|
OT Bush still doesn't believe Scientists!
THE ROOF, THE ROOF, THE ROOF IS ON FIRE...: Last week, "science
academies from 11 of the world's leading industrial and developing nations...issued a warning that nations must tackle climate change." When it comes to climate change, the broad consensus is that the debate is over. As such, several senators are "hatching plans to offer climate-change initiatives as amendments to the [energy] bill." Environmental activists are "heartened by this flutter of activity." According to the Natural Resources Defence Council, "This does represent a shift in debate in the Senate where we have reached very broad agreement, despite a few holdouts, that this is a scientific reality that needs to be addressed by government." ....WE DON'T NEED NO WATER: The Bush administration still maintains that "more study is needed before the United States takes further action on climate change." Considering the doctored reports they're reading, this is almost a logical assumption. Unsurprisingly, as senators "try to insert language to rein in emissions believed to be contributing to global climate change...the administration made clear it would oppose any such move." |
wrote in message ups.com... THE ROOF, THE ROOF, THE ROOF IS ON FIRE...: Last week, "science academies from 11 of the world's leading industrial and developing nations...issued a warning that nations must tackle climate change." When it comes to climate change, the broad consensus is that the debate is over. As such, several senators are "hatching plans to offer climate-change initiatives as amendments to the [energy] bill." Environmental activists are "heartened by this flutter of activity." According to the Natural Resources Defence Council, "This does represent a shift in debate in the Senate where we have reached very broad agreement, despite a few holdouts, that this is a scientific reality that needs to be addressed by government." ...WE DON'T NEED NO WATER: The Bush administration still maintains that "more study is needed before the United States takes further action on climate change." Considering the doctored reports they're reading, this is almost a logical assumption. Unsurprisingly, as senators "try to insert language to rein in emissions believed to be contributing to global climate change...the administration made clear it would oppose any such move." ========================== From http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Scienceletter.htm "On December 3rd, only days before the start of the 10th Conference of Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP-10), Science Magazine published the results of a study by Naomi Oreskes (1): For the first time, empirical evidence was presented that appeared to show an unanimous, scientific consensus on the anthropogenic causes of recent global warming. Oreskes claims to have analysed 928 abstracts she found listed on the ISI database using the keywords "climate change". However, a search on the ISI database using the keywords "climate change" for the years 1993 - 2003 reveals that almost 12,000 papers were published during the decade in question (2). What happened to the countless research papers that show that global temperatures were similar or even higher during the Holocene Climate Optimum and the Medieval Warm Period when atmospheric CO2 levels were much lower than today; that solar variability is a key driver of recent climate change, and that climate modeling is highly uncertain? These objections were put to Oreskes by science writer David Appell. On 15 December 2004, she admitted that there was indeed a serious mistake in her Science essay. According to Oreskes, her study was not based on the keywords "climate change," but on "global climate change" (3). Her use of three keywords instead of two reduced the list of peer reviewed publications by one order of magnitude (on the UK's ISI databank the keyword search "global climate change" comes up with 1247 documents). Since the results looked questionable, I decided to replicate the Oreskes study. I analysed all abstracts listed on the ISI databank for 1993 to 2003 using the same keywords ("global climate change") as the Oreskes study. Of the 1247 documents listed, only 1117 included abstracts (130 listed only titles, author(s)' details and keywords). The 1117 abstracts analysed were divided into the same six categories used by Oreskes (#1-6), plus two categories which I added (# 7, 8): !--[if !supportEmptyParas]-- !--[endif]-- 1. explicit endorsement of the consensus position 2. evaluation of impacts 3. mitigation proposals 4. methods 5. paleoclimate analysis 6. rejection of the consensus position. 7. natural factors of global climate change 8. unrelated to the question of recent global climate change The results of my analysis contradict Oreskes' findings and essentially falsify her study" ============================ I don't blame the Bush administration for wanting to wait for more evidence one way or the other before any action is taken. |
*JimH* wrote: I don't blame the Bush administration for wanting to wait for more evidence one way or the other before any action is taken. Of course, YOU wouldn't! |
wrote in message ps.com... *JimH* wrote: I don't blame the Bush administration for wanting to wait for more evidence one way or the other before any action is taken. Of course, YOU wouldn't! Of course. |
wrote in message THE ROOF, THE ROOF, THE ROOF IS ON FIRE...: Pretty risky, bassy, don't you think...... gong off on your own like this? Shouldn't you wait to read what Mark Morford writes? |
On 17 Jun 2005 05:34:42 -0700, wrote:
Neither do I. :) Later, Tom |
John Gaquin wrote: wrote in message THE ROOF, THE ROOF, THE ROOF IS ON FIRE...: Pretty risky, bassy, don't you think...... gong off on your own like this? Shouldn't you wait to read what Mark Morford writes? Pretty risky, John, don't you think.......trying to spell GOING on your own? |
*JimH* wrote: wrote in message ps.com... *JimH* wrote: I don't blame the Bush administration for wanting to wait for more evidence one way or the other before any action is taken. Of course, YOU wouldn't! Of course. Only a goose stepper would think that the dumbest president ever knows more than most of the world's scientists about global warming!! Simple question: If Bush didn't believe the data in presented to him, why did he knowing allow one of his henchmen, who is not a scientist or climatologist, alter data???? |
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 09:50:00 -0400, "*JimH*" wrote:
wrote in message oups.com... THE ROOF, THE ROOF, THE ROOF IS ON FIRE...: Last week, "science academies from 11 of the world's leading industrial and developing nations...issued a warning that nations must tackle climate change." When it comes to climate change, the broad consensus is that the debate is over. As such, several senators are "hatching plans to offer climate-change initiatives as amendments to the [energy] bill." Environmental activists are "heartened by this flutter of activity." According to the Natural Resources Defence Council, "This does represent a shift in debate in the Senate where we have reached very broad agreement, despite a few holdouts, that this is a scientific reality that needs to be addressed by government." ...WE DON'T NEED NO WATER: The Bush administration still maintains that "more study is needed before the United States takes further action on climate change." Considering the doctored reports they're reading, this is almost a logical assumption. Unsurprisingly, as senators "try to insert language to rein in emissions believed to be contributing to global climate change...the administration made clear it would oppose any such move." ========================== From http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Scienceletter.htm "On December 3rd, only days before the start of the 10th Conference of Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP-10), Science Magazine published the results of a study by Naomi Oreskes (1): For the first time, empirical evidence was presented that appeared to show an unanimous, scientific consensus on the anthropogenic causes of recent global warming. Oreskes claims to have analysed 928 abstracts she found listed on the ISI database using the keywords "climate change". However, a search on the ISI database using the keywords "climate change" for the years 1993 - 2003 reveals that almost 12,000 papers were published during the decade in question (2). What happened to the countless research papers that show that global temperatures were similar or even higher during the Holocene Climate Optimum and the Medieval Warm Period when atmospheric CO2 levels were much lower than today; that solar variability is a key driver of recent climate change, and that climate modeling is highly uncertain? These objections were put to Oreskes by science writer David Appell. On 15 December 2004, she admitted that there was indeed a serious mistake in her Science essay. According to Oreskes, her study was not based on the keywords "climate change," but on "global climate change" (3). Her use of three keywords instead of two reduced the list of peer reviewed publications by one order of magnitude (on the UK's ISI databank the keyword search "global climate change" comes up with 1247 documents). Since the results looked questionable, I decided to replicate the Oreskes study. I analysed all abstracts listed on the ISI databank for 1993 to 2003 using the same keywords ("global climate change") as the Oreskes study. Of the 1247 documents listed, only 1117 included abstracts (130 listed only titles, author(s)' details and keywords). The 1117 abstracts analysed were divided into the same six categories used by Oreskes (#1-6), plus two categories which I added (# 7, 8): !--[if !supportEmptyParas]-- !--[endif]-- 1. explicit endorsement of the consensus position 2. evaluation of impacts 3. mitigation proposals 4. methods 5. paleoclimate analysis 6. rejection of the consensus position. 7. natural factors of global climate change 8. unrelated to the question of recent global climate change The results of my analysis contradict Oreskes' findings and essentially falsify her study" ============================ I don't blame the Bush administration for wanting to wait for more evidence one way or the other before any action is taken. Thanks. That's an interesting link. Maybe Cooney was correct in taking some of the 'certainty' out of the documents he reviewed. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
wrote in message oups.com... *JimH* wrote: wrote in message ps.com... *JimH* wrote: I don't blame the Bush administration for wanting to wait for more evidence one way or the other before any action is taken. Of course, YOU wouldn't! Of course. Only a goose stepper would think that the dumbest president ever knows more than most of the world's scientists about global warming!! Simple question: If Bush didn't believe the data in presented to him, why did he knowing allow one of his henchmen, who is not a scientist or climatologist, alter data???? I already provided one example. |
wrote in message oups.com... John Gaquin wrote: wrote in message THE ROOF, THE ROOF, THE ROOF IS ON FIRE...: Pretty risky, bassy, don't you think...... gong off on your own like this? Shouldn't you wait to read what Mark Morford writes? Pretty risky, John, don't you think.......trying to spell GOING on your own? Ah, so we are back on the *bash folks for misspelling* kick. Game on Kevin. |
wrote in message Pretty risky, John, don't you think.......trying to spell GOING on your own? Well, you've caught me now, bassy! I must confess that I do occasionally make a typo. The only substantive response I can offer is a query of my own, quoting one of your very own sentences, posted just 24 minutes *after* you so cleverly caught my typo: "If Bush didn't believe the data in presented to him, why did he knowing allow one of his henchmen, who is not a scientist or climatologist, alter data????" Summary for emphasis: "...believe the data in presented to him, ...did he knowing allow one... not a...climatologist, alter data????..." Now tell me, bassy -- should I and others on the NG use your above example as a model for future grammar and sentence structure? Enquiring minds want to know..... LOL |
John Gaquin wrote: wrote in message Pretty risky, John, don't you think.......trying to spell GOING on your own? Well, you've caught me now, bassy! I must confess that I do occasionally make a typo. The only substantive response I can offer is a query of my own, quoting one of your very own sentences, posted just 24 minutes *after* you so cleverly caught my typo: "If Bush didn't believe the data in presented to him, why did he knowing allow one of his henchmen, who is not a scientist or climatologist, alter data????" Summary for emphasis: "...believe the data in presented to him, ...did he knowing allow one... not a...climatologist, alter data????..." Now tell me, bassy -- should I and others on the NG use your above example as a model for future grammar and sentence structure? Enquiring minds want to know..... LOL At least I can spell going..... |
*JimH* wrote: wrote in message oups.com... John Gaquin wrote: wrote in message THE ROOF, THE ROOF, THE ROOF IS ON FIRE...: Pretty risky, bassy, don't you think...... gong off on your own like this? Shouldn't you wait to read what Mark Morford writes? Pretty risky, John, don't you think.......trying to spell GOING on your own? Ah, so we are back on the *bash folks for misspelling* kick. Game on Kevin. Are you going to answer my question, Jim? When I prove that you were dead wrong about me being Kevin Noble, will you be man enough to apologize? Game on, huh? Shall I start posting many, many lies about you every single day? Shall I start you and Fritz's habit of childish name calling and even more childish insults? |
wrote in message ups.com... *JimH* wrote: wrote in message oups.com... John Gaquin wrote: wrote in message THE ROOF, THE ROOF, THE ROOF IS ON FIRE...: Pretty risky, bassy, don't you think...... gong off on your own like this? Shouldn't you wait to read what Mark Morford writes? Pretty risky, John, don't you think.......trying to spell GOING on your own? Ah, so we are back on the *bash folks for misspelling* kick. Game on Kevin. Are you going to answer my question, Jim? When I prove that you were dead wrong about me being Kevin Noble, will you be man enough to apologize? First answer my question. Exactly how are you going to *prove* that you are not Kevin Noble? Game on, huh? Yep. Shall I start posting many, many lies about you every single day? Be my guest. Shall I start you and Fritz's habit of childish name calling and even more childish insults? *Start*? ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!! When did you *stop*? |
JimH,
Please say you will apologize when he "proves" he is not Kevin, this will be a hoot to see him "prove" it. "*JimH*" wrote in message ... wrote in message ups.com... *JimH* wrote: wrote in message oups.com... John Gaquin wrote: wrote in message THE ROOF, THE ROOF, THE ROOF IS ON FIRE...: Pretty risky, bassy, don't you think...... gong off on your own like this? Shouldn't you wait to read what Mark Morford writes? Pretty risky, John, don't you think.......trying to spell GOING on your own? Ah, so we are back on the *bash folks for misspelling* kick. Game on Kevin. Are you going to answer my question, Jim? When I prove that you were dead wrong about me being Kevin Noble, will you be man enough to apologize? First answer my question. Exactly how are you going to *prove* that you are not Kevin Noble? Game on, huh? Yep. Shall I start posting many, many lies about you every single day? Be my guest. Shall I start you and Fritz's habit of childish name calling and even more childish insults? *Start*? ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!! When did you *stop*? |
"*JimH*" wrote in message ... wrote in message ps.com... *JimH* wrote: I don't blame the Bush administration for wanting to wait for more evidence one way or the other before any action is taken. Of course, YOU wouldn't! Of course. Why is it not surprising that someone who thinks it is okay to shoot guns at passing cars is crying like chicken little over the myth of global warming? |
Well, you've caught me now, bassy! I must confess that I do
occasionally make a typo. ..." yeah, but you're quick to point at the speck in others eyes, and ignore the log in your own. |
P. Fritz wrote: "*JimH*" wrote in message ... wrote in message ps.com... *JimH* wrote: I don't blame the Bush administration for wanting to wait for more evidence one way or the other before any action is taken. Of course, YOU wouldn't! Of course. Why is it not surprising that someone who thinks it is okay to shoot guns at passing cars is crying like chicken little over the myth of global warming? Hmm, please, show where I ever, EVER said it was "okay to shoot guns at passing cars". You must not have the brain capacity to follow a simple thread, because I never said such a thing!! |
John H wrote: On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 09:50:00 -0400, "*JimH*" wrote: wrote in message oups.com... THE ROOF, THE ROOF, THE ROOF IS ON FIRE...: Last week, "science academies from 11 of the world's leading industrial and developing nations...issued a warning that nations must tackle climate change." When it comes to climate change, the broad consensus is that the debate is over. As such, several senators are "hatching plans to offer climate-change initiatives as amendments to the [energy] bill." Environmental activists are "heartened by this flutter of activity." According to the Natural Resources Defence Council, "This does represent a shift in debate in the Senate where we have reached very broad agreement, despite a few holdouts, that this is a scientific reality that needs to be addressed by government." ...WE DON'T NEED NO WATER: The Bush administration still maintains that "more study is needed before the United States takes further action on climate change." Considering the doctored reports they're reading, this is almost a logical assumption. Unsurprisingly, as senators "try to insert language to rein in emissions believed to be contributing to global climate change...the administration made clear it would oppose any such move." ========================== From http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Scienceletter.htm "On December 3rd, only days before the start of the 10th Conference of Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP-10), Science Magazine published the results of a study by Naomi Oreskes (1): For the first time, empirical evidence was presented that appeared to show an unanimous, scientific consensus on the anthropogenic causes of recent global warming. Oreskes claims to have analysed 928 abstracts she found listed on the ISI database using the keywords "climate change". However, a search on the ISI database using the keywords "climate change" for the years 1993 - 2003 reveals that almost 12,000 papers were published during the decade in question (2). What happened to the countless research papers that show that global temperatures were similar or even higher during the Holocene Climate Optimum and the Medieval Warm Period when atmospheric CO2 levels were much lower than today; that solar variability is a key driver of recent climate change, and that climate modeling is highly uncertain? These objections were put to Oreskes by science writer David Appell. On 15 December 2004, she admitted that there was indeed a serious mistake in her Science essay. According to Oreskes, her study was not based on the keywords "climate change," but on "global climate change" (3). Her use of three keywords instead of two reduced the list of peer reviewed publications by one order of magnitude (on the UK's ISI databank the keyword search "global climate change" comes up with 1247 documents). Since the results looked questionable, I decided to replicate the Oreskes study. I analysed all abstracts listed on the ISI databank for 1993 to 2003 using the same keywords ("global climate change") as the Oreskes study. Of the 1247 documents listed, only 1117 included abstracts (130 listed only titles, author(s)' details and keywords). The 1117 abstracts analysed were divided into the same six categories used by Oreskes (#1-6), plus two categories which I added (# 7, 8): !--[if !supportEmptyParas]-- !--[endif]-- 1. explicit endorsement of the consensus position 2. evaluation of impacts 3. mitigation proposals 4. methods 5. paleoclimate analysis 6. rejection of the consensus position. 7. natural factors of global climate change 8. unrelated to the question of recent global climate change The results of my analysis contradict Oreskes' findings and essentially falsify her study" ============================ I don't blame the Bush administration for wanting to wait for more evidence one way or the other before any action is taken. Thanks. That's an interesting link. Maybe Cooney was correct in taking some of the 'certainty' out of the documents he reviewed. -- John H Yeah, sure. Do you really think that a person who has never taken courses in climatology, or meteorology, and is not a scientist in any sense, is qualified to change documents that were written by scientists? Here, try this link to MIT's study: http://web.mit.edu/afs/athena.mit.ed...www/rpt11.html |
P. Fritz Jun 17, 3:52 pm show options Newsgroups: rec.boats From: "P. Fritz" - Find messages by this author Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 15:52:44 -0400 Local: Fri,Jun 17 2005 3:52 pm Subject: BS Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse "*JimH*" wrote in message ... - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - wrote in message ps.com... *JimH* wrote: I don't blame the Bush administration for wanting to wait for more evidence one way or the other before any action is taken .. Of course, YOU wouldn't ! Of course .. Why is it not surprising that someone who thinks it is okay to shoot guns at passing cars is crying like chicken little over the myth of global warming? Reply Jun 20, 10:06 am show options Newsgroups: rec.boats From: - Find messages by this author Date: 20 Jun 2005 07:06:36 -0700 Local: Mon,Jun 20 2005 10:06 am Subject: BS Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - P. Fritz wrote: "*JimH*" wrote in message ... wrote in message ps.com... *JimH* wrote: I don't blame the Bush administration for wanting to wait for more evidence one way or the other before any action is taken. Of course, YOU wouldn't! Of course. Why is it not surprising that someone who thinks it is okay to shoot guns at passing cars is crying like chicken little over the myth of global warming? Hmm, please, show where I ever, EVER said it was "okay to shoot guns at passing cars". You must not have the brain capacity to follow a simple thread, because I never said such a thing What's this got to do with climate ? |
"Tim" wrote in message yeah, but you're quick to point at the speck in others eyes, and ignore the log in your own. I disagree. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:25 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com