Global warming

Sportello

Well-Known Member
It's clear that you are one confused individual.

I see now why you never answered my question. Just another hyprocrite[sic]. Birds of a feather flock together.
Which question? The one that you made up something I didn't say and ask me to defend it? That one?

How about you link to one unbiased scientific paper that supports your belief? Just one. Not an editorial.

Nothing from nothing is still nothing. You got nothing, just a desire to twist words and be argumentative without providing anything to support your beliefs.

Come up with something concrete, until then, there is no use in responding to your ramblings.
 

av8torntn

Well-Known Member
How about you link to one unbiased scientific paper that supports your belief? .

.

My belief that the science isn't settled?

Not a problem.

One different view.

CFC not CO2 causes global warming.

Published peer reviewed paper claiming the solar activity causes global warming.

Those you can trace funding to governments so maybe you will not cry Cato.

These are three other views from yours and there are other views as well but this is like a religion to you guys so reason and science do not matter much. I once called you guys modern flat earth society members and that really looks true with your link to a site like skeptical science and all your name calling. It's really like a religion to you guys and facts or science do not matter much. I am not alone in viewing the global warming paranoia to a religion.

Global warming is a religion.


[/QUOTE] How about you link to one unbiased scientific paper that supports your belief?[/QUOTE]

There you go demanding standards that you as of yet have not been willing to accept of yourself.

This isn't a paper but there is one behind this if you are willing to subscribe. The earth's magnetic fields may be moving which could cause climate havoc. These scientists believe the magnetic fields could be changing.

Some scientist believe this has a greater effect on climate than CO2.
 

Sportello

Well-Known Member
@av8torntn, thank you for posting links that show your views on the subject. I suppose one could say that you believe that external forces (solar cycles, magnetic field) have a greater impact on the Earth's climate than man made influences, apart from CFC's, is that accurate?

I'm just trying to follow your reasoning, and want to be clear.

@wkmac, you may want to check out Solar Cycle 24, the one we are currently in. Nothing in this cycle was predicted even two years ago, so we will have to wait and see if a prediction made 15-20 years in advance plays out. In any event, a 'Maunder Minimum' does not equate to a 'Mini Ice Age'. It is worth noting that the author, though a respected Solar Physicist, has zero published papers on climate. She is also an AGW denialist.

Here's a take on it:
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...g/14/global-warming-solar-minimum-barely-dent
 

The Other Side

Well-Known Troll
Troll
Cato is conservative? Now you're laughable too. Bawhaahahahahahaha

The only thing laughable is your thought process.

CATO.. is nothing more than a right wing think tank designed to push a conservative agenda regardless of facts. Who funds CATO AV8? Oh yeah, you know, but wont admit it. Give up trying to push the Limbaugh science on everyone.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Cato_Institute


TOS.
 

The Other Side

Well-Known Troll
Troll
From CATO....


Cato Fellow Patrick Michaels Runs Climate Denial PR Firm
Patrick Michaels, a former professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and an outspoken climate change denier. On its website, Michaels is listed as Cato's only speaker on climate change. (Three others are also listed in the "Energy and Environment" category -- Jerry Taylor on "gas and oil prices, energy policy, energy conservation and regulation", Peter Van Doren on "energy regulation, gas and oil prices," and Randal O'Toole on broader environmental policies.)[36]

Pat Michaels represented the Cato Institute as a reviewer on Working Group III of the fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.[37]

Michaels is the Editor of the World Climate Report, a blog published by New Hope Environmental Services, "an advocacy science consulting firm" he founded and runs.[38] Michaels' biographical note on the Cato Institute website does not mention his role with New Hope Environmental Services.[39]

In an affidavit in a Vermont court case, Michaels described the "mission" of the firm as being to "publicize findings on climate change and scientific and social perspectives that may not otherwise appear in the popular literature or media. This entails both response research and public commentary."[40] In effect, New Hope Environmental Services is a PR firm. Michaels' firm does not disclose who its clients are,[41] but in 2006 a leaked memo revealed that Michaels' firm had been paid $100,000 by an electric utility, Intermountain Rural Electric Association (IREA), to counter concern about global warming.[42] An affidavit by Michaels also stated that "public disclosure of a company's funding of New Hope and its employees has already caused considerable financial loss to New Hope. For example, in 2006 Tri-State Generation & Transmission Association, Inc., an electric utility, had requested that its support of $50,000 to New Hope be held confidential. After this support was inadvertently made public by another New Hope client, Tri-State informed me that it would no longer support New Hope because of adverse publicity."[40]

On a 2007 academic CV, Michaels disclosed that prior to creating his firm, he had received funding from the Edison Electric Institute -- an electric utility trade group -- and the Western Fuels Association -- an entity that provides coal and transportation services to electric utilities. He has also been a frequent speaker at events organized by leading coal and energy companies as well as coal and other industry lobby groups.[43]

In 2009, the Center for Media and Democracy's PRWatch noted that, "in its returns, Cato reports that since April 2006 it has paid $242,900 for the 'environmental policy' services of Michaels' firm. (In preceding years, New Hope Environmental Services was not listed amongst the five highest paid independent contractors supplying professional services to Cato.) In response to an email inquiry, Michaels stated that the Cato funding 'largely supported the extensive background research for my 2009 book, Climate of Extremes, background research on climate change, mainly in the areas of ice melt and temperature histories, and background research required for invited lectures around the world.' (Climate of Extremes was published by the Cato Institute in January of ... [2009].) Asked whether the funding came from a specific company, donor or foundation, Michaels wrote via email that there wasn't 'for this or for any of my activities.' (In case the Cato Institute knew of dedicated funding sources for Michaels work that he was unaware of, I also emailed an inquiry to the think tank's media office. They did not respond.)"[44]
 

av8torntn

Well-Known Member
I'm just trying to follow your reasoning, and want to be clear.

My reasoning? Seriously?

My reasoning is that the science is not settled. I am not sure how much clearer anyone can be.

Here is another take. I know you want to dismiss it because it is science but anyway.

Max Planck Society

An explanation for the global warming pause that the cultists refuse to acknowledge.

Here is a published paper analyzing the effect of cloud drops and density on the climate. The math is more than a little above my level but the idea is interesting. I've linked to this study in this thread but since you were admittedly too lazy to read back I will include it.

Here is another interesting take. There could be a relationship between the temperature of the earths core, the length of the day, and climate.
 

av8torntn

Well-Known Member
I was thinking the same thing.

Cato institute is conservative?

When did this happen?


Well to be fair everything that they disagree with has to be labeled and he probably does not even know what conservative is but has been told that is the enemy and went immediately straight into attack mode.
 
Last edited:

realbrown1

Annoy a liberal today. Hit them with facts.
Well to be fair everything that they disagree with has to be labeled and he probably does not even know what conservative is but has been told that is the enemy and immediately straight into attack mode.
It's the fact that I've never heard of anyone before dismissing a Cato Institute study because they thought the Cato Institute was conservitely biased.

That's just a new one to me.
 

av8torntn

Well-Known Member
process.

Who funds CATO AV8?
.

Why does it matter? This is another do as I say not as I do. You should find links to support your wild claims that do not use any funding from groups or governments or organizations that support the global warming claims you are so poorly trying to make.
 

av8torntn

Well-Known Member
It's the fact that I've never heard of anyone before dismissing a Cato Institute study because they thought the Cato Institute was conservitely biased.

That's just a new one to me.

On their website they claim to be a libertarian think tank. Maybe those sneaky libertarians co opted the conservatives. :)
 

DriveInDriveOut

Inordinately Right
On their website they claim to be a libertarian think tank. Maybe those sneaky libertarians co opted the conservatives. :)
Maybe it's the other way around.
You obviously haven't met many libertarians.
According to an agreement signed in 1977, there were to be four shareholders of the Cato Institute. They were Charles and David H. Koch, Ed Crane,[104] and William A. Niskanen. Niskanen died in October 2011.[105] In March 2012, a dispute broke out over the ownership of Niskanen's shares.[104][105] Charles and David Koch filed suit in Kansas, seeking to void his shareholder seat. The Kochs argued that Niskanen’s shares should first be offered to the board of the Institute, and then to the remaining shareholders.[106] Crane contended that Niskanen's share belonged to his widow, Kathryn Washburn, and that the move by the Kochs was an attempt to turn Cato into "some sort of auxiliary for the G.O.P.... It's detrimental to Cato, it's detrimental to Koch Industries, it's detrimental to the libertarian movement."[57]
 

The Other Side

Well-Known Troll
Troll
According to an agreement signed in 1977, there were to be four shareholders of the Cato Institute. They were Charles and David H. Koch, Ed Crane,[104] and William A. Niskanen. Niskanen died in October 2011.[105] In March 2012, a dispute broke out over the ownership of Niskanen's shares.[104][105] Charles and David Koch filed suit in Kansas, seeking to void his shareholder seat. The Kochs argued that Niskanen’s shares should first be offered to the board of the Institute, and then to the remaining shareholders.[106] Crane contended that Niskanen's share belonged to his widow, Kathryn Washburn, and that the move by the Kochs was an attempt to turn Cato into "some sort of auxiliary for the G.O.P.... It's detrimental to Cato, it's detrimental to Koch Industries, it's detrimental to the libertarian movement."[57]


Shhh...

you are going to ruin his LIMBAUGH source for science educaton!

TOS.
 
Top