Probably from breitbart.com -----Original Message----- From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:larrycly...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 1:36 PM To: cf-community Subject: Re: FW: Belief in biblical end-times stifling climate change action in U.S.: study
where do you get your numbers Rob? The lists I've seen on deniers websites had very few actual scientists. mostly non phd researchers, or engineers. And interestingly enough a number of scientists who apparently did not agree to have their names associated with the petition. Glad you brought up the East Anglia emails. Very interesting those. Too bad there was nothing there. Investigations by the department, the University, two separate investigations by the Royal Society, and three separate and independent parliamentary investigations (that had the force of the law behind them requiring witnesses to testify under oath) all showed that there was nothing there, no fraud, no hoax nothing. Funny that the reich wing never reported on that. As for the oil spill in the gulf, the vast majority of the oil is still underwater in the gulf http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-17/scientists-say-79-of-spilled-oil-ma y-remain-challenging-administration.html And last but not least, (and sam will have a fit over this) there has been almost 14,000 studies since 1991 that have looked at climate change. Only 24 clearly rejected global warming or endorsed a cause other than CO2 emissions for observed warming. I calculated the file drawer number ( see http://www.ma.utexas.edu/users/mks/statmistakes/filedrawer.html - but it refers to the number of studies with negative or null effect sizes needed to bring down the mean effect size to 0 or statistical non significance). In a nutshell you would need over 200,000 with null or negative effects. Ergo despite of what the deniers state human caused global climate change is occurring. On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 1:37 PM, RobG <sled...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 3 May 2013 12:56, Jerry Barnes <critic...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > "Belief in biblical end-times stifling climate change action" > > > > That sounds about right. > > > > It has nothing to do with climategate, the coldest spring on record, > > the extended sun cycle that is ending, the dissenting scientists who > > are finally turning against the current, the outright lies by > > organizations like the UN, the stifling regulations associated > > implementing "change", > the > > hypocrisy of the leaders of the cult of man-made global warming > > climate change, and so on. > > > > J > > > > That would be because they would rather try to blame "religion" > (specifically, Christianity) so they can accuse those of us who KNOW > that man-made global warming doesn't exist, with being stupid or > ignorant or whatever fits their agenda at the moment. > > The whole notion of there being a "consensus" is utter BS. In science, > there is no consensus. There is only fact. > > The emails from East Anglia a few years ago have gone a long way to > proving that it's a hoax, among other things. It's all aimed at > getting people to allow more and more government control and taxation. > And any attempts to argue this with the believers turns into a > hate-filled argument as they call you every name in the book. > > > > On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Vivec <gel21...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > The "dissenting" scientists are in a distinct minority. > > > > But you can choose to believe them instead of the majority of > > science if you like. > > > > I suppose there are people that believe we never landed on the moon, > > and point to the one or two "scientists" who support their point of view. > > > > There is no question that man is contributing enormously to the > > warming > of > > the climate. > > > > > > > > The "dissenting" scientists aren't in a minority. They are in fact > the majority... just not as many have yet spoken up as loudly as the > ones who want to jump on the bandwagon. > > There is EVERY reason to doubt that we are "contributing enormously." > It's utter BS. Here's a perfect example. A volcanic eruption. A > typical volcanic eruption releases more CO2 into the atmosphere at one > time than the entire plan does in a YEAR. And what happens? Sure, > there's some ash fall, and there may be some COOLING due to the ash in > the atmosphere, over the local area. If it's a huge eruption, it might affect some other areas. > But in not a lot of time, the planet has absorbed it and "cleaned up > after itself." > > How about the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Where's all the oil? > Yeah some washed ashore, but most of it is just plain GONE. You don't > see that in the media, of course, because it goes against the CONSENSUS. > > > http://abcnews.go.com/WN/bp-oil-spill-crude-mother-nature-breaks-slick > /story?id=11254252#.UYP1ZZXy_lI > > > http://www.examiner.com/article/bp-gulf-oil-spill-update-the-leaked-oi > l-pulls-disappearing-act-where-has-all-the-oil-gone > > Not that you'll read those links; you guys all believe (like a cult) > that you're right and so you will dismiss evidence as blasphemy. > > Rob > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:363267 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
