I have a VERY hard time taking anything from the IPCC as being impartial science. It was formed with the SOLE intent of PROVING global warming caused by CO2.

It's like going to the Chevy dealer and asking if you should buy a Silverado or a Tundra.... what do you think they're going to say?

Same goes with the people on that panel. Given their history and how they were formed, now if there is not a "problem", there is no reason for them to exist. i.e. no jobs, no money. What interest would they even have in reporting if they had proof that GW was not being caused by man?

But, your criticisms are subjective. What, purported facts, can you disprove?

There is way too much technical jargon for me to really understand what is being said. I wasn't even aware that water vapor is a green house gas. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

Y2K .....everybody is either ignorant or making money out of the ignnorant.

I think this guy hit the nail on the head.

http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis.asp

Did everyone catch the latest story? The idiot sailor who believed in this Al Gore (joke?).

Adrian Flanagan, British sailor asking to be rescued by Russian icebreakers?? (Most Russian icebreakers are nuclear powered, I think that is even funnier).

Seems he wants to show everyone about global warming by sailing across the Artic North. Two problems, the ice up there has not melted by this time(like it usually does) and two, it is starting to freeze over even more now. Since we are at the end of the artic summer, he is asking to be rescued.
It just keeps getting too funny!

There is a lot of technical jargon, but at the same time, I think this: "numbers don't lie, but lairs use numbers..." I'm still dying to see a real equation with the assumptions and numbers used. I can program it and see what happens. I know it won't be as complicated as the full scale models they run, but... seeing the underlying equation would tell me a LOT.

This guy organizes a lot of articles be it pro or con a/b GW. He is obviously anti, but... I like the way he compiles info.

www.junkscience.com

Wow, very well written!

Just what I've been thinking all along! <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

Now how can I trade some of those carbon credits!

Clayton

I don't agree or disagree with what this guy says but I'm not impressed with his credentials as Professor Emeritus at Hillsdale college. A little liberal arts college in Michigan.

Founded: 1844

Location: Hillsdale, MI (south-central Michigan)

Type of College: Four-year, independent, liberal arts, co-educational, residential, non-sectarian

Size of campus: 200 acres, 55 buildings

Housing: Thirteen single-sex residence halls and six Greek houses

Enrollment: 1,300 full-time students, 49% male, 51% female

Mike Hill

"S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, a distinguished research professor at George Mason University, and president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project. He performed his undergraduate studies at Ohio State University and earned his Ph.D. in Physics from Princeton University. He was the founding dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences at the University of Miami, the founding director of the U.S. National Weather Satellite Service, and served for five years as vice chairman of the U.S. National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere. Dr. Singer has written or edited over a dozen books and mono-graphs, including, most recently, Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years.


The following is adapted from a lecture delivered on the Hillsdale College campus on June 30, 2007, during a seminar entitled “Economics and the Environment,” sponsored by the Charles R. and Kathleen K. Hoogland Center for Teacher Excellence."

This is one of the most eloguent pieces of prose I've read in a very long time. I am forwarding it to my wife's IB English class as an example of expository writing.

Btw Mike, the pendulum has swung, once again, and large corporations are seeking liberal arts majors. It seems that our world moves so quickly, the corporate world is looking for well rounded, adaptable young people.

My mistake. That's a little different.

"None of this is intended to argue against energy conservation. On the contrary, conserving energy reduces waste, saves money, and lowers energy prices—irrespective of what one may believe about global warming.", from Dr. Singer's speech.

Surely we can all agree with this statement.

Yes that I agree with! What I don't agree with is Politicians that try to convince us they are scientists. Politicians have agendas thats why they are politicians.

JMO,

Clayton

Everyone has an agenda, including me. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

But you I can deal with... just look at your avitar! <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Clayton

<img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

And the politicians have an agenda while the "scientists" have an agenda as well... eating and driving nice cars motivates you to justify your job. If there was no issue, it wouldn't be news and there would be no money in it.

Wasn't there some huge, multi-national delegation that was formed to prove global warming? I found it strangely fitting that the science they brought forth appeared to indicate global warming is happening.

Talk about agendas...

"figures don't lie, but liars can figure"....

So who makes the commissions on selling carbon credits?

I've got a houseplant that's got a few leaves on it. How much carbon will it fix?

Our friends, the IPCC....

I've been accused of oversimplifying the situation:

We are not creating more carbon, we are merely redistributing it back into the atmosphere (from whence it originally was located and fixed by the plants which then died and became oil).

If we heat up and drown (or burn up), some other species will take over. What is the big problem with that?

Evolutionary theorists say this happens regularly on this planet. Are you saying the human race should not be held to the same hypothesized guidelines of the Evolutionary model as other species?

I guess Creationists could argue that the human race should not be subject to the "temporarily dominant species" rules, but if this model were accurate, the 'free will of man' provision would be the reason we smote ourselves.

Simlarly, supporters of the intelligent design theory might justify the same outcome as a result of our decisions

Chaos theorists who support the notion that we're just a freak mathematical probability could side with the evolutionists

I don't know what other theories for "why are we here" are out there, but would be interested to hear a synopsis of them.

And we're supposed to have several hundred "Bill-yon" (props to Carl Sagan) years before the "Big Rip" where all atomic matter eventually dissociates into nothing (apparantly in conflict with the first law of thermodynamics, but I'm just a silly insurance salesman), so sail now before it all goes to hell!