Not the warmest place. You might not be able to grow plants (other than algae, which would actually be enough done properly) but it's false to assume glaciation wipes out all plant life.
Are you aware plants eat co2 and get bigger and grow faster and can eat more co2?
Are you aware we've cut down half the trees in the last 100 years?
"Then in the late 1970s, Dyson got involved with early research on climate change at the Institute for Energy Analysis in Oak Ridge, Tenn.
That research, which involved scientists from many disciplines, was based on experimentation. The scientists studied such questions as how atmospheric carbon dioxide interacts with plant life and the role of clouds in warming.
But that approach lost out to the computer-modeling approach favored by climate scientists. And that approach was flawed from the beginning, Dyson said.
“I just think they don’t understand the climate,” he said of climatologists. “Their computer models are full of fudge factors.”
A major fudge factor concerns the role of clouds. The greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide on its own is limited. To get to the apocalyptic projections trumpeted by Al Gore and company, the models have to include assumptions that CO-2 will cause clouds to form in a way that produces more warming.
“The models are extremely oversimplified,” he said. “They don't represent the clouds in detail at all. They simply use a fudge factor to represent the clouds.”
Dyson said his skepticism about those computer models was borne out by recent reports of a study by Ed Hawkins of the University of Reading in Great Britain that showed global temperatures were flat between 2000 and 2010 — even though we humans poured record amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere during that decade.".' Now Lovelock is walking back his rhetoric, admitting that he and other prominent global warming advocates were being alarmists. In a new interview with MSNBC he says: '"The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books — mine included — because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened," Lovelock said. "The climate is doing its usual tricks. There's nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now," he said. "The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising — carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that,"
Now please explain the error bars. 75% error - that's like saying 2 + 2 = 7.
---
"8th December 2010 13:24 GMT - A group of top NASA and NOAA scientists say that current climate models predicting global warming are far too gloomy, and have failed to properly account for an important cooling factor which will come into play as CO2 levels rise."
"New NASA model: Doubled CO2 means just 1.64C warming 'Important to get these things right', says scientist"
"A group of top NASA boffins says that current climate models predicting global warming are far too gloomy, and have failed to properly account for an important cooling factor which will come into play as CO2 levels rise.
According to Lahouari Bounoua of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, and other scientists from NASA and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), existing models fail to accurately include the effects of rising CO2 levels on green plants. As green plants breathe in CO2 in the process of photosynthesis – they also release oxygen, the only reason that there is any in the air for us to breathe – more carbon dioxide has important effects on them.
In particular, green plants can be expected to grow as they find it easier to harvest carbon from the air around them using energy from the sun: thus introducing a negative feedback into the...." etc
---
The IPCC has ignored biologists and astrophysicists for years. Why would that be? *cough* grant farming.
When you're finished explaining the 75% error, call Dyson and NASA and NOAA and CERN and tell them they're wrong. I'm sure they'd love to hear from you.
If you try to disprove something with premises that are asserted but not true, it's impossible to derive a true conclusion.
It's up to the CO2 crowd to prove what they assert is true.
Dyson, et al have pointed out the IPCC model fudged the cloud terms in their model.
CERN had it's cloud nucleation data gagged. Have you looked at this or are you one of those that only looks at one side?
You don't get to prove something true by making absurd claims, none of which have ever come true and having your only model fly off the rails with 75% error - look at the error bars.
"That doesn't even begin to cover how many scientists actually believe that the IPCC reports are too conservative in their predictions."
"many scientists". Please. Darwin. Copernicus.
"97%+ of geologists agreed the continents were stable. It was Settled Science. Hundreds of research papers supported it. Overwhelming consensus. And wrong. And, oddly (not really, if you think about it a moment), it was not a geologist but a meteorologist, Alfred Wegener, who ultimately showed all the mutually agreeing geologists they had it all wrong; the continents move." - Michael K. Oliver
Error bars. 75% error. For a 35 year old model to diverge like that from nature means it's basically - junk. You took applied math in school, right?
"When your hypothesis disagrees with nature, it's wrong" - Feyman.
And wrong. The link you gave does not disprove it, it simply points out they don't know. We knew that already. Others so though. They're called "botanists".
All plant life on earth is carbon limited. You are aware CAM plants can handle hundreds of times the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere now, right? Why do you suppose that is?
Suggest you talk to people that actually grow plants. There isn't one that doesn't respond positively to increased CO2; it's used in commercial production of both aquatic and terrestrial plants and a whole industry exists to supply those needs.
People don't buy them because they don't work. THey're not cheap either. Even the coral reef guys have to add CO2.
These jokers have been denying CO2's role or ages. In 2010 they "discovered" this (what any firsr year botany student already knew)
"Forests play a larger role in Earth's climate system than previously suspected for both the risks from deforestation and the potential gains from regrowth, a benchmark study released Thursday has shown.
The study, published in Science, provides the most accurate measure so far of the amount of greenhouse gases absorbed from the atmosphere by tropical, temperate and boreal forests, researchers said.
"This is the first complete and global evidence of the overwhelming role of forests in removing anthropogenic carbon dioxide," said co-author Josep Canadell, a scientist at CSIRO, Australia's national climate research centre in Canberra.
"If you were to stop deforestation tomorrow, the world's established and regrowing forests would remove half of fossil fuel emissions," he told AFP, describing the findings as both "incredible" and "unexpected".
Maybe it's something to do with NASA in 2009 figuring out is plants get bigger because of more CO2, they use more CO2. It only took biologists 20 years of nagging to get them to add this term.
"8th December 2010 13:24 GMT - A group of top NASA and NOAA scientists say that current climate models predicting global warming are far too gloomy, and have failed to properly account for an important cooling factor which will come into play as CO2 levels rise."
"New NASA model: Doubled CO2 means just 1.64C warming 'Important to get these things right', says scientist"
Actually what I meant to say is "Of course the military can't afford to be wrong. That's why they spend five trillion dollars in Iraq looking for WMD they could never find". Of course they knew they had them because they had the receipts from when they (covertly) sold them to them. (Ref: "_Why We Fight_")
The biggest threat of this century is crap like Fukushima, the BP oil spill, the Gulf dead zone. All that coral that was supposed to be dying from acidification and warming? Turns out it was all pollution - it only occurs near man - in the open ocean, they're fine and there are a bunch of papers on this.
Odd since no government of the world accepts the CO2 AGW hypothesis.
You don't suppose it's just a way to get defense funding do you? "LOOK! A THREAT! (sign here, quick)"
Nah. Our military leaders, lobbyists, think tanks and entire military industrial complex would never do a thing like that. We can trust them with our wallets^H^H^H^H^H^Hlives.
"pointing to a future stalked by floods, drought, conflict and economic damage if carbon emissions go untamed."
This has been asserted since 1985.
Meanwhile: Freeman Dyson speaks out about climate science, and fudge Climatologists Are No Einsteins, Says His Successor
"in the late 1970s, he got involved with early research on climate change at the Institute for Energy Analysis in Oak Ridge, Tenn."
"That research, which involved scientists from many disciplines, was based on experimentation. The scientists studied such questions as how atmospheric carbon dioxide interacts with plant life and the role of clouds in warming.
But that approach lost out to the computer-modeling approach favored by climate scientists. And that approach was flawed from the beginning, Dyson said.
“I just think they don’t understand the climate,” he said of climatologists. “Their computer models are full of fudge factors.”
A major fudge factor concerns the role of clouds. The greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide on its own is limited. To get to the apocalyptic projections trumpeted by Al Gore and company, the models have to include assumptions that CO-2 will cause clouds to form in a way that produces more warming.
“The models are extremely oversimplified,” he said. “They don’t represent the clouds in detail at all. They simply use a fudge factor to represent the clouds.”
Dyson said his skepticism about those computer models was borne out by recent reports of a study by Ed Hawkins of the University of Reading in Great Britain that showed global temperatures were flat between 2000 and 2010 — even though we humans poured record amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere during that decade.
"Atmospheric CO2 may actually be improving the environment.
“It’s certainly true that carbon dioxide is good for vegetation,” Dyson said. “About 15 percent of agricultural yields are due to CO2 we put in the atmosphere. From that point of view, it’s a real plus to burn coal and oil.”
In fact, there’s more solid evidence for the beneficial effects of CO2 than the negative effects, he said. So why does the public hear only one side of this debate? Because the media do an awful job of reporting it.
“They’re absolutely lousy,” he said of American journalists. “That’s true also in Europe. I don’t know why they’ve been brainwashed.”
I know why: They're lazy. Instead of digging into the details, most journalists are content to repeat that mantra about “consensus” among climate scientists.
The problem, said Dyson, is that the consensus is based on those computer models. Computers are great for analyzing what happened in the past, he said, but not so good at figuring out what will happen in the future. But a lot of scientists have built their careers on them. Hence the hatred for dissenters."
The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books — mine included — because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened," Lovelock said. "The climate is doing its usual tricks. There's nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now," he said. "The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising — carbon dioxide is rising, no question
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a proposed free trade agreement under negotiation between Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States and Vietnam. Leaked documents show the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) is pressuring TPP countries to expand pharmaceutical monopoly protections and trade away access to medicines. http://www.citizen.org/TPPA
The medical industry the third-leading cause of death in the United States; after heart disease and cancer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...
"Somewhere in Rayong or Chon Buri on the coast of Thailand, a young woman may at this very moment be baring her arm for a shot of an experimental Aids vaccine that many of the leading scientists in the field say categorically has no hope at all of working.
She will be one of 16,000 volunteers recruited for the second large-scale Aids vaccine trial, a $119m exercise many scientists believe is a farce." http://www.guardian.co.uk/scie...
Fraud has become so endemic in this country that it's woven its way into America’s DNA. 2). Big Pharma Fraud. http://www.alternet.org/story/...
Merck drew up a "hit list" of doctors that needed to be "neutralized" because they criticized the now banned drug Vioxx. http://science.slashdot.org/st...
Are you aware Lake Ontario froze two months early this year? I haz photos even. That's not because "winter".
Also, remember when the Greenland ice sheet melted last year and everyone freaked out?
"Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data."
In a warming world wouldn't this have happened even one day early?
And if it's cyclical why did the headline read: "Satellites See Unprecedented Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Melt"
How can it be "unprecedented" if it's cyclical? And on time?
Hansen doesn't work there any more. I'm sure thats just a coincidence. But this sort of self inconsistency has stopped showing up in NASA stuff now. Just another coincidence I'm sure.
How come NASA didn't have to advertise it's hypothesis about space travel 100 times a day for 30 years, too?
Are you aware all this talk of climate has attenuated talk of pollution? Which isn't exactly less of a problem: look at the gulf, the dead zone(s), Fukushima or the dead coral. Turns out that it's only the coral near man, opean cean coral, even warmer bits is fine.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's a picture of a plant growing in Greenland:
http://aquatic-plants.aquaria....
Not the warmest place. You might not be able to grow plants (other than algae, which would actually be enough done properly) but it's false to assume glaciation wipes out all plant life.
Why didn't the world fry when CO2 was 7000 ppm then?
Or do other factors come into play perhaps?
If there an upper limit to your experiment? That is, try it with 1%, 2%, 5% 10% co2 and plot to what degree this changes temperature.
Are you aware of the limits to that?
Are you aware plants eat co2 and get bigger and grow faster and can eat more co2?
Are you aware we've cut down half the trees in the last 100 years?
"Then in the late 1970s, Dyson got involved with early research on climate change at the Institute for Energy Analysis in Oak Ridge, Tenn.
That research, which involved scientists from many disciplines, was based on experimentation. The scientists studied such questions as how atmospheric carbon dioxide interacts with plant life and the role of clouds in warming.
But that approach lost out to the computer-modeling approach favored by climate scientists. And that approach was flawed from the beginning, Dyson said.
“I just think they don’t understand the climate,” he said of climatologists. “Their computer models are full of fudge factors.”
A major fudge factor concerns the role of clouds. The greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide on its own is limited. To get to the apocalyptic projections trumpeted by Al Gore and company, the models have to include assumptions that CO-2 will cause clouds to form in a way that produces more warming.
“The models are extremely oversimplified,” he said. “They don't represent the clouds in detail at all. They simply use a fudge factor to represent the clouds.”
Dyson said his skepticism about those computer models was borne out by recent reports of a study by Ed Hawkins of the University of Reading in Great Britain that showed global temperatures were flat between 2000 and 2010 — even though we humans poured record amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere during that decade." .' Now Lovelock is walking back his rhetoric, admitting that he and other prominent global warming advocates were being alarmists. In a new interview with MSNBC he says: '"The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books — mine included — because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened," Lovelock said. "The climate is doing its usual tricks. There's nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now," he said. "The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising — carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that,"
Now please explain the error bars. 75% error - that's like saying 2 + 2 = 7.
---
"8th December 2010 13:24 GMT - A group of top NASA and NOAA scientists say that current climate models predicting global warming are far too gloomy, and have failed to properly account for an important cooling factor which will come into play as CO2 levels rise."
"New NASA model: Doubled CO2 means just 1.64C warming
'Important to get these things right', says scientist"
"A group of top NASA boffins says that current climate models predicting global warming are far too gloomy, and have failed to properly account for an important cooling factor which will come into play as CO2 levels rise.
According to Lahouari Bounoua of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, and other scientists from NASA and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), existing models fail to accurately include the effects of rising CO2 levels on green plants. As green plants breathe in CO2 in the process of photosynthesis – they also release oxygen, the only reason that there is any in the air for us to breathe – more carbon dioxide has important effects on them.
In particular, green plants can be expected to grow as they find it easier to harvest carbon from the air around them using energy from the sun: thus introducing a negative feedback into the ...." etc
---
The IPCC has ignored biologists and astrophysicists for years. Why would that be? *cough* grant farming.
When you're finished explaining the 75% error, call Dyson and NASA and NOAA and CERN and tell them they're wrong. I'm sure they'd love to hear from you.
Please explain the 75% error in the error bars.
I'm sorry, but the emperor has no clothes. You're the one looking at only one side of the evidence.
How do you explain the fact all life didn't die off during "snowball earth" ?
You're not gonna grow lettuce there, but you shouldn't be trying to grow it in a desert either.
If you try to disprove something with premises that are asserted but not true, it's impossible to derive a true conclusion.
It's up to the CO2 crowd to prove what they assert is true.
Dyson, et al have pointed out the IPCC model fudged the cloud terms in their model.
CERN had it's cloud nucleation data gagged. Have you looked at this or are you one of those that only looks at one side?
You don't get to prove something true by making absurd claims, none of which have ever come true and having your only model fly off the rails with 75% error - look at the error bars.
"That doesn't even begin to cover how many scientists actually believe that the IPCC reports are too conservative in their predictions."
"many scientists". Please. Darwin. Copernicus.
"97%+ of geologists agreed the continents were stable. It was Settled Science. Hundreds of research papers supported it. Overwhelming consensus. And wrong. And, oddly (not really, if you think about it a moment), it was not a geologist but a meteorologist, Alfred Wegener, who ultimately showed all the mutually agreeing geologists they had it all wrong; the continents move." - Michael K. Oliver
Error bars. 75% error. For a 35 year old model to diverge like that from nature means it's basically - junk. You took applied math in school, right?
"When your hypothesis disagrees with nature, it's wrong" - Feyman.
You can't disprove a negative. First it has to be proved true, and it never has been. Check for yourself.
First person to say "97%" gets to go take a course in formal logic.
Cause... there's no better place to grow lettuce than in a sandy arid desert. Because: cheap Mexican labour.
And wrong. The link you gave does not disprove it, it simply points out they don't know. We knew that already. Others so though. They're called "botanists".
All plant life on earth is carbon limited. You are aware CAM plants can handle hundreds of times the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere now, right? Why do you suppose that is?
Suggest you talk to people that actually grow plants. There isn't one that doesn't respond positively to increased CO2; it's used in commercial production of both aquatic and terrestrial plants and a whole industry exists to supply those needs.
People don't buy them because they don't work. THey're not cheap either. Even the coral reef guys have to add CO2.
These jokers have been denying CO2's role or ages. In 2010 they "discovered" this (what any firsr year botany student already knew)
"Forests play a larger role in Earth's climate system than previously suspected for both the risks from deforestation and the potential gains from regrowth, a benchmark study released Thursday has shown.
The study, published in Science, provides the most accurate measure so far of the amount of greenhouse gases absorbed from the atmosphere by tropical, temperate and boreal forests, researchers said.
"This is the first complete and global evidence of the overwhelming role of forests in removing anthropogenic carbon dioxide," said co-author Josep Canadell, a scientist at CSIRO, Australia's national climate research centre in Canberra.
"If you were to stop deforestation tomorrow, the world's established and regrowing forests would remove half of fossil fuel emissions," he told AFP, describing the findings as both "incredible" and "unexpected".
http://www.google.com/hostedne...
Cough. Choke. "unexpected". Please...
Maybe it's something to do with NASA in 2009 figuring out is plants get bigger because of more CO2, they use more CO2. It only took biologists 20 years of nagging to get them to add this term.
"8th December 2010 13:24 GMT - A group of top NASA and NOAA scientists say that current climate models predicting global warming are far too gloomy, and have failed to properly account for an important cooling factor which will come into play as CO2 levels rise."
"New NASA model: Doubled CO2 means just 1.64C warming
'Important to get these things right', says scientist"
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...
Then there's this paper that shows without more CO2 we won't be able to grow enough food for a more populous world:
http://www.liebertpub.com/MCon...
You really haven't read this stuff?
Whay do you feel qualified to discuss something you know so little about?
Actually what I meant to say is "Of course the military can't afford to be wrong. That's why they spend five trillion dollars in Iraq looking for WMD they could never find". Of course they knew they had them because they had the receipts from when they (covertly) sold them to them. (Ref: "_Why We Fight_")
The biggest threat of this century is crap like Fukushima, the BP oil spill, the Gulf dead zone. All that coral that was supposed to be dying from acidification and warming? Turns out it was all pollution - it only occurs near man - in the open ocean, they're fine and there are a bunch of papers on this.
One could argue AGW noise obfuscates public discourse of pollution:
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
As for the crap about growing food, you are aware all plant life on earth is carbon limited, right?
Here's a paper that shows unless CO2 goes up we won't be able to feed an increased population:
http://www.liebertpub.com/MCon...
Dyson eludes to this, but here's some real numbers.
" Some people can't afford to ignore the facts."
Odd since no government of the world accepts the CO2 AGW hypothesis.
You don't suppose it's just a way to get defense funding do you? "LOOK! A THREAT! (sign here, quick)"
Nah. Our military leaders, lobbyists, think tanks and entire military industrial complex would never do a thing like that. We can trust them with our wallets^H^H^H^H^H^Hlives.
"pointing to a future stalked by floods, drought, conflict and economic damage if carbon emissions go untamed."
This has been asserted since 1985.
Meanwhile:
Freeman Dyson speaks out about climate science, and fudge
Climatologists Are No Einsteins, Says His Successor
"in the late 1970s, he got involved with early research on climate change at the Institute for Energy Analysis in Oak Ridge, Tenn."
"That research, which involved scientists from many disciplines, was based on experimentation. The scientists studied such questions as how atmospheric carbon dioxide interacts with plant life and the role of clouds in warming.
But that approach lost out to the computer-modeling approach favored by climate scientists. And that approach was flawed from the beginning, Dyson said.
“I just think they don’t understand the climate,” he said of climatologists. “Their computer models are full of fudge factors.”
A major fudge factor concerns the role of clouds. The greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide on its own is limited. To get to the apocalyptic projections trumpeted by Al Gore and company, the models have to include assumptions that CO-2 will cause clouds to form in a way that produces more warming.
“The models are extremely oversimplified,” he said. “They don’t represent the clouds in detail at all. They simply use a fudge factor to represent the clouds.”
Dyson said his skepticism about those computer models was borne out by recent reports of a study by Ed Hawkins of the University of Reading in Great Britain that showed global temperatures were flat between 2000 and 2010 — even though we humans poured record amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere during that decade.
http://www.economist.com/news/...
"Atmospheric CO2 may actually be improving the environment.
“It’s certainly true that carbon dioxide is good for vegetation,” Dyson said. “About 15 percent of agricultural yields are due to CO2 we put in the atmosphere. From that point of view, it’s a real plus to burn coal and oil.”
In fact, there’s more solid evidence for the beneficial effects of CO2 than the negative effects, he said. So why does the public hear only one side of this debate? Because the media do an awful job of reporting it.
“They’re absolutely lousy,” he said of American journalists. “That’s true also in Europe. I don’t know why they’ve been brainwashed.”
I know why: They're lazy. Instead of digging into the details, most journalists are content to repeat that mantra about “consensus” among climate scientists.
The problem, said Dyson, is that the consensus is based on those computer models. Computers are great for analyzing what happened in the past, he said, but not so good at figuring out what will happen in the future. But a lot of scientists have built their careers on them. Hence the hatred for dissenters."
Lovelock: who predicted disaster -
http://www.independent.co.uk/o...
Now says:
The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books — mine included — because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened," Lovelock said. "The climate is doing its usual tricks. There's nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now," he said. "The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising — carbon dioxide is rising, no question
They already have equal time - and place - it's called "church".
How about we amend the history curriculum to explain the well understood history of when, where, how and why the Abrahamic religions were made up?
https://archive.org/details/Wh...
http://www.amazon.com/Who-Wrot...
Revealed: secret plan to push'happy' pills
http://www.theguardian.com/soc...
Big Pharma Could Win International Price Monopoly, Unlimited Profits in 'Free Trade' Deal
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
US patent moves are 'profoundly bad' in leaked TPP treaty
http://www.theverge.com/2013/1...
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a proposed free trade agreement under negotiation between Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States and Vietnam. Leaked documents show the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) is pressuring TPP countries to expand pharmaceutical monopoly protections and trade away access to medicines.
http://www.citizen.org/TPPA
The medical industry the third-leading cause of death in the United States; after heart disease and cancer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...
Big Pharma Shamelessly Shills Dangerous Bone Drugs You Don't Need
http://www.alternet.org/story/...
The H1N1 Swine Flu Pandemic: Manipulating the Data to Justify a Worldwide Public Health Emergency
http://www.globalresearch.ca/t...
"Somewhere in Rayong or Chon Buri on the coast of Thailand, a young woman may at this very moment be baring her arm for a shot of an experimental Aids vaccine that many of the leading scientists in the field say categorically has no hope at all of working.
She will be one of 16,000 volunteers recruited for the second large-scale Aids vaccine trial, a $119m exercise many scientists believe is a farce."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/scie...
Fraud has become so endemic in this country that it's woven its way into America’s DNA. 2). Big Pharma Fraud.
http://www.alternet.org/story/...
Drug Makers New Targets for U.S. Fraud Inquiries, Report Says
http://prescriptions.blogs.nyt...
Merck drew up a "hit list" of doctors that needed to be "neutralized" because they criticized the now banned drug Vioxx.
http://science.slashdot.org/st...
Merck invents its own journal to publish bogus research findings to promote it's own products.
http://blog.bioethics.net/2009...
Why Aren't These Fraudulent Papers Retracted?
http://truth-out.org/news/item...
Doubts about Johns Hopkins research have gone unanswered, scientist says
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
A National Survey of Physician–Industry Relationships
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/1...
"Give me one other part of history where everybody shows up to the same social space."
Ok, late 80s, to mid 90s: usenet.
"Fragmentation is a more natural state of being."
Bears are natural. Also, botulotoxin and cyanide. Just because it's natural doesn't mean it's beneficial to you or good for you.
Look at http://free.tibet/
Yes.
But the problem is there is no uterus on earth big enough to gestate a mammoth.
It will have to wait until an artificial uterus can be developed. I'm led to believe it's not that far off, but that's the sticking point right now.
Check *recent* data.
Are you aware Lake Ontario froze two months early this year? I haz photos even. That's not because "winter".
Also, remember when the Greenland ice sheet melted last year and everyone freaked out?
"Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data."
In a warming world wouldn't this have happened even one day early?
And if it's cyclical why did the headline read: "Satellites See Unprecedented Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Melt"
How can it be "unprecedented" if it's cyclical? And on time?
No, no alarmism there. That's not "spin" at all.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/ear...
Hansen doesn't work there any more. I'm sure thats just a coincidence. But this sort of self inconsistency has stopped showing up in NASA stuff now. Just another coincidence I'm sure.
I call bullshit on the 99.99% number.
Here's "1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm"
http://www.populartechnology.n...
Can you show me 1,350,000 papers in support of agw?
Who pays for all those news reports?
How come NASA didn't have to advertise it's hypothesis about space travel 100 times a day for 30 years, too?
Are you aware all this talk of climate has attenuated talk of pollution? Which isn't exactly less of a problem: look at the gulf, the dead zone(s), Fukushima or the dead coral. Turns out that it's only the coral near man, opean cean coral, even warmer bits is fine.
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
Ok, here's a trend: look a the line through the curve. Please show me the warming "trend". If you see one your monitor is upside down.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate...
http://www.nature.com/nclimate...
" temperatures are higher than we've seen in hundreds of years"
False.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate...
"Our models can been getting better and more accurate"
75% error between the 2007 IPCC prediction and 2012 IPCC results doesn't really man we're more accurate.
It means a chimp tossing a coin could have got better results.
Have you actually looked at the data? How bout them error bars, hmm?