Text 12996, 174 rader
Skriven 2014-03-22 18:41:00 av Bill McGarrity (5340.2fidonews)
  Kommentar till text 12995 av TIM RICHARDSON (1:123/140)
Ärende: Re: The `Global Warming' Scam
=====================================
-=> TIM RICHARDSON wrote to , <=-

 I usally just ignore your rantings lately... but this is just too easy....

 TR> Low and behold! Vindication at last!


 TR> Here's some recent and near-past information from some VERY prominent
 TR> people in the field, that backs up my long-held opinion that `climate
 TR> change-nee- global warming' is one of the biggest con jobs ever foisted
 TR> on taxpayers world-wide!


 TR> Now...in keeping with this echo's policy of not posting up long,
 TR> involved articles, I will only provide commentary on the information I
 TR> have uncovered, quite by accident, that is readily available to anyone
 TR> who reads the following informative current news sites


 TR> The Drudge Page

 TR> Breitbart.com

 TR> Townhall.com


This alone tells me the rest is just humourous drival....



 TR> For those of you who have scoffed at my skepticism and opposition to
 TR> the `climate change-nee-global warming' scam....prepare to get a stick
 TR> shoved in your eye:


 TR> Ever hear of the American Physical Society?


 TR> Neither had I till just recently.


 TR> Seems its an organization that touted (until recently) `Man's' being
 TR> the root cause of `global warming'.


 TR> Its members were highly-regarded physicists and meteorologist, who were
 TR> strong believers in the `global warming-nee-climate change' thing.


 TR> But...here's the point of this post;


 TR> Recall, if you will, that I have been saying all along that it isn't
 TR> now, nor has it EVER been about actual `global warming-nee-climate
 TR> change'; it was always about MONEY!


 TR> Firstly, many highly credible physicist members of the today's
 TR> scientific community have described this `global `warming-nee-climate
 TR> change' as a `scam' just as I have been doing for several years, now!


 TR> For instance, Professor Richard Lindzen, formerly of MIT, a highly
 TR> regarded phyicist, described `climate change' alarmism on the Larry
 TR> King show as being like"...little kids locking themselves in a dark
 TR> closet to see how much they can scare each other and themselves."!

Richard Lindzen... is one of the approximately 3 percent of climate scientists
who believe the human influence on global warming is relatively small (though
Lindzen is now retired, no longer doing scientific research). More importantly,
he's been wrong about nearly every major climate argument he's made over the
past two decades. Lindzen is arguably the climate scientist who's been the
wrongest, longest. 

The Weekly Standard... a deep rooted conservative news... devotes the first
page of its piece to establishing how smart Lindzen is u and he certainly is a
smart man, but as climate scientist Ray Pierrehumbert put it,


"It's okay to be wrong, and [Lindzen] is a smart person, but most people don't
really understand that one way of using your intelligence is to spin ever more
clever ways of deceiving yourself, ever more clever ways of being wrong. And
that's okay because if you are wrong in an interesting way that advances the
science, I think it's great to be wrong, and he has made a career of being
wrong in interesting ways about climate science."

Nuff said there....

 TR> John Christy, profdessor of atmospheric science, university of Alabama,
 TR> Huntsville: "...I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the
 TR> smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of  the
 TR> warming we see..."


Christy released a study that claimed snowfall in the Sierra Nevada has
remained consistent for 130 years, with no noticeable effect from climate
change.

David Pearce, one of John Christy's colleagues, feels that Christy has gone
beyond the data in his study, and that Christy is making claims in the media
that have not been backed up by the study itself. Pearce adds that it ois
unfortunate because peer-review is the process that filters out unsupported
personal opinion from what is backed by evidence.o 

Guess that covers that one... 


 TR> Judith Curry, Chair of the Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia
 TR> Tech: Testified to the US House Sub-committed on the Environment that:
 TR> "...the uncertainties in forecasting climate science are much greater
 TR> than the alarmists will admit."

Here's a link to show disprover her erroneous comments...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/curry-ohc-corrections.html

Happy reading...

Guess that covers that one....


 TR> And one of the APS's most distinguished members, professor Hal Lewis,
 TR> resigned in disgust over what he called the APS's endorsement of
 TR> "...the global warming scam...!." That, by the way, was around three
 TR> years back. I bet you heard very little, if anything, about that in the
 TR> mainstream media!


Ahhh... the best till last... 

The letter, written by Harold Lewis, emeritus professor of physics at the
University of California, Santa Barbara accused the society of benefiting
financially from climate-change funding. Addressed to the APS president, Curtis
Callan, the letter calls global warming a "scam" and says that "the (literally)
trillions of dollars driving it...has carried APS before it like a rogue wave".


He adds that Princeton University physics department, of which Callan is chair,
"would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst." 

Callan strongly denies that charge. "Do any members of the Princeton physics
department perform research on subjects even remotely related to climate
science? No,o Callen told physicsworld.com. oWould a hypothetical physicist
engaged in such work be likely to shade the results of his or her work to hew
to some "party line" demanded by a funding agency? That would be contrary to
the ethical code subscribed to by all scientists I know." 

Now here's the kicker (or should I say stomping his feet because he didn't get
his way).  Lewis is also one of the 160 physicists who last year failed to
persuade the society to modify its formal statement on climate change.  So
let's see... out of 50,000 members who belong to the American Physical Society,
160 want to change/modify its stance.  That's .0032% 


Better do your homework/research a little more deeply that relying on
Briebart's twist.

Enjoy....and have fun on your three week rant over this post.  I'm just going
to sit back and laugh like I normally do with your morality issues over our
past discussion.  You should really get out and hit the comedy club circuit.


Bill

Telnet: bbs.tequilamockingbirdonline.net
Web: bbs.tequilamockingbirdonline.net
IRC: irc.tequilamockingbirdonline.net Ports: 6661-6670 SSL: +6697
Radio: radio.tequilamockingbirdonline.net:8010/live


... Motorcycles are everywhere... Look twice, save a life!!
--- MultiMail/Win32 v0.50
--- SBBSecho 2.26-Win32
 * Origin: TequilaMockingbird Online - Toms River, NJ (1:266/404)