PDA

View Full Version : Congress may remove funding for global warming research



MtnBiker
03-02-2011, 07:32 PM
Republicans put forth an amendment late Friday night that would remove American funding for a prominent intergovernmental body tasked with exploring the effects of climate change.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) drew a firestorm of criticism in 2009 when a hacker revealed a series of emails among some of the organization’s scientists that suggested they had suppressed dissenting work and excluded it from a 2002 panel report.

"They have been in the headlines for their activities in regards to how they are tinkering with the data they want to put out," said Rep Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-Mo.)., who introduced the amendment. Luetkemeyer also called the agency "nefarious."



Awesome!

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/145245-republicans-attempt-to-defund-qnefariousq-global-warming-research-group (http://http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/145245-republicans-attempt-to-defund-qnefariousq-global-warming-research-group)

Noir
03-02-2011, 08:04 PM
Sure, why research a possible problem when you can just ignore it =D

Gaffer
03-02-2011, 08:21 PM
Sure, why research a possible problem when you can just ignore it =D

Why fund a phony program that serves no purpose but to put money in elitist pockets under the guise of saving the planet. There is no such thing as man made climate change. So it doesn't need funding. This ranks right up there with funding the Catholic church.

There is no possible problem.

MtnBiker
03-02-2011, 08:47 PM
Sure, why research a possible problem when you can just ignore it =D

It can still be researched just don't use tax dollar funds.

Noir
03-03-2011, 04:11 AM
Why fund a phony program that serves no purpose but to put money in elitist pockets under the guise of saving the planet. There is no such thing as man made climate change. So it doesn't need funding. This ranks right up there with funding the Catholic church.

There is no possible problem.

Well you don't know if there is a problem, man made or not, without research, unless you just wana guess, and that's not how science works.

Noir
03-03-2011, 04:14 AM
It can still be researched just don't use tax dollar funds.

Well I guess you could say that about all of the science budget. Let's slash all RnD accordingly >,>

red states rule
03-03-2011, 04:20 AM
What global warming?




Global warming is in full swing, say some of the world's climatologists. Or is it?

On Thursday the U.N.'s weather agency announced that 2010 was a milestone, the warmest year on record, in a three-way tie with 2005 and 1998. "The 2010 data confirm the Earth's significant long-term warming trend," said Michel Jarraud, the World Meteorological Organization's top official. He added that the ten warmest years after records began in 1854 have all occurred since 1998.

But how reliable is the data? Here are five good reasons some scientists are skeptical of these claims.

1. Where does the data come from? Average temperatures globally last year were 0.95 degrees Fahrenheit (0.53 Celsius) higher than the 1961-90 mean that is used for comparison purposes, according to the WMO -- a statement based on three climate data sets from U.K. and U.S. weather agencies. They gather readings from land-based weather and climate stations, ships and buoys, and satellites -- and they've come under dramatic scrutiny in recent years.

The land data is being challenged extensively by Anthony Watt on his SurfaceStations.org website. Watts recently graded 61% of the stations used to measure temperature with a D -- for being located less than 10 meters from an artificial heating source. Many climate skeptics also take issue with NASA and NOAA, the U.S. agencies that gather U.S. climate data, but also manipulate and "normalize" it.

Satellite data is arguably the most accurate way to measure temperature. Roy Spencer, a climatologist and former NASA scientist, takes issue with the way that data is normalized and adjusted, instead presenting raw, unadjusted data on his website. The WMO does not use this data.

Watts pointed FoxNews.com to a new, peer-reviewed paper that looks at the reliability of the land-based sensor network, concluding that "it is presently impossible to quantify the warming trend in global climate."

2. There's less ice is in the oceans. Or more. Or something. The WMO report notes that Arctic sea-ice cover in December 2010 was the lowest on record, with an average monthly extent of 12 million square kilometers, 1.35 million square kilometers below the 1979-2000 average for December. The agency called it the third-lowest minimum ice extent recorded in September.

In fact, the overall sea-ice record shows virtually no change throughout the past 30 years, argued Lord Monckton, a British politician, journalist, and noted skeptic of global warming. He points out that "the quite rapid loss of Arctic sea ice since the satellites were watching has been matched by a near-equally rapid gain of Antarctic sea ice."

for the entire article

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/01/24/planet-hottest-ever-global-warming/

Psychoblues
03-03-2011, 04:47 AM
The University of Tennessee has an entire department devoted to the research of global climate change. They have both supporters and skeptics of man made global warming theory but generally all of them just nod their heads in disgust to those that say that it, global climate change, doesn't exist. Attempting any reasonable conversation with that kind of ignorance is totally useless.

Psychoblues

red states rule
03-03-2011, 04:51 AM
The University of Tennessee has an entire department devoted to the research of global climate change. They have both supporters and skeptics of man made global warming theory but generally all of them just nod their heads in disgust to those that say that it, global climate change, doesn't exist. Attempting any reasonable conversation with that kind of ignorance is totally useless.

Psychoblues

So now Satellite data is no longer credible?

To have a "reasonable conversation" with you one must first concede you are 100% correct on all issues - then you will talk to them

Psychoblues
03-03-2011, 05:32 AM
So now Satellite data is no longer credible?

To have a "reasonable conversation" with you one must first concede you are 100% correct on all issues - then you will talk to them

< > < > < > ummmmm, um,um, < > < > um um um < > < >

:coffee:

Psychoblues

MtnBiker
03-03-2011, 09:51 AM
Well I guess you could say that about all of the science budget. Let's slash all RnD accordingly >,>

I don't know about that. Are all science prodjects full of fraud? Is there more cherry picking a tree ring data in other government funded science?

red states rule
03-03-2011, 04:37 PM
I love it when the global warming nuts have to backtrack on their doom and gloom BS




Back in September 2008, environmentalist Robert Kennedy Jr. wrote an article raising the alarm about global warming and the resultant lack of winter weather in Washington, D.C.

On Monday, Feb. 8, as the nation’s capital dug out from under a ferocious snowstorm, The Washington Examiner reran an article from last Dec. 21, published as Washington was struggling to dig out from under an earlier snowstorm.

“Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who flies around on private planes so as to tell larger numbers of people how they must live their lives in order to save the planet, wrote a column last year on the lack of winter weather in Washington, D.C.,” wrote The Examiner’s Online Opinion Editor David Freddoso.

He quoted from the article written by Kennedy, a lawyer specializing in environmental law, which ran in the Los Angeles Times: “Recently arrived residents in the northern suburbs, accustomed to today’s anemic winters, might find it astonishing to learn that there were once ski runs on Ballantrae Hill in McLean [Va.], with a rope tow and local ski club.

“Snow is so scarce today that most Virginia children probably don’t own a sled.”

He reminisced about ice skating on a Washington canal, “which these days rarely freezes enough to safely skate."

“Meanwhile, Exxon Mobil and its carbon cronies continue to pour money into think tanks whose purpose is to deceive the American public into believing that global warming is a fantasy.”

Freddoso observed on Dec. 21: “Having shoveled my walk five times in the midst of this past weekend’s extreme cold and blizzard, I think perhaps RFK Jr. should leave weather analysis to the meteorologists instead of trying to attribute every global phenomenon to anthropogenic climate change.”

Last weekend’s snowstorm paralyzed the Washington area, knocking out power to thousands of homes, closing schools and businesses, and shutting down the federal government.

Dulles International Airport near Washington received a record 32.4 inches of snow, and a town in Maryland close to D.C. was blanketed by 40 inches.

Another snowstorm walloped Washington on Wednesday. As of 2 p.m. that day, the snowfall total for the season had surpassed the 54.4-inch record set in 1899, and it rose to 55.6 inches by 4 p.m. in the city and to 72 inches at Dulles.

Read more on Newsmax.com: RFK Jr. Said Global Warming Means No Snow in D.C.
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!

Psychoblues
03-04-2011, 01:30 PM
Sticking your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes, hollering nyana nyana nyana and stamping your feet isn't going to change the fact that we have a worldwide climate change phenomenon that has crept up in recent years, the last hundred or so, and we must address it immediately if not sooner. This and the efforts to achieve complete energy independence will be the best job providers and savings to the American population in the foreseeable future.

Psychoblues

Little-Acorn
03-04-2011, 01:55 PM
Well you don't know if there is a problem, man made or not, without research, unless you just wana guess, and that's not how science works.

People have been "researching" this supposed manmade climate change for forty years. And after all that researching, all that screaming, all that denigration of those who don't see any evidence for it...

...not a single report proving that man has had any impact on climate change, or can ever have any in the forseeable future, has ever been published.

Not one. In forty years.

Lots of stuff has been published saying that man has had an effect on climate change. and lots of it claims to "prove" it, or at least support it, by "logic" such as:

1.) Increased levels of (CO2, methane, hydrogen, pick your favorite "greenhouse gas") can change the climate.

2.) Man can create more greenhouse gases by paving too much land, or burning fossil fuels, or exhaling really heavily (insert the activity you want to demonize here).

3.) Man is doing that activity, so man is changing the climate.

No attempt to establish what increase in gases is necessary to actually change the climate in whatever way you are fearing this week. No attempt to find if man is actually creating that much. No attempt to find if such increases do or don't trigger other events that might absorb or use up more of those gases (more plants growing or oceans absorbing or whatever). Etc. etc.

And a great deal of publishing has been done, of documents that purport to "prove" that man is affecting the climate, by referring to long bibliographies of learned documents and other "studies". But if you actually look into those bibliographies and open up the documents they cite, you find... you geussed it, more bibliographies, pointing to yet more documents. No actualy studies or experiments that demonstrate what the publishers say is true. Just references to even more studies... which in turn refer to even more studies... and none of which ever actually prove the original assertion.

FORTY YEARS. And not a single actual proof.

There's a reason for this. And it's similar to the reason why no chemical has ever been found that can turn lead into gold... something that has been "researched" for thousands of years.

And the reason is, because there just plain isn't any.

Go peddle your papers, manmade-global-whatever hysterics. You HAVE succeeded in convincing the rest of us of one thing: that you're selling snake oil, no matter how high a price you're charging for it. Nothing else could account for your complete failure to produce even ONE piece of proof, after all the resources you have expended (usually from others' pockets) and forty-plus years of trying.

Why not join the Flat Earth Society? You'll find some people there, who have the mindset needed to believe you.

trobinett
03-04-2011, 02:02 PM
PB said:

Sticking your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes, hollering nyana nyana nyana and stamping your feet isn't going to change the fact that we have a worldwide climate change phenomenon that has crept up in recent years, the last hundred or so, and we must address it immediately if not sooner.

How about a stiff left to the nose?:slap::cheers2:

Little-Acorn
03-04-2011, 02:03 PM
Is Earth's climate changing? Of course.

Earth's climate has been changing, a lot, for hiundreds of thousands of years. And it will probably keep up the same pattern, for hundreds of thousands more.

The only really funny part, is these tiny, inconsequential two-legged creatures that have been showing up recently, claiming that it's THEIR fault.

A few of them have, anyway. :laugh:

------------------------------------------------

http://www.little-acorn.com/pics/globalwarmchart400k.jpg

Psychoblues
03-04-2011, 02:08 PM
Well, so much for the nyana nyana nyana types. Any, ANY reasonable research reveals tons and tons of information refuting ever single word, EVERY SINGLE WORD of what la just wrote. This is pitiful at the very best for the climate change deniers. Stupidity is usually a natural occurrence. Ignorance is usually intentional.

Psychoblues

NightTrain
03-04-2011, 02:11 PM
Is Earth's climate changing? Of course.

Earth's climate has been changing, a lot, for hiundreds of thousands of years. And it will probably keep up the same pattern, for hundreds of thousands more.

The only really funny part, is these tiny, inconsequential two-legged creatures that have been showing up recently, claiming that it's THEIR fault.

A few of them have, anyway. :laugh:

------------------------------------------------

http://www.little-acorn.com/pics/globalwarmchart400k.jpg


I'm truly surprised that we haven't unearthed Chevy Suburbans from 410,000 and 325,000 and 240,000 and 130,000 years ago that clearly caused Global Warming spikes.

Those Neanderthals truly were clever, weren't they? And they made them out of biodegradable components, too, since there's no trace of them anymore.

fj1200
03-04-2011, 03:01 PM
We're just making it that much easier for the Borg to assimilate us. :eek:

Little-Acorn
03-04-2011, 04:07 PM
I'm truly surprised that we haven't unearthed Chevy Suburbans from 410,000 and 325,000 and 240,000 and 130,000 years ago that clearly caused Global Warming spikes.

Those Neanderthals truly were clever, weren't they? And they made them out of biodegradable components, too, since there's no trace of them anymore.

So easy, a caveman can do it.

logroller
03-05-2011, 01:30 AM
I've been round and round with this subject on here, and I have come to the conclusion that there is no proof, whatsoever, that will compel some people to change until it hits them like a brick and throws their world into a downworld spiral. I believe it has begun already, not to preach doom and gloom, as there is no purpose; but rather to take responsibility for how our decisions can and do affect our adaption to the environmental stresses induced by a changing climate. It's not just about fossil fuels, though this is most often the poster child, focused upon by both sides; but rather environmental changes, by man or climate forced, such as deforestation, erosion, pollution, water use--the list is extensive and documented. We can continue to ignore the impact we have on our environment and the essential relationship we have to it, but can you really say it doesn't matter? That's just plain foolish. Rather the gov't funds such research doesn't matter, the people who care already know what needs to be done, and those that don't, never will.

red states rule
03-05-2011, 07:46 AM
I've been round and round with this subject on here, and I have come to the conclusion that there is no proof, whatsoever, that will compel some people to change until it hits them like a brick and throws their world into a downworld spiral. I believe it has begun already, not to preach doom and gloom, as there is no purpose; but rather to take responsibility for how our decisions can and do affect our adaption to the environmental stresses induced by a changing climate. It's not just about fossil fuels, though this is most often the poster child, focused upon by both sides; but rather environmental changes, by man or climate forced, such as deforestation, erosion, pollution, water use--the list is extensive and documented. We can continue to ignore the impact we have on our environment and the essential relationship we have to it, but can you really say it doesn't matter? That's just plain foolish. Rather the gov't funds such research doesn't matter, the people who care already know what needs to be done, and those that don't, never will.

Oh spare me please!!!!!!!!!!

Show me ONE doom and gloom forcast from the enviro wackos that has ever come true

Allow me to share a few with you from the "educated" wing of the global warming crowd

Al Gore's amazing internet is great to go back and listen to the BS these treehuggers tossed out years ago




1. Within a few years "children just aren't going to know what snow is." Snowfall will be "a very rare and exciting event." Dr. David Viner, senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, interviewed by the UK Independent, March 20, 2000.

Ten years later, in December 2009, London was hit by the heaviest snowfall seen in 20 years. And just last week, a snowstorm forced Heathrow airport to shut down, stranding thousands of Christmas travelers.

A spokesman for the government-funded British Council, where Viner now works as the lead climate change expert, told FoxNews.com that climate science had improved since the prediction was made.

"Over the past decade, climate science has moved on considerably and there is now more understanding about the impact climate change will have on weather patterns in the coming years," British Council spokesman Mark Herbert said. "However, Dr Viner believes that his general predictions are still relevant."

Herbert also pointed to another prediction from Viner in the same article, in which Viner predicted that "heavy snow would return occasionally" and that it would "probably cause chaos in 20 years time." Other scientists said "a few years" was simply too short a time frame for kids to forget what snow was.

"I'd say at some point, say 50 years from now, it might be right. If he said a few years, that was an unwise prediction," said Michael Oppenheimer, director of Princeton University's Program in Science, Technology and Environmental Policy.

Of course, Oppenheimer himself is known for controversial global warming scenarios.

2. "[By] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…[By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers." Michael Oppenheimer, published in "Dead Heat," St. Martin's Press, 1990.

Oppenheimer told FoxNews.com that he was trying to illustrate one possible outcome of failing to curb emissions, not making a specific prediction. He added that the gist of his story had in fact come true, even if the events had not occurred in the U.S.

"On the whole I would stand by these predictions -- not predictions, sorry, scenarios -- as having at least in a general way actually come true," he said. "There's been extensive drought, devastating drought, in significant parts of the world. The fraction of the world that's in drought has increased over that period."

That may be in doubt, however. Data from NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center shows that precipitation -- rain and snow -- has increased slightly over the century.

3. "Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000." Christian Science Monitor, June 8, 1972.

Ice coverage has fallen, though as of last month, the Arctic Ocean had 3.82 million square miles of ice cover -- an area larger than the continental United States -- according to The National Snow and Ice Data Center.

4. "Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide two degrees by 2010." Associated Press, May 15, 1989.

Status of prediction: According to NASA, global temperature has increased by about 0.7 degrees Fahrenheit since 1989. And U.S. temperature has increased even less over the same period.

The group that did the study, Atmospheric and Environmental Research Inc., said it could not comment in time for this story due to the holidays.

But Oppenheimer said that the difference between an increase of nearly one degree and an increase of two degrees was "definitely within the margin of error... I would think the scientists themselves would be happy with that prediction."

Many scientists, especially in the 1970s, made an error in the other direction by predicting global freezing:

5. "By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half." Life magazine, January 1970.

Life Magazine also noted that some people disagree, "but scientists have solid experimental and historical evidence to support each of the following predictions."

Air quality has actually improved since 1970. Studies find that sunlight reaching the Earth fell by somewhere between 3 and 5 percent over the period in question.

6. "If present trends continue, the world will be ... eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age." Kenneth E.F. Watt, in "Earth Day," 1970.

According to NASA, global temperature has increased by about 1 degree Fahrenheit since 1970.

How could scientists have made such off-base claims? Dr. Paul Ehrlich, author of "The Population Bomb" and president of Stanford University's Center for Conservation Biology, told FoxNews.com that ideas about climate science changed a great deal in the the '70s and '80s.

"Present trends didn't continue," Ehrlich said of Watt's prediction. "There was considerable debate in the climatological community in the '60s about whether there would be cooling or warming … Discoveries in the '70s and '80s showed that the warming was going to be the overwhelming force."

Ehrlich told FoxNews.com that the consequences of future warming could be dire.

The proverbial excrement is "a lot closer to the fan than it was in 1968," he said. "And every single colleague I have agrees with that."

He added, "Scientists don't live by the opinion of Rush Limbaugh and Palin and George W. They live by the support of their colleagues, and I've had full support of my colleagues continuously."

But Ehrlich admits that several of his own past environmental predictions have not come true:

7. "By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people ... If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." Ehrlich, Speech at British Institute For Biology, September 1971.

Ehrlich's prediction was taken seriously when he made it, and New Scientist magazine underscored his speech in an editorial titled "In Praise of Prophets."

"When you predict the future, you get things wrong," Ehrlich admitted, but "how wrong is another question. I would have lost if I had had taken the bet. However, if you look closely at England, what can I tell you? They're having all kinds of problems, just like everybody else."

8. "In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish." Ehrlich, speech during Earth Day, 1970

"Certainly the first part of that was very largely true -- only off in time," Ehrlich told FoxNews.com. "The second part is, well -- the fish haven't washed up, but there are very large dead zones around the world, and they frequently produce considerable stench."

"Again, not totally accurate, but I never claimed to predict the future with full accuracy," he said.



http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/12/30/botched-environmental-forecasts/