tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215147935611201277.post7338913372793571233..comments2023-10-17T07:13:00.480-07:00Comments on My Tea Party Chronicle: CLOUDS OVER MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMINGCheryl Passhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01894307477506374497noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215147935611201277.post-35560237599000469092011-12-09T17:18:40.547-08:002011-12-09T17:18:40.547-08:00Charlie, I chose not to publish your other two com...Charlie, I chose not to publish your other two comments, mostly because they were demeaning and also because you seem to have some superiority complex which I don't care to argue with or about. You chose to come to my blog to do what? Try to convince me of AGW? You will not succeed at that, so the exchange is pointless. <br /><br />I took the following from a comment by someone else on another science blog in order to emphasize my point and articulate it in a way you may find more able to understand; "This has NEVER BEEN ABOUT SCIENCE, folks. Science has always been nothing more than a pseudo-intellectual cover for the advancement of an anti-capitalist, anti-industrialization, global government agenda, nothing more, nothing less. That it is exposed as such now is fitting, and was always the ultimate outcome.<br /><br />Don’t believe me? Same thing happened with Copernicus, Galileo, and the Catholic Church (with no offense meant to Catholics). The present AGW “consensus” is the modern equivalent of the Catholic “consensus” that the earth was the center of the universe and the sun and all the planets revolved around it. Only the “consensus” wasn’t fact, it was FAITH (faith at the end of a bayonette with punishment for blasphemy, no less). Turned out the minority scientific opinion turned out to be the fact, and the faith was WRONG.<br /><br />The same thing is now playing out 400 years later. Those shouting “scientific consensus” the loudest are a) the least scientifically literate (e.g. media, polticians, etc.) on the subject, or b) scientifically literate but the least interested in actual science.<br /><br />This is faith and politics, not science. You want science? See Christy, Spencer, Svensmark, Shaviv, Lindzen, Baliunas, Soon, and about a thousand others."<br /><br />End of comment.Cheryl Passhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01894307477506374497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215147935611201277.post-90037303770261721252011-12-08T09:03:08.575-08:002011-12-08T09:03:08.575-08:00You are right, Charlie, I do have strong political...You are right, Charlie, I do have strong political and economic opinions re: the place of government in our markets. And I am not a scientist. My bias, since that is what you are addressing, leans toward common sense with anecdotal and factual evidence as much as possible. Because I am not a scientist, I do rely on Anthony Watts' site and also Climate Depot, Junk Science, and others. It is obvious from those sites that AGW has been contrived and based on political greed and manipulation. When you say I am "flat out wrong," you must also think those sites are "flat out wrong." I would be over my head if I tried to argue the science with you, which is why I rely on those in the field who I believe have the knowledge to do so. Personally, from what I have read, I do not believe that humans are driving the climate. It is obvious from the emails released from Anglia, that AGW is a corrupt construct of some very corrupt people. To base political / governmental decisions based on AGW is a travesty committed for the purpose of enriching some very greedy and corrupt people. That is not to say humans have no impact on the environment or should not be responsible stewards of the earth. However, using AGW to control life styles globally is, in my opinion, tyranny based on fiction and lies. I do not accept that. <br /><br />Why you are bringing evolution into this argument is beyond me. That would be a "red herring" in this context, and has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.Cheryl Passhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01894307477506374497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215147935611201277.post-92081031412782099532011-12-06T09:36:14.682-08:002011-12-06T09:36:14.682-08:00I found your blog! I have an article about poker a...I found your blog! I have an article about poker and looked up some other sites on wordpress discussing poker to see what else people were talking about. Series of tubes, man, you never know where they'll take you!<br /><br />I was unfortunately very concerned about some of the content you've posted, such as the above article. I'm a scientist with an interest in climatology, so a lot of what you've written looks very questionable. For example, this quote:<br /><br />"AGW is already dead…it is the myth that lives."<br /><br />The GW part of AGW has been confirmed repeatedly: instrumental data (eg, GISS) and satellite data (eg, UAH) agree that average global temps are increasing. This is the case even when the people processing the data have strong ideological commitments in the other direction (eg, BEST, Watts' surface temp reconstruction). <br />The A is for Anthropogenic, and attributing temperature trends to human activity is less straightforward, but it can and has been done - for example, by looking for 'fingerprints' in climate, such as a cooling stratosphere.<br /><br />It's hard to see how the centerpiece of modern climatology is 'dead'.<br /><br />You bring up a petition of ~1000 dissenting scientists, but that really isn't impressive: given the sheer number of scientists in the world, it would be surprising if some of them DIDN'T have fringe beliefs. Indeed, by Googling around, you can find similar lists of dissenters from evolution, HIV, 9/11, and practically any well-established fact. You can even come up with hard-hitting soundbites like the one above: <br /><br />“Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact.” Dr. T. N. Tahmisian<br /><br />On the other hand, there have been multiple studies (eg, look up "The Myth of the 1970s Cooling Consensus") which have repeatedly demonstrated the strong agreement amongst experts about the reality of AGW.<br /><br />You clearly have a strong political and economic opinion on the place of government in our markets and our lives, and you may well be right. However, you are flat-out wrong in your claim that modern climatology is incorrect. <br /><br />I notice that you haven't discussed "The Other CO2 Problem", ocean acidification. Are you familiar with it? I have put together a short explanation of the phenomenon here: <br />http://topologicoceans.wordpress.com/2010/10/04/ocean-acidification-a-primer/<br />Or, if you're the audiovisual type: <br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LJFTDHLQyk<br /><br />Take care!<br />CharlieAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215147935611201277.post-5806474694081727482011-08-27T07:29:58.900-07:002011-08-27T07:29:58.900-07:00Hey guys...just a rare moment of optimism. The ba...Hey guys...just a rare moment of optimism. The bad news is they spent the last 20 years getting this system in place and it might take us the next 20 to get rid of it. I'm seeing a few beams of light shining through. We are the ones who have to send the memos. <br />Bunker, can you do any of that in your area?? For instance, I am sending emails and talking to our local council, state reps, and candidates for office. Jim, you are off the hook since you are an expat. <br /><br />Thank you both!!Cheryl Passhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01894307477506374497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215147935611201277.post-67208949141151728142011-08-26T19:09:45.748-07:002011-08-26T19:09:45.748-07:00What a nice positive post. Thanks, Cheryl. I neede...What a nice positive post. Thanks, Cheryl. I needed a little pick-me-up. I hope the EPA gets the message soon!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215147935611201277.post-52574680449203840012011-08-26T16:29:53.484-07:002011-08-26T16:29:53.484-07:00Yes indeed, I do think more folks are catching on....Yes indeed, I do think more folks are catching on. Whether in time, time will tell.But I will share your good feelings and hope for a better day.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com