http://www.yard-work.org/?p=235

Apparently Dr. Robert K Adair, a Global warming critic is a physicist, who is the author of “The Physics of Baseball.”

Well, I’m sold.

OK, a small sample, but I would think someone with a background in Physics, Geophysics, Climatology, Meteorology, Oceanography, or Evironmental Science would have that show up in the first page of a Google search.

SHowing a list of 2600 names doesn’t really proce anything. Perhaps listing their credential might lend some credence to this criticism.

And, by the way, what is the issue with Global Warming, anyway? Why is this such a controversial issue? Can someone please explain why the idea that human activity can adversely affect the global climate is evil? How is putting measures in place to reduce the output of CO2 a bad thing? The only downside I can see is the reduction of profits for some corporations. But that can’t be the argument.

It’s not like we are saying cigarette smoking causes cancer. The jury’s CERTAINLY still out on that one.

And don’t give me the hypocrisy argument. If you truly loathe hypocrisy, you would have no time for Global Warming, you would be spending all your time fighting the current administration’s trampling of the constitution while espousing the “rule of law.” And no splitting hairs. I am a liberal democrat who didn’t buy the “definition of what is, is” argument either.

Just trying to see what the fuss is about.

Kind of limits debate when your opponents are threatening you, ala Galileo.

But tell you what Veritas, since you think these people are right, you give up your computer/AC/Car/electric lights/etc, live as they tell you to (though realize that the elites like Gore and Co will never sacrifice as they tell you to) and find out the Earth will continue to warm and then cool no matter what you do. You could also look at the studies I cited and write their authors to tell them where they are wrong. Those studies are available for peer-review and they have been. The hidden point of the article from USA Today was that a peer review of a study showed it to be flawed.

That is how science should work. Peer review, replications of experiments, open debate, and consensus through evidence (not threats).

The cult of human induced global warming only uses threats and shaky science. The future of our economy and ability to produce food for the world’s population should not be based on agenda driven radicals who stated 20 years ago that we were headed for a new ice age only to flop and say we are headed for runaway heating.

Now I too am leaving this. I have said all I think I need to.

Buh bye common cents

You are dishonest and a coward.

Look ma! He’s challenging me! OMG, what will I ever do.

Sigh….

emanuel@texmex.mit.edu

What do you say? Or like Curt is bloviating your only skill?

What we found was terrifying, what is known to be missing according to 12 years of intelligence from SEVERAL countries makes what we found almost trivial (if 300 million casualties to Botulism is trivial). A few nuts in Tokyo made enough sarin in their homes to kill thousands if the weapons had functioned. A few scientists in Iraq had enough chemical and biological agents to produce casualties far exceeding anything we have ever seen.

As to why it was not broadcast louder than in books, a few CNN reports, some stuff on FNC, and the people translating the 120 million pages of documents, I mentioned that above. I do not agree with the reasoning of some of these (the “why they did this”), but I am not in charge. We found weapons stamped “Made in France 2003″ in several locations. While we had destroyed 90% of Saddam’s tanks in 1991, we faced just as many tanks as we had in GWI during OIF. We also found MIG25-BR2s buried in the sand. No one in the West had seen the BR2 until we dug them up. How did Iraq get these if not in gross violation of the Arms embargo (another reason we declared the 1991 Cease Fire void due to Iraq’s actions)? Only a few countries make the T-55 and T-72. Fewer make the MIG-25. Fewer still make the nuclear centrifuge components we found. That leaves a diplomatic quandary. Do we now invade Russia, China, France, and Germany for breaking the UN’s Arms Embargo? Do we censure four countries, three which are permanent members of the Security Council? Difficult question.

As for the climate change, I stand by my statements far above. Most of the modern studies cited/funded by the environmentalists only look at the past 100 years. Few look beyond the 1800s. When we look beyond the 1800s, we see a pattern develop. A pattern which has nothing to do with human intervention. A pattern which is repeating and should repeat until the Sun changes phases in its life or a big rock hits us.

I also answered the “so what” a few posts later. Just because we are not capable of impacting the environment the way the “Church of Al Gore” (it is a cute name) says we are does not mean that us “Heretics” to that cult think we should wantonly pollute the universe. We need sustainable growth and have advocated that for a long time. We have not yet begun to tap the resources of this planet. Literally, we have barely scratched the surface. The Crust alone is 25 miles think and our deepest mines only penetrate the upper crust.

We need more efficient use of resources, not because a paltry 6 billion people are going to use them all up, but 20-30 billion may have trouble getting to them in the future. We need better way of producing energy. We do not need politically driven fuels such as ethanol, which take more energy to produce than they create. We need better/cheaper electricity generation. This includes Fission/Fusion, Geo-Thermal, wind, solar, and anything else we can think of. More importantly, we need better distribution systems/technology. That is being worked on right now by power companies as they lose billions of watts in transmission lines, which equates to a loss of profits for the wasted power.

We need NEW oil refineries and less “boutique blends” of gasoline. Every refinery we have now was built before CAD, modern computer controls, modern synthetic materials, etc. They are old, inefficient, and costly. We need new ways of getting to oil we have withing the USA. We need the restrictions on domestic drilling removed and must be allowed to exploit what we have. New fuel/engine technology will come, but we need to ensure there is time for it to mature. Ironically, President Bush gave this a massive shot in the arm in 2002 and on. Ironic as his critics ignore this fact and others. We are seeing results every day in hybrid engines, multi-fuel engines, bio-agent fuels, and other areas.

Or we could follow the “Church of Al Gore” and throw all the progress away and live like medieval peasants while Gore and his elite live in palaces. I prefer the former.

That quite a serious charge. I assume you confronted Dr. Kerry directly with your assertions? Let me help you out with the contact information:

http://wind.mit.edu/~emanuel/home.html

I’m sure he’d love to debate the science with you.

How about it Curt?

When I see that petition, I see a shoddy document that does not stand up to scrutiny. I can’t believe that you think it’s terribly convincing either, but that’s your perogative.

Cool, I see the evidence that you global warming zealots point to in the same way. For example, the paper that this post was originally written about. Shoddy shoddy work which is quickly proven to be witchcraft since they use data from the 19th century in which there were no instruments to measure hurricanes as we do now mixed in with data from the last 30 years when we did have those instruments. This is typical work from your so called “experts”.

30 years ago is was the coming ice age, now its global warming. Its all foolishness used for partisan reasons. But you want to follow the herd, its (as you say) your perogative.

As far as the the petition goes, it stated that they were all in the field, its not up to me to prove it. If you want to try and disprove it go right ahead. You’ve failed miserably so far.

Moving on to the next blogpost. Feel free to visit. =)

A guy who is part of the project saying they checked everything isn’t proof that they checked everything, especially when you yourself have checked it and see that it isn’t true. Don’t believe me, don’t believe that lying d*uchebag, believe what you see for yourself.

And why should I believe you rather then the guys who checked on the signatories? Of course you blindly believe those who sign onto the sky is falling theories. Because they fit your view of the world.

Anyways, you have proven yourself to be very thorough in your research.

Laugh….

you found a bionuclear pharmacist

And physicist. keep forgetting that one huh?

maybe a surgeon

Ignorance, thy name is Winston. already explained this one so won’t do it again.

So basically you proudly proclaimed that you found 5 people on the list who were NOT in the related fields but have yet to prove this fact. Bunch of suppositions is all I’m reading. College administrator, can’t really tell if he in the field. Chemist who has written papers, but still cannot prove he is not in the related field. Pharmacist who is also a physicist, which IS in the related field. The other two neither I nor you can prove they are or not in the field without writing to them.

Oh, cant forget the fact that you said one of them never wrote a paper when in fact he did, of course now you dismiss him because he is a chemist.

Such a strong argument you have there.