Jump to content
Oh, I think about a lot of things ... it's just that few things are as important to our economy as debunking the global warming scam. VinoTinto sounds fine ... yes, my mistake assuming it had something to do with our prolific Walla Walla grapes (of which I prefer the cab, usually). Funny how most online commentors shy away from revealing their actual names, isn't it? I've always wondered about that. Perhaps it's easier to insult people that way. Suppose?
You have thrown that 97% study out before and yes, it's all over the Internet. I believe it's irrelevant insofar as determining the truth. One reason for that, as someone wrote "Concensus only has meaning if there is no pressure to conform in either direction. In the climate debate this is extremely far from being true." I believe you've scoffed at the Oregon "Petition Project" and it's 31,000+ signatures so it just comes down to "my scientists outnumber your scientists" ... when the actual proof of global warming is never shown. And won't be (in my opinion). 400 ppm now and has been climbing since the industrial revolution ... but yet temps have been going up and down while actually preceding the rises of natural CO2 over the ages. That's a strong indication that CO2 is NOT raising the planet's temperature. Solar fluctuations and variations in the earth's "wobbling" revolutions around it are what bring us ice ages and withdrawals from ice ages (like today) plus some other factors not including CO2 emissions.
No, I won't give it a rest until such time as people like you wise up and realize that we are being scammed by those who are making money off of this non-problem. If my continuing to point out the reality of this issue makes you nauseous, VinoTinto .... just sip your vino and don't read my letters. Sounds like a solution to me.
Thanks, Namvet! Yes, it was a wonderful trip. My dive gear has been out of the water far too long (had to take a refresher course to be allowed to hit the reef). Love the Keys.
You might be very surprised to learn we probably don't disagree with "almost everything", Paco. Not caring much for labels, I'm an Independent with a little mix of Libertarian, fiscal conservativism and social liberalism, (classical liberal as in Thomas Paine, Jefferson, etc.) with personal freedom being the most important (why I'm pro-choice). I thought the letter by the gay gentleman was excellent (so we agree there), and I am a humanitarian who has lived among most if not all ethnic groups around the world and very much enjoyed and respected their peoples and cultures, making friends everywhere I worked and lived.
I'm not a member of the Tea Party (WW Tea Party Patriots) but do support their stated core values of (1) Fiscal Responsibility, (2) Limited Government and (3) Free market Economy. That said, it's a pity that you are bigoted against them. They're made up of mostly pretty nice people. As for your "credible evidence" ... that just isn't true. The only "evidence" being used by "warmists" are faulty computer programs.
"Dr. Lindzen and Dr. Gaiever are impressive scientists, and who knows, maybe someday, new evidence may emerge that proves they were right all along and the thousands of scientists with equally valid credentials who strongly disagree with them were wrong."
That pretty much says it all right there. Fact is, it doesn't matter worth a hill of beans how many scientists (most of whom we are talking about are not actually climate scientists like Lindzen) believe one way or believe the other way. There is only one truth on this issue -- whether or not human emissions of CO2 affect climate to any significant degree -- or not. There was a time when the majority of "learned men" and scientists believed the sun and universe revolved around the earth (contrary to some 'heretics') and more recently there were scientists who did not believe that South America and Africa once fit together (plate tectonic movements). The bottom line is (like implied by Namvet60) the truth is not decided nor is the 'science settled' ... and in my view there is FAR more indications that anthropogenic co2 does not affect planet temperature enough to destroy our economy just in case it might ... in which case we couldn't really make a difference if we stopped driving vehicles or shut down the coal industry anyway.
And yes, I'm writing from Key Largo and there still has been no sea level rises being observed here in the Keys. Tsk tsk.
After reading Bart's letter I'm left wondering what the psychologists call those who base their knowledge about anthropogenic "climate change" on newspapers .... or even one book? Not “motivated reasoning”, I'm sure. The use of the phrase "the science isn't settled" is completely legitimate when catastrophic climate change alarmists are constantly saying that it IS settled ... that "deniers" are all wrong and should shut up. The VERY obvious conclusion if one does the proper and necessary research is that the science is FAR from settled and the onus should be on the "warmists" to PROVE their case .... before they totally destroy our economy (and harming people all over the world) in a frivolous effort to fight a nonexistant problem.
Very good point, Igor and thanks. Of course the "true believers" (and those who know better but are making too much money from grants, books, wind farms, solar industry, political power, etc. ) will say something along the line that Pinatubo and other volcanic activity has slowed down the warming and thereby counteracted the effect of increased co2. Of course that's phony ... but whatever works to continue the lie will be done. Like the re-definition of global warming to climate change .... so they can say with a straight face that harsh winters and record snowfalls in Europe and Asia are actually caused by ..... global warming. Go figure.
Many legitimate climate scientists do believe that anthropogenic co2 may increase GG warming by a minute degree -- BUT not signific enough to warm the planet noticeably much less cause catastrophic climate change. Wanted to add that to my last note. The real significant GG of course is water vapor -- some 95% of it ... and man's output of co2 is just a very tiny fraction of the remaining 5%. The only thing upon which scientists base the AGW issue upon is computer models -- which have been shown as faulty. Faulty computer models are not evidence by any stretch of the imagination.
Last login: Friday, November 29, 2013
2013 Best Of The Best Winners
The latest wine and dine news.
The Valley's people, wine & food.
Find your way around the Valley.
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2013 Union-Bulletin. All rights reserved.