More Proof GWing Alarmists are Running Out of Time

[Amazon 7]

Then lets not have another thread drift....lets see what the TRUTH really is.. not the inconvenient reality that the right wing longs for yet tries to tell us it will never happen.

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2871033#2871033

[pirana 0]

Just for fun. I think I got this from the piratesarecool site.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[billvon 2,435]

Love the axes!

[speedy 0]

Some else who thinks the alarmists are running out of time. http://ncwatch.typepad.com/media/files/D-Evans2007.pdf

Interesting parts:

Quote

The AGO had a staff of maybe 100, and a budget of about $150 million per year.
There were quite a few contractors, and we were well paid— my salary was well into
six figures. These were good, interesting, well paid science jobs, which are rare in Australia.
These jobs would not exist if we didn’t blame carbon emissions for global warming—I was on the gravy train!

Of course $150 million is peanuts compared to what exxon has.

Quote

You would think that in over 20 years of intense
investigation, after spending $50 billion of government money on climate change, we
would have found something! The only current reasons for blaming carbon emissions
are the predictions of climate models—which extrapolate a greenhouse effect from the
laboratory into the atmosphere.

Quote

If this topic was just in the realm of science, blaming carbon would merely be another falsified hypothesis with no supporting evidence and attracting only minor interest from scientists.

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[billvon 2,435]

>You would think that in over 20 years of intense investigation, after
>spending $50 billion of government money on climate change, we
>would have found something!

We did. Just as we spent $135 billion and got to the moon via the Apollo program. Now, there are people out there who are convinced that that was all a big hoax, just as there are people who are convinced that global warming is all a big hoax.

But the thing the deniers can't get away from is that in 1995 the IPCC predicted temperatures would increase at a rate of between .1 and .35C a decade. They deniers said, of course, that they were wrong. In fact, temperatures did increase by about .14C a decade. So we have a hypothesis and a proven experimental result.

That won't convince the deniers, of course, just as no amount of moon rock samples, actual hardware returned from the moon, pictures etc will convince them that man actually landed on the moon. Fortunately for the rest of us, the science continues apace, and we're learning more and more about our effects on the climate all the time.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

We did. Just as we spent $135 billion and got to the moon via the Apollo program. Now, there are people out there who are convinced that that was all a big hoax, just as there are people who are convinced that global warming is all a big hoax.

ROTFLMAO Another classic comparison.

There are a number of (otherwise) well-respected climate experts who challenge AGW and the dire predictions associated with it.

Do any of the vocal Lunar Landing skeptics have relavent training that might give their claims credibility? Or are they mostly paranoid crackpots, who no one gives much notice?

[billvon 2,435]

>There are a number of (otherwise) well-respected climate experts who challenge AGW . . .

There are a number of (otherwise) well-respected aviation experts who challenge the NTSB report on flight 800, and think it might have been a US Navy missile.

There are a number of (otherwise) well-respected aerospace experts who think the moon landing was faked.

There are a number of (otherwise) well-respected demolition and civil engineering experts who challenge the theory that terrorists caused 9/11 by crashing airplanes into buildings.

>Do any of the vocal Lunar Landing skeptics have relavent training that
>might give their claims credibility?

Bart Sibrel is an award-winning filmmaker who is certain he sees evidence of image tampering in the video and film records of the Apollo missions.

Bill Kaysing was an engineer at Rocketdyne; they build the Saturn V F1 engines that powered the Saturn V's first stage. He is certain the moon landing was faked based on his knowledge of the engines used.

R. Rene is a structural and mechanical engineer, authored two patents and is a member of Mensa. He runs a website listing all the reasons the moon landing is a hoax.

BTW here's the official statement on one of the popular denier sites:

--------
Despite several science based web sites intent on countering the "conspiracy theorists" it is still possible to find what seem to be significant unanswered questions on the web. A reasonable person may conclude that 1. There are too few scientists willing to answer questions from the public about this historic experience, 2. It is disappointing and curious that NASA does not have an official open question and answer forum as a means of teaching science and generating interest in the US space program, 3. Some unanswered questions cast reasonable doubt on the official story.
---------

Sounds familiar, no?

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

There are a number of (otherwise) well-respected aerospace experts who think the moon landing was faked.

Sure thing. List three aerospace engineers who say the moon landings were faked.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

There are a number of (otherwise) well-respected demolition and civil engineering experts who challenge the theory that terrorists caused 9/11 by crashing airplanes into buildings.

Like who? Do any of them (I'm talking about respected demolition experts and structural engineers) support the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers?

[billvon 2,435]

> List three aerospace engineers who say the moon landings were faked.

Bill Kaysing, engineer for Rocketdyne; worked on Saturn V engines.

Ralph Rene, structural engineer.

Clark Mac Donald, aerospace engineer for McDonnell-Douglas.

Anything else I can do for you?

[billvon 2,435]

>Like who? Do any of them (I'm talking about respected demolition experts
>and structural engineers) support the controlled demolition of the Twin
>Towers?

http://physics911.net/

http://ae911truth.org/

The second link contains a list of architects and engineers "for truth" who disagree with the "consensus" that 9/11 was caused by terrorists hijacking airplanes. It lists 123 architects and engineers who agree with the conspiracy theory. Knock yourself out!

[Remster 24]

But Bill, those guys cant be Real Engineers (TM)...

Remster

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

> List three aerospace engineers who say the moon landings were faked.

Bill Kaysing, engineer for Rocketdyne; worked on Saturn V engines.

Ralph Rene, structural engineer.

Clark Mac Donald, aerospace engineer for McDonnell-Douglas.

Anything else I can do for you?

Clark Mac Donald is the only engineer in the bunch. Has he claimed the lunar landings were faked?

[billvon 2,435]

>Clark Mac Donald is the only engineer in the bunch.

They call claim to be engineers! I'm going to sic RushMC on you. "Why are you attacking the source? Typical of your kind of desparation! If you have no arguement, I guess thats all thats left to you. Sad."

>Has he claimed the lunar landings were faked?

Scott Grissom claimed that NASA covered up the cause of the Apollo 1 fire because it indicated a lack of progress, a lack of progress which indicated they could never have made it to the moon by 1969. MacDonald (according to Grissom) provided the proof of this. Quote attributed to MacDonald -

"I have agonized for 31 years about revealing the truth but I didn't want to hurt NASA's image or cause trouble. But I can't let one more day go by without the truth being known."

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

>Like who? Do any of them (I'm talking about respected demolition experts
>and structural engineers) support the controlled demolition of the Twin
>Towers?

http://physics911.net/

http://ae911truth.org/

The second link contains a list of architects and engineers "for truth" who disagree with the "consensus" that 9/11 was caused by terrorists hijacking airplanes. It lists 123 architects and engineers who agree with the conspiracy theory. Knock yourself out!

How about that... I went to that site and the link you recommended... and found a grand total of three structural engineers. Decided to research the first one listed, Dr. Michael Voschine. It seems like a numbers of others have done the same, with no success in finding who he is. It's as if someone just made him up.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

>Clark Mac Donald is the only engineer in the bunch.

They call claim to be engineers! I'm going to sic RushMC on you. "Why are you attacking the source? Typical of your kind of desparation! If you have no arguement, I guess thats all thats left to you. Sad."

Sorry you seem to have problem truth.

Quote

>Has he claimed the lunar landings were faked?

Scott Grissom claimed that NASA covered up the cause of the Apollo 1 fire because it indicated a lack of progress, a lack of progress which indicated they could never have made it to the moon by 1969. MacDonald (according to Grissom) provided the proof of this. Quote attributed to MacDonald -

"I have agonized for 31 years about revealing the truth but I didn't want to hurt NASA's image or cause trouble. But I can't let one more day go by without the truth being known."

In other words - NO!

[juanesky 0]

He also claims his father was murdered by Nasa.

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[billvon 2,435]

> I went to that site and the link you recommended... and found a grand
>total of three structural engineers.

Yep. You find similar things when you go to most "scientists who oppose global warming" sites. I recall one such petition that was signed by people like Michael J. Foxx and the Spice Girls.

>It's as if someone just made him up.

Indeed! It's almost as if they have a political point to make and need to fabricate some "experts" to give their point some weight. A good reason to stick to the science of the issue and avoid political websites, eh?

>Sorry you seem to have problem truth.

Problem not, all truth good OK thank you come again.

>In other words - NO!

Correct!

Now take a closer look at some of the denier articles that RushMC has posted. You will notice that many do NOT claim that the temperature is not rising, or that anthropogenic CO2 does not have a significant effect. This same scenario has been played out dozens of times.

"Look what this top expert says - it says that global warming is all a bunch of hooey!"

"He's not a climatologist, he's an economics major."

"Why are you attacking the source? OK, check out THIS guy. He's a climatologist at MIT!"

"He's not saying that the climate isn't changing; he's saying the changes will be good. In other words, he is not supporting your thesis."

"Too bad you can't HANDLE the truth!"

Etc etc. Same approach, different subject. Which is what my original point was.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

> I went to that site and the link you recommended... and found a grand
>total of three structural engineers.

Yep. You find similar things when you go to most "scientists who oppose global warming" sites. I recall one such petition that was signed by people like Michael J. Foxx and the Spice Girls.

>It's as if someone just made him up.

Indeed! It's almost as if they have a political point to make and need to fabricate some "experts" to give their point some weight. A good reason to stick to the science of the issue and avoid political websites, eh?

>Sorry you seem to have problem truth.

Problem not, all truth good OK thank you come again.

>In other words - NO!

Correct!

Now take a closer look at some of the denier articles that RushMC has posted. You will notice that many do NOT claim that the temperature is not rising, or that anthropogenic CO2 does not have a significant effect. This same scenario has been played out dozens of times.

"Look what this top expert says - it says that global warming is all a bunch of hooey!"

"He's not a climatologist, he's an economics major."

"Why are you attacking the source? OK, check out THIS guy. He's a climatologist at MIT!"

"He's not saying that the climate isn't changing; he's saying the changes will be good. In other words, he is not supporting your thesis."

"Too bad you can't HANDLE the truth!"

Etc etc. Same approach, different subject. Which is what my original point was.

Nice try, Bill.

All of it.

Really.

Good job.

Putting the onus on the other side to deflect attention from your shoddy claims.

A tried and true tactic.

Infortunately,

That dog don't hunt.

[billvon 2,435]

>Nice try, Bill.

Why, thank you! (Yes, I did get the sarcasm.)

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

>Nice try, Bill.

Why, thank you! (Yes, I did get the sarcasm.)

Subtle as it was...

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>You would think that in over 20 years of intense investigation, after
>spending $50 billion of government money on climate change, we
>would have found something!

We did. Just as we spent $135 billion and got to the moon via the Apollo program. Now, there are people out there who are convinced that that was all a big hoax, just as there are people who are convinced that global warming is all a big hoax.

But the thing the deniers can't get away from is that in 1995 the IPCC predicted temperatures would increase at a rate of between .1 and .35C a decade. They deniers said, of course, that they were wrong. In fact, temperatures did increase by about .14C a decade. So we have a hypothesis and a proven experimental result.

That won't convince the deniers, of course, just as no amount of moon rock samples, actual hardware returned from the moon, pictures etc will convince them that man actually landed on the moon. Fortunately for the rest of us, the science continues apace, and we're learning more and more about our effects on the climate all the time.

billvon, do you remember a question I posed to you a while back? One related to the collecting to the temps and and an MSA (measurement system analysis) on that system? Have you heard about the two meteorologists that started to take a look at the system in the US?

If not, maybe you should........

I think the temps you list may be in question.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

I can only say that this is the impression I got when reading realclimate.org. Are they not scientists?

They admit that they really are a bit in the dark when trying guess what affect the current warming will have on things such as rainfall , storms and such.

With each IPCC report, the amount of warming due is reduced. It seems obvious to me eventually the alarmist nature of press will in the end have to adhere to what the people at RC are saying.

If one really takes a look at the "IPCC" one can see this is not a group I would hang my debate hat on

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,435]

>billvon, do you remember a question I posed to you a while back?
>One related to the collecting to the temps and and an MSA (measurement
>system analysis) on that system?

Is it the one related to the issues posed by this website?

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/

If so, then I have answered your question when you first posed it. A quick review of the appropriate thread will save me some typing.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>billvon, do you remember a question I posed to you a while back?
>One related to the collecting to the temps and and an MSA (measurement
>system analysis) on that system?

Is it the one related to the issues posed by this website?

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/

If so, then I have answered your question when you first posed it. A quick review of the appropriate thread will save me some typing.

Well done thanks. I know this does not meet the expectation of project MSA but it does provide limited insite

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln