I got yer mmgw proof of bs right here

[Browns149]

Give me an example...

 

Like I said, I am on the liberal side of more issues than the conservative, mostly social issues, but they just seem like common sense. They're the side the facts and evidence and science support, or they're just common sense to me (and many others). Ex, gay marriage. I have not heard a convincing argument yet for banning it.

 

I don't blanket everything liberal or Democrat though. I don't generalize everyone that disagrees with me as the other side or call them all liberals or conservatives.

 

You just started posting here, I don't think you know what you're talking about. Don't take my arguing with cal, who is full on right wing conservative, to mean I'm his opposite on the left. That's not even close. I'd call out the left wing version of cal if one existed on here too.

 

 

I started posting here in Jan 2011. And in those 3+ years, I have seen you and Cal be on the COMPLETE opposite side of the aisle on almost everything.

[MLD Woody]

 

 

I started posting here in Jan 2011. And in those 3+ years, I have seen you and Cal be on the COMPLETE opposite side of the aisle on almost everything.

 

There is a difference between opposite end of the isle and disagreeing. When you are so far one way or another on an issue, just being near the middle or slightly one way or another will mean I disagree.... but I'm not necessarily on the other side. Do I blame the conservatives for everything? Do I post anti-conservative threads all the time, every day? Really... I'm offended you think I'm on the complete opposite end of Cal.

[MLD Woody]

Of course.

 

I just don't see you here that often. If you have been creeping and reading then I was wrong. Then that would mean you have a tough time reading, but whatever

[calfoxwc]

No, that's pretty much accurate - opposite ends of the scale.

 

 

CHERRY PICKY

ALAN COLMES LOCKED-IN LIBERAL

NONSENSE

(Woody) ------------------------------------------------------------- COMPREHENSIVE DEDUCTIVE REASONING ALONG WITH MANY DECADES

. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 AND A PROFESSIONAL CAREER IN LOGIC (Calfox)

[MLD Woody]

See, that's what I mean, lol.

[Westside Steve]

Cal, you know my stance which is that it's probably happening but there's probably nothing we can or will really do about it, right? It just occurred to me however that you and I do agree on the deforestation of the rainforest. And that is a man made problem.

WSS

[MLD Woody]

I don't think anyone here is ssyingvthe deforestation of the rainforests is a good thing...

[Westside Steve]

I don't think anyone here is ssyingvthe deforestation of the rainforests is a good thing...

The point I am making is that it's man made.

 

(but I do think it's being put on the back burner simply because jacking up American taxes doesn't seem like a solution, though I'm sure somebody can probably find a connection)

WSS

[calfoxwc]

I do. And I don't say that it isn't happening, I'm just saying that the alarmism, which has already

discredited itself by failing the projected doom test, isn't a basis for taxes, and money making schemes

like "carbon tax" bs. And the distractions like climategate, hockey stick and tree ring scandals

doesn't help anything. Belligerently trying to censor and ridicule anybody, even prominent scientists,

who dispute that our everyday activiites are causing it, and carbon trading has anything to do

with a solution...... has aliented most of America, per polls, and thousands of genuine, respected

scientists all around the world.

 

I mean, one UN official admitted that without "mmgw", redistribution of wealth to the poorer countries

would be quite impossible.

 

Really? And the Kyoto Treaty wouldn't apply to countries like China and India?

 

Personally, I think our farm brings me to think about the population growing, and the over-development

of our earth's green space. Our farm, 28 acres, as well as other tracts all around us, was going to be

sold, and actually was, by a giant development company out of Chicago. They were going to make it

a gigantic suburb. About over 300 houses would have been built all around us out here in the "country",

on three sides. However, we all went to a very large town meeting, and a lot of us made public speeches against

the raising of the zoning to really bad degrees. Well, the board listened to all of us, and voted the raising of the

zoning down, which really hurt the investment plans of this dirtbag giant corp. In the end, they bailed out of

the purchase altogether, and left. But the farmer had to repay a hundred grand down payment because of

some fine print he and his attorney didn't know was there. So, the auction happened, and we got our land

we wanted, because it's off our yard.

 

Anyways, I bring that up, because all over the state, every? state, every country? More and more woodland and

grassy/brushy stretches of acreage is being cut up, flattened, concreted and paved and built on. And each year,

the deforestation of millions and millions of acres of rainforest and forest around the world is being destroyed.

 

Now, CO2 is rising, that's indicative of a serious problem. But nobody really believes that carbon trading and carbon

tax and taxes for cows farting and driving SUV's and factories are making all that CO2 level skyrocketing thing.

 

The green balance on earth is gradually being lost. Development, forest fires, greed and really stupid clear cutting

doesn't make gore and the rest of his ilk make any money, if they bring it up.

 

They never have, I think. Not once.

 

There was an interview with the ceo of a carbon trading company. Al Gore invests in it. They stand to make

billions of billions. But, like with Australia dropping it because it is self-destructive bs, they can only hope

that mmgw taxes and carbon bs will be mandated somehow.

 

Now, how the hell does that help the rising CO2 levels? Not one freakin bit.

 

So, I agree with you, Steve. And I have mentioned before that outside of deforestation and development,

it isn't man causing global warming, especially when it's cooling, even with CO2 rising.

 

The money making and liberal/progressive leftwing political motives of the mmgw alarmism is detracting from working to preserve the vast

amount of plant life on our planet.

[Westside Steve]

I do. And I don't say that it isn't happening, I'm just saying that the alarmism, which has already

discredited itself by failing the projected doom test, isn't a basis for taxes, and money making schemes

like "carbon tax" bs. And the distractions like climategate, hockey stick and tree ring scandals

doesn't help anything. Belligerently trying to censor and ridicule anybody, even prominent scientists,

who dispute that our everyday activiites are causing it, and carbon trading has anything to do

with a solution...... has aliented most of America, per polls, and thousands of genuine, respected

scientists all around the world.

 

I mean, one UN official admitted that without "mmgw", redistribution of wealth to the poorer countries

 

 

The money making and liberal/progressive leftwing political motives of the mmgw alarmism is detracting from working to preserve the vast

amount of plant life on our planet.

Agreed.

 

WSS

[MLD Woody]

Cal, just curious, what is the "tree ring scandal" exactly?

 

Also, which "prominent scientists" have been censored?

[calfoxwc]

You'll have to look that up, yourself, Woody. I have to go get to work

on the garden.

[Westside Steve]

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/09/yamal-climate-tree-ring-data-withheld

[MLD Woody]

I don't see anything of substance there, or through a quick Google search. It looks like the original guy that called it out eventually backtracked as well.

 

 

Cal, you claim scientists are being censored a lot on here. I figured you'd have an example

[calfoxwc]

Here is the tree ring problem, and other problems, explained:

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2014/02/04/global-warmings-tree-ring-circus/2/

 

In part:

 

"And as for those Yamal tree samples, they came from only 12 specimens of 252 in the data set… while a larger data set of 34 trees from the same vicinity that weren’t used showed no dramatic recent warming, but warmer temperatures in those Middle Ages.

Scientific critics have also raised another looming question. Since Mann’s 1,000-year-long graph was cobbled together using various proxy data derived from ice cores, tree rings and written records of growing season dates up until 1961 where it then switched to using surface (ground station) temperature data, then why change in 1961? Some theorize that maybe it’s because that’s when other tree ring proxy data calculations by Keith Briffa at the East Anglia University Climate Research Unit (CRU) began going the other way in a steady temperature decline.

After presenting these unwelcome results to Mann and others, Briffa was reportedly put under pressure to recalculate them. He did, and the decline became even greater. As recorded in ClimateGate e-mails, this presented what Mann referred to as a “conundrum” in that the late 20th century decline indicated by Briffa would be perceived by IPCC as “diluting the message”, that there was a “problem”, and that it posed a “potential distraction/detraction”.Mann went on to say that the warming skeptics would have a “field day” if Briffa’s declining temperature reconstruction was shown, and that he would“hate to be the one” to give them “fodder”.

In an e-mail sent to Mann and others, CRU’s director Dr. Philip Jones reported: “I’ve just completed Mike’s [Mann’s] Nature [journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s [briffa’s] to hide the decline [in global temperatures]…” Then all of the proxy and surface measurement chartings were presented in different colors on a single graph, and Briffa’s were simply cut off in a spaghetti clutter of lines at the 1961 date"

[calfoxwc]

So, note, that even Briffa was censored because his studies did

not meet the alarmist agenda.

 

Not so scientific, I think.

[calfoxwc]

A more recent example of censorship...and worse:

 

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/18395-intolerance-global-warming-fanatics-intimidate-swedish-scientist

 

And the oft-parroted "97%" is just not true:

 

http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2014/01/ukips-inconvenient-truth-platform/

 

"A recent IPCC report shows that scientists believe with 95% certainty that humans are the “dominant cause” of global warming. A 2013 study by UK Energy Research Centre, however, showed that 46% believe that climate change is ‘partly caused by human activity’, 22% believe that climate change is ‘mainly caused by human activity’ and another 6% believe that climate change is ‘entirely caused by human activity’. In total 74% of those surveyed believed that human activity is responsible for climate change."

[calfoxwc]

So, 28 percent think it's entirely or mainly caused by human activity.

 

I don't see anything wrong with 46% thinking it's "partly".

 

Like I said somewhere earlier.... toss a rock into wide, whitewater rapids in a river, and that

rock is "partly" a contributor to the tumultous current.

[calfoxwc]

http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/global-warming-scientists.htm

 

 

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

 

"Something about retirement apparently frees people up to say what they really believe. I retired early from NASA over seven years ago to have more freedom to speak my mind on global warming.

You might recall that after Dr. Joanne Simpson retired from NASA she (trmm.gsfc.nasa.gov/3rd_trmm_conf/simpson.doc) admitted to a long-held skepticism regarding the role of mankind in global warming.

And who can forget NASA’s Administrator, Michael Griffin, admitting that he was skeptical of the urgency of the global warming problem? After the outrage that ensued, I suspect he wishes he had never brought it up.

And now my old boss when I was at NASA (as well as James Hansen’s old boss), John Theon, has stated very clearly that he doesn’t believe global warming is manmade…and adding “climate models are useless” for good measure. Even I wouldn’t go quite that far, since I use simple ones in mypublished research.

I remember the old days at NASA, when even John Theon was singing the same tune as most people at NASA were. Manmade global warming was a potentially serious threat, and NASA wanted Congress to fund new satellites to study the problem. It was a team effort to get that accomplished.

Global warming research was a relatively new field back then. Was Theon always skeptical, and just being a team player at the time? I don’t know. It could be that Dr. Theon, after watching 15 years of climate research go by, decided that he was no longer convinced that mankind was at fault for warming.

After all, there is some precedence for scientists changing their minds. One of today’s leading global warming alarmists is Stephen Schneider, who did a major about-face from the 1970s when global cooling was all the rage. At least Theon didn’t write a book back then about how serious the global warming issue was, as Schneider did on global cooling.

And how many defections have we seen in the other direction — from the skeptics’ camp to the alarmists’ camp? Seems like it’s been a one-way street so far.

Theon now also supports what I have repeatedly said over the years. That NASA’s James Hansen routinely ignored NASA policy, and said whatever he wanted to the press and to Congress without getting approval first. The reason why everyone at NASA looked the other way was that we were trying to get congressional funding for satellite missions to study climate. I personally don’t think we needed Hansen’s extremist views to get that accomplished, but it probably helped to some extent.

I asked NASA managers at the time, how can Hansen get away with saying whatever he wanted to? The answer was, “well…he’s not supposed to”.

You might think it’s OK for the lone scientist to warn everyone of impending planetary doom. But I consider it much closer to someone who makes a habit of yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theatre. Forcing expensive energy on people will lead to death and suffering. These are very real threats, not theoretical like manmade global warming, and they exist today. I personally don’t care where our energy comes from — but I do care that a maximum number of people can afford it.

In truth, it wasn’t Hansen who was muzzled, but it was me in the Clinton-Gore years, who was asked to keep my mouth shut about my skeptical views. That was fine…if a little annoying. At least the flap Hansen caused has managed to force NASA to say that their scientists no longer have to march in lock-step on scientific issues. That’s a good thing.

I have to wonder…how many more scientists will be outing themselves as skeptics? While we may never constitute a majority, and many of us have differing views on the real causes of climate change, it only takes one of us to be right for the global warming house of cards to collapse.

[gftChris]

A more recent example of censorship...and worse:

 

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/18395-intolerance-global-warming-fanatics-intimidate-swedish-scientist

 

And the oft-parroted "97%" is just not true:

 

http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2014/01/ukips-inconvenient-truth-platform/

 

"A recent IPCC report shows that scientists believe with 95% certainty that humans are the “dominant cause” of global warming. A 2013 study by UK Energy Research Centre, however, showed that 46% believe that climate change is ‘partly caused by human activity’, 22% believe that climate change is ‘mainly caused by human activity’ and another 6% believe that climate change is ‘entirely caused by human activity’. In total 74% of those surveyed believed that human activity is responsible for climate change."

The study you link to is of public opinion, which really doesn't matter in terms of science, and yet you just gloss over the "scientists believe with 95% certainty" part.

[gftChris]

So, note, that even Briffa was censored because his studies did

not meet the alarmist agenda.

 

Not so scientific, I think.

Briffa censored the data himself, and then was called out on it by his colleagues who were basically saying "your conclusion is correct, but the way you're burying data, people are going to shoot this thing down" which is what happened. The data from Yamal is used in only 3 out of the 12 main climate prediction models anyway, and if you disregard those, then the remaining 9 all reach the same conclusion.

[calfoxwc]

Yep. You're indoctrinated. mmgw is the rule of you liberals.

 

Nothing must ever be different than your agenda.

 

It must all fit, or you libs go into a snit.

 

Got it.

[MLD Woody]

 

 

 

I'll attempt to put a long response together for your claims tomorrow. Even though Chris seems to be doing it already, like normal. Good luck sir

[calfoxwc]

Always the promise of the magic twanger revelations.

 

Never the genuine magic twanger revelations.

[MLD Woody]

I've responded at length and with resources many times. Calm down. I'm just a ton busier now

[calfoxwc]

Yes, but all we all keep doing is proving my whole point on the mmgw subject.

 

It's being questioned more and more and more. For good reasons. There is no

"fact" about it.

 

It's tentative theory, greatly controversial. So the political "but we must do SOMETHING" is

dissapating into a foggy mist.

[MLD Woody]

In the public eye, yes.

 

Among actual experts, no.

[calfoxwc]

But there are plenty of experts who also aren't buyin into it.

 

I've posted them.

[MLD Woody]

But there are plenty of experts who also aren't buyin into it.

 

I've posted them.

 

A very small percentage of which actually have any experience in climatology. A smaller number if which that have published research

[calfoxwc]

But I've already shown that the IPCC frowns on "published research" to the contrary.

 

which, flies in the face of scientific integrity. Truth is not a democratic vote. Fact is

not a "most of scientists agree".

 

That's a theory which has not been truly proven as fact, and has historically been rife with

controversy.

 

"it is what it is" .... it's a common theory with problems to the contrary of it, which scientists

cannot explain.

 

As in, absolutely no reason to "have to DO something liberal" about it. That's all.