criticisms, such as their model sliding off the cool end of the predictions, and the urbanization of temperature stations over the 20th century.
17 posted on 04/19/2014 2:33:05 PM PDT by InMemoriam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change


             

18 posted on 04/19/2014 2:34:07 PM PDT by tomkat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

The author and scientists are trying to confuse uncertainty with risk and impact. Increased uncertainty decreases the ability to mitigate risks, but it does not increase the impacts.


19 posted on 04/19/2014 2:35:53 PM PDT by Vince Ferrer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

There are so many logical fallacies in this one that it should be used as an example in Beginning Logic courses.

We can start with the understanding that there is no such thing as Scientific Consensus when applied to a Hypothesis (which AGW still is).

The fact climate models have gotten more complex doesn’t mean they have gotten more mature. As Wooden said, “do not confuse motion with progress.”

AGW is NOT a Scientific Theory. It meets zero criteria.

Thee difference is there has never been a case of wholesale bribery on both publishers and reviewers to support a Hypothesis. Even Cold Fusion, which would bring riches untold, was subject to the Scientific Process — which outed it as a sham.

In this case the message is simple: “come to this conclusion and get rich. You don’t have to worry about anyone falsifying it because the phenomena are so vague and broad that any conclusion is OK. We also are bribing the reviewers so you are good.”

Unprecedented in science.


20 posted on 04/19/2014 2:35:59 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Fight Tapinophobia in all its forms! Do not submit to arduus privilege.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Point in case: Alex (dim)Witt at MSNBC was interviewing a mountain specialist discussing the mishap at Mt Everest. And she honestly slipped in...”do you think we had anything to do with the miuntain’s stability?” I couldn’t believe she actually said that.


21 posted on 04/19/2014 2:40:34 PM PDT by ThePatriotsFlag ("There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." - Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I guess I would have believed in the “consensus”, except for the fact that EVERYTHING they predicted did not occur. Just the opposite happened, so they went from “Global Warming” to “Climate Change”. Perhaps they are thinking I wouldn’t notice.


22 posted on 04/19/2014 2:44:02 PM PDT by GingisK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

“Climate denier”? Even for a piece of blatant agitprop that’s pretty stupid. “Sure, I deny there’s a climate!” said no one ever.


23 posted on 04/19/2014 2:47:11 PM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-59 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson