PUBLIC VASTLY MISINFORMED ON GLOBAL WARMING

[Dean iWait 0]

NCPA, Cooler Heads Coalition. Look them up. Somebody clearly has an agenda...

The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is a non-partisan, non-profit think tank that develops and promotes private alternatives to government regulation and control, solving problems by relying on the strength of the competitive, entrepreneurial private sector. Topics include reforms in health care, taxes, Social Security, welfare, education and environmental regulation.

The NCPA has been characterized as a "right wing think tank" by organizations such as People for the American Way, which noted that NCPA funding has come from foundations with a conservative orientation: Bradley, Scaife, Koch, Olin, Earhart, Castle Rock, and JM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Cent...Policy_Analysis

People For the American Way (PFAW) is a liberal/progressive advocacy organization in the United States. Under U.S. tax code, PFAW is organized as a tax-exempt 501©(4) non-profit organization. The current president of PFAW is Ralph Neas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_for_the_American_Way

Yeah clearly someone has an agenda. Like actually letting scientists who disagree with the whole global warming theory have a forum. Oh no! Some liberal left wing organization said they are a right wing think tank. LOL!!! Imagine that. Nice try though.

[Scott & Lai 12]

The key here, Gary, is 'peer review'. You can post any quack scientists opinion that supports your claim but when it comes to accepted scientific theories, they must subjected to peer review.

The problem is, this assumes that the "peers" are completely objective, and not clouded by their own political agendas.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The key here, Gary, is 'peer review'. You can post any quack scientists opinion that supports your claim but when it comes to accepted scientific theories, they must subjected to peer review.

The problem is, this assumes that the "peers" are completely objective, and not clouded by their own political agendas.

Well then how do we measure scientific authority? Obviously we're not all scientists...so how are scientific theories accepted or refuted? By public opinion? By the media? This is absurd. Let the experts be the experts, but make sure that when a scientific theory is put forward, it has been scrutinized by the scientific community and overwhelmingly accepted by that community. To wave off that enormous amount of expertise is dumbfounding...to say the least.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

NCPA, Cooler Heads Coalition. Look them up. Somebody clearly has an agenda...

The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is a non-partisan, non-profit think tank that develops and promotes private alternatives to government regulation and control, solving problems by relying on the strength of the competitive, entrepreneurial private sector. Topics include reforms in health care, taxes, Social Security, welfare, education and environmental regulation.

The NCPA has been characterized as a "right wing think tank" by organizations such as People for the American Way, which noted that NCPA funding has come from foundations with a conservative orientation: Bradley, Scaife, Koch, Olin, Earhart, Castle Rock, and JM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Cent...Policy_Analysis

People For the American Way (PFAW) is a liberal/progressive advocacy organization in the United States. Under U.S. tax code, PFAW is organized as a tax-exempt 501©(4) non-profit organization. The current president of PFAW is Ralph Neas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_for_the_American_Way

Yeah clearly someone has an agenda. Like actually letting scientists who disagree with the whole global warming theory have a forum. Oh no! Some liberal left wing organization said they are a right wing think tank. LOL!!! Imagine that. Nice try though.

Dean, find me a reputable scientific journal that refutes what the rest of the scientific community is saying? A think tank does NOT count. We didn't arrive to this day and age, with all the modern technology because scientists are bozos. Give credit where credit is due...damn.

[Ban Hammer 13,630]

A think tank does NOT count.

now that is the post of the day!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

A think tank does NOT count.

now that is the post of the day!

Think tanks do not do scientific climate research... they are created for public policy research. Big difference.

Edited December 8, 2006 by Steven_and_Jinky

[Ban Hammer 13,630]

A think tank does NOT count.

now that is the post of the day!

Think tanks do not do scientific climate research... they are created for public policy research. Big difference.

yeah, they can't think about it either

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Journalistic Balance as Global Warming Bias

Creating controversy where science finds consensus

By Jules Boykoff and Maxwell Boykoff

A new study has found that when it comes to U.S. media coverage of global warming , superficial balance—telling "both" sides of the story—can actually be a form of informational bias. Despite the consistent assertions of the United Nations-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that human activities have had a "discernible" influence on the global climate and that global warming is a serious problem that must be addressed immediately, "he said/she said" reporting has allowed a small group of global warming skeptics to have their views greatly amplified.

The current best climate research predicts that the Earth's temperature could rise by as much as 10.4° F by 2100. Studies show that this temperature increase could contribute to a sea-level rise of up to 35 inches by 2100—threatening to flood tens of millions of inhabitants of coastal communities. Warming on this scale would extend the range and activity of pests and diseases, and force land and marine life to migrate northward, thereby endangering ecosystems, reproductive habits and biodiversity.

Moreover, climate forecasts include more and higher-intensity rainfall in some regions, leading to greater flood and landslide damage. In other regions, forecasts call for increased droughts, resulting in smaller crop yields, more forest fires and diminished water resources. These climate shifts threaten the lives and livelihoods of people around the globe, with a greater impact on the most vulnerable.

These gloomy findings and dire predictions are not the offerings of a gaggle of fringe scientists with an addiction to the film Apocalypse Now. Rather, these forecasts are put forth by the IPCC, the largest, most reputable peer-reviewed body of climate-change scientists in history. Formed by the United Nations in 1990 and composed of the top scientists from around the globe, the IPCC employs a decision-by-consensus approach. In fact, D. James Baker, administrator of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and undersecretary for oceans and atmosphere at the Department of Commerce under the Clinton administration, has said about human contributions to global warming (Washington Post , 11/12/97) that "there's no better scientific consensus on this on any issue I know—except maybe Newton's second law of dynamics."

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1978

[one...two...tree 2,762]

A think tank does NOT count.

now that is the post of the day!

Think tanks do not do scientific climate research... they are created for public policy research. Big difference.

yeah, they can't think about it either

Would you let your car mechanic diagnose whether your brain tumor is benign or malignant?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

NCPA, Cooler Heads Coalition. Look them up. Somebody clearly has an agenda...

The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is a non-partisan, non-profit think tank that develops and promotes private alternatives to government regulation and control, solving problems by relying on the strength of the competitive, entrepreneurial private sector. Topics include reforms in health care, taxes, Social Security, welfare, education and environmental regulation.

The NCPA has been characterized as a "right wing think tank" by organizations such as People for the American Way, which noted that NCPA funding has come from foundations with a conservative orientation: Bradley, Scaife, Koch, Olin, Earhart, Castle Rock, and JM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Cent...Policy_Analysis

People For the American Way (PFAW) is a liberal/progressive advocacy organization in the United States. Under U.S. tax code, PFAW is organized as a tax-exempt 501©(4) non-profit organization. The current president of PFAW is Ralph Neas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_for_the_American_Way

Yeah clearly someone has an agenda. Like actually letting scientists who disagree with the whole global warming theory have a forum. Oh no! Some liberal left wing organization said they are a right wing think tank. LOL!!! Imagine that. Nice try though.

Dean, find me a reputable scientific journal that refutes what the rest of the scientific community is saying? A think tank does NOT count. We didn't arrive to this day and age, with all the modern technology because scientists are bozos. Give credit where credit is due...damn.

Dean won't find you a reputable scientific journal that refutes the global warming theory. Simply because there ain't one. The scientific community is largely in agreement on this issue. Corporate America is not. That doesn't negate the validity of what the scientific community has established.

Interestingly, Dean also failed to dig up the Cooler Heads Coalition of which the NCPA is a member. Cooler Heads is nothing scientific, they just engage in "promoting scepticism" about Global Warming. Much like the "Seven dwarfs" - if you've ever seen the move "The Insider" were and like to continue to promote scepticism about the negative and addictive effects of tobacco products. Needless to say that Big Oil is a huge fan of the Cooler Heads Coalition...

Edited December 8, 2006 by ET-US2004

[BJZags 17]

Think tanks do not do scientific climate research... they are created for public policy research. Big difference.

Of course the big business political lobbies do LESS THAN no scientific climate research, which is even a BIGGER difference. Until big business finds a way to make lots of CASH off of alternative fuels and other "stuff" global warming will NEVER exist.

[Ban Hammer 13,630]

A think tank does NOT count.

now that is the post of the day!

Think tanks do not do scientific climate research... they are created for public policy research. Big difference.

yeah, they can't think about it either

Would you let your car mechanic diagnose whether your brain tumor is benign or malignant?

apples and oranges, steven. a think tank does just that - they analyze data.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

A think tank does NOT count.

now that is the post of the day!

Think tanks do not do scientific climate research... they are created for public policy research. Big difference.

yeah, they can't think about it either

Would you let your car mechanic diagnose whether your brain tumor is benign or malignant?

apples and oranges, steven. a think tank does just that - they analyze data.

Your car mechanic can diagnose a problem with your car, but that doesn't mean he can do the same with the human body.

[Ban Hammer 13,630]

A think tank does NOT count.

now that is the post of the day!

Think tanks do not do scientific climate research... they are created for public policy research. Big difference.

yeah, they can't think about it either

Would you let your car mechanic diagnose whether your brain tumor is benign or malignant?

apples and oranges, steven. a think tank does just that - they analyze data.

Your car mechanic can diagnose a problem with your car, but that doesn't mean he can do the same with the human body.

if my car backfires, i'll call a think tank to figure out why, steven

[GaryC 7]

Jeez Steven there are a lot of reputable scientists that think global warming is a bunch a BS. All you have to do is look.

Scientists Debunk 'Fairy Tale' of 'Global Warming'

Marc Morano, CNSNews.com

Wednesday, May 15, 2002

WASHINGTON – A team of international scientists says climate models showing global warming are based on a "fairy tale" of computer projections.

The scientists met Monday on Capitol Hill to expose what they see as a dearth of scientific evidence about the theory of global warming.

Hartwig Volz, a geophysicist with RWE Research Lab in Germany, questioned the merit of the climate projections coming from the U.N.-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC climate projections have fueled worldwide support for the Kyoto Protocol, which aims to restrict the greenhouse gases thought to cause global warming.

Volz noted that IPCC does not even call the climate models "predictions" and instead refers to them as "projections" or "story lines." Volz said the projections might be more aptly termed "fairy tales."

Monday's luncheon was sponsored by Frontiers of Freedom Institute and titled "Whatever Happened to Global Warming? Climate Science Does Not Support the Kyoto Protocol."

S. Fred Singer, an atmospheric physicist with the University of Virginia and the Environmental Policy Project, called IPCC's global warming projections "completely unrealistic."

"Prediction is a very difficult business, particularly about the future," he said.

'Extreme Scenarios'

Singer accused IPCC of "assuming extreme scenarios of population growth and fossil fuel consumption" and called on the Bush administration to "assemble another team using the IPCC report, using the same facts" to "write a different summary."

Dr. Ulrich Berner, a geologist with the Federal Institute for Geosciences in Germany, said global temperatures have varied greatly in the earth's history and are unrelated to human activity.

"The climate of the past has varied under natural conditions without the influence of humans," Berner said.

Berner declared that an extensive analysis of carbon dioxide (C02) concentrations in the ice core of Greenland showed that elevated C02 in the atmosphere does not necessarily lead to temperature increases.

"There are numerous temperature changes which are not mimicked by the CO2 concentration," he explained.

"Carbon dioxide doesn't police climatic changes. Climatic changes have always occurred and will for the future always occur," Berner added.

Singer agreed. "The balance of evidence suggests that there has been no appreciable warming since 1940. This would indicate that the human effects on climate must be quite small."

Blame It on the Sun

Singer pointed to the sun as a major culprit in climate change. "The sun is responsible for most, and perhaps all of the short-term climate changes we observe," he said.

Environmental groups were quick to dismiss the scientific skepticism on global warming. Ariana Silverman, a spokeswoman for Sierra Club's Global Warming & Energy program, disputed the panel's claim that climate science did not support the Kyoto Protocol.

"It is very difficult to make that claim. There is a consensus in the scientific community," Silverman said.

She admitted there was room for skepticism about global warming models because "nobody knows; we don't have god-like abilities" to predict the future.

Sierra Club believes we need to "cut down on gasses right now and make cars go further on a gallon of gas." She predicted that if no action is taken, there could be "major changes to our climate and changes to our ecosystems with species dying."

"Climate is not a responsible thing for us to be changing," Silverman added.

Copyright CNSNews.com