Excellent review of book "Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud and Deception to Keep You Misinformed"
To: all the best
But do not the most prestigious bodies of scientists, such as the National Academy of Science and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, claim that man-made global warming is indeed a danger? Is not his superior syntax indeed impressive?
2 posted on
01/08/2009 8:31:53 AM PST by
Albion Wilde
("Praise and worship" is my alternate lifestyle.)
To: all the best; OKSooner; honolulugal; Killing Time; Beowulf; Mr. Peabody; RW_Whacko; SideoutFred; ...
Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown
GREENIE WATCH
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
3 posted on
01/08/2009 8:32:08 AM PST by
xcamel
(The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
To: all the best
Negative attitude toward “global warming” is the same today as a geocentric universe was in Copernicus’ and Galileo’s time. The MSM is the Spanish Inquisition, Algore is the Pope and that NASA hack is Torquemada............
4 posted on
01/08/2009 8:42:57 AM PST by
Red Badger
(I was sad because I had no shoes to throw, until I met a reporter who had no feet.....)
To: all the best
One doesn't need a list of 'dissenting scientists' to demolish the claims of anthopogenic global warming. On only needs to mention two names, one a climate scientist, Ferenc M. Miskolczi, the other a mathematician who died before WW I, Henri Poincaré.
Poincaré was the one who first noticed the phenomenon has since been given the flashy name "chaotic dynamics": some (systems of) non-linear differential equations (it happens including those governing heating and cooling in fluid media like air) are so sensitive to initial condidtions that without complete knowledge of the inital conditions, they are useless for long-term prediction. Hence the impossibility of predicting the weather 48 hours out.
This insight suffices to show that all discrete computer models of weather or climate (that try to look more than about 48 hours out) are necessarily example of 'Garbage in, garbage out'.
But Miskolczi showed that even more garbage goes into AGW climate models. The computer modelers don't bother going back to the partial differential equations that actually describe the greenhouse effect. Instead they use solutions to those equations derived in the 1920's under the simplifying assumption of an infinitely thick atmosphere of uniform composition!
Miskolczi solved the actual greenhouse equations with more realistic version of the atmosphere (finite thickness, though I think still uniform in composition) and got a model that, without any fiddling to get it to fit existing data, correctly modeled temperature on both Earth and Mars over a run of several decades, and (drum roll please) predicts that the greenhouse effect is self-limiting and the disasters the AGW folk predict simply won't occur.
If we're really talking about science, the number of dissenters, or the number of folks supporting the prevailing view are irrelevancies. Poincaré and Miskolczi alone trump a stadium full of 'climate modelers' whose fat grants depend on all agreeing with each other and on whipping up hysteria so the otherwise dry and academic exercise of trying to understand long-term climate change sounds important to policy makers.
5 posted on
01/08/2009 8:47:58 AM PST by
The_Reader_David
(And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know. . .)
To: all the best
The global warming “consensus” is little different than the Catholic Church’s embracing of Aristotle’s ideas about the universe during the Middle Ages. Aristotle had declared that the earth was the center of the universe and that the sun and planets revolved about a static earth. To scientists of the day you either excepted this dogma or faced the Inquisition for heresy. Any scientific study that disproved this dogma, like that done Galileo, was condemned and their books were banned or burned as heresy.
6 posted on
01/08/2009 8:49:02 AM PST by
The Great RJ
("Mir we bleiwen wat mir sin" or "We want to remain what we are." ..Luxembourg motto)
To: all the best
The best defense against this fraud is to NOT react or contribute to anything to do with "gorebull warming". It's a fraud, a hoax, and it doesn't exist.
When in doubt, look up. Buy a thermometer. Check different sources, not just the algorites sponsored sites.
The warming trend we last in past years is directly correlated with sunspot activity...when it subsides, the temps will go back to normal. Haven't we been having record cold and snowfalls across the country.
Don't let the carbon credit loonies piss on your shoes and tell you it's raining...or warming. It just ain't so.
If someone mentions global warming in anything other than a satirical way, just just laugh and walk away. Don't give them an audience, they're convinced and any conversation you have with them will only lead to shouting and name-calling...by them.
The adults in the world are willing to wait this thing out...the longer we wait the more evidence there is that we are NOT experiencing global warming, and the more frantic the proponents of it get.
Just laugh at them, and keep your money in your pockets...it will eventually dry up.
7 posted on
01/08/2009 8:50:11 AM PST by
FrankR
(“Turtle up”, economically, for the duration of the 0bamanation.)
To: all the best
I have the book, and it's quite well researched and written.
Fear global warmism, where the only "solutions" to an imaginary crisis are to surrender rights, property, and self-rule.
.
9 posted on
01/08/2009 9:13:25 AM PST by
Seaplaner
(Never give in. Never give in. Never...except to convictions of honour and good sense. W. Churchill)
To: all the best; Horusra; CygnusXI; Entrepreneur; Defendingliberty; WL-law; Genesis defender; ...
To: all the best
GoreBULL warming is just another lie the left uses to attack American values. Like evolution, it tells people to forget God and to worship Nature like a God. When this hoax is uncovered in the next decades, when the temperature doesn’t rise but drops, the Left will just move onto a different scam to pull the wool over our eyes.
13 posted on
01/08/2009 9:49:08 AM PST by
ToGodBeTheGlory
(All our promises and resolutions end in denial because we have no power to accomplish them.)
To: all the best
15 posted on
01/10/2009 1:22:34 AM PST by
neverdem
(Xin loi minh oi)
To: all the best
Unfortunately, we cannot remain neutral while the experts battle. The global-warming advocates support drastic measures that would seriously affect production. Some of them go further and call for curbs on human population. In this connection, it is more than a little disturbing that John Holdren, chosen by Barack Obama as his science advisor since the publication of Horner's book, is a close associate of Paul Ehrlich. Holdren was among those elected to the National Academy of Science "from the temporary nominating group" earlier mentioned (p. 93). To decline to take a stand is to surrender to environmentalist extremists.I forgot. That scares me.
16 posted on
01/10/2009 1:32:21 AM PST by
neverdem
(Xin loi minh oi)
To: all the best
In the 70s, we had the coming ice age and now it's global warming. How many years of contrary weather does it take to change the hype from one climatic disaster to another?
If the sun spot frequency to temperature correlations are correct, the 70s coming ice age predictions are more likely to be true.
Books like this are definitely needed. I'm trying to understand the human tendency toward mass stupidity and there are so many examples such as the recent election, the Algore generated global warming hype, the various financial bubble booms and crashes, the popularity of Paris Hilton, the ease the demonrats fool the masses and marginalize their critics...etc., etc.
The left is far better at exploiting this seemingly built in tendency and even supposedly smart people fall in line.
17 posted on
01/10/2009 6:28:07 AM PST by
GBA
To: all the best
Global Warming - a first class Gorbasm.
18 posted on
01/10/2009 6:48:57 AM PST by
hgro
(Jerry Riversd)
To: 75thOVI; aimhigh; Alice in Wonderland; AndrewC; aragorn; aristotleman; Avoiding_Sulla; BBell; ...
21 posted on
01/11/2009 3:25:15 AM PST by
SunkenCiv
(First 2009 Profile update Tuesday, January 6, 2009___________https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
To: StayAt HomeMother; Ernest_at_the_Beach; 1ofmanyfree; 21twelve; 24Karet; 2ndDivisionVet; 31R1O; ...
22 posted on
01/11/2009 3:26:26 AM PST by
SunkenCiv
(First 2009 Profile update Tuesday, January 6, 2009___________https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
To: all the best
The drive against dissenters from global warming extends much further. Patrick Michaels, a leading critic, reports that an editor told him skeptical papers must face much stricter scrutiny to win acceptance. The "newly elected Democratic Governor of Virginia, Tim Kaine,
soon after taking office ratcheted up the effort to get Michaels removed" from his post of state climatologist (p. 113). In one case, when a skeptical paper evaded the landmines and secured publication, the global-warming enthusiasts demanded that an immediate rebuttal appear. The tip-off that "global warming" was a hoax was the quick appearance of totalitarians "lookin' for a horse to ride".
23 posted on
01/11/2009 7:28:53 AM PST by
GOPJ
("A consensus of 100 scientists is undone by one fact." - - Einstein (take that Al Gore))
To: all the best
Have to see if our library has that book.
24 posted on
01/11/2009 8:02:38 AM PST by
Dustbunny
(Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged. The Gipper)
To: all the best
Bookmark
25 posted on
01/11/2009 8:55:09 AM PST by
ExSoldier
(Democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting on dinner. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.)
31 posted on
01/12/2009 5:45:09 PM PST by
SunkenCiv
(https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/____________________ Profile updated Monday, January 12, 2009)
To: all the best
Professor Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch polled climate scientists to rate the statement, "To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes?"
They received responses from 530 climate scientists in 27 countries, of whom 44 percent were either neutral or disagreed with the statement
Science magazine helpfully refused to publish the findings. As with most global warming stories, one hardly knows whether to laugh or cry.
33 posted on
01/12/2009 5:54:33 PM PST by
denydenydeny
(If pigs could vote, the man with the slop bucket would be elected swineherd every time-OS Card)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson