Dude...youngterrier wrote: If you get your information about global warming from a media outlet but not from a scientific journals.....you are brainwashed
it was a hook, not necessarily my viewpoint, calm your tits, at least I'm not regurgitating information that has been proven false and believing it to be truetravelinman67 wrote:Dude...youngterrier wrote: If you get your information about global warming from a media outlet but not from a scientific journals.....you are brainwashed
...you lead your argument with a meme purporting several unsupportable myths...
...and you're accusing BDKJMU of sophomoric research?
Like Anthropogenic Global Warming theory?youngterrier wrote:it was a hook, not necessarily my viewpoint, calm your tits, at least I'm not regurgitating information that has been proven false and believing it to be truetravelinman67 wrote:
Dude...
...you lead your argument with a meme purporting several unsupportable myths...
...and you're accusing BDKJMU of sophomoric research?
<facepalm>travelinman67 wrote:Like Anthropogenic Global Warming theory?youngterrier wrote: it was a hook, not necessarily my viewpoint, calm your tits, at least I'm not regurgitating information that has been proven false and believing it to be true
This...youngterrier wrote:<facepalm>travelinman67 wrote:
Like Anthropogenic Global Warming theory?
So let me get this straight, when I side with a widely supported theory, with good science behind it among professionals, I'm postulating myths and a victim to liberalist propaganda akin to the blatantly false straw men that BDK is putting up?
Makes perfect sense
Yeah, sounds like big oil. Looks to me as if his science was solid and he got shutdown because he went against the climate change consensus.kalm wrote:I stopped reading these after about the 10th straight one where connecting the dots between big energy and the author was a couple of clicks away. Has it changed any?SeattleGriz wrote:
Are you familiar with this paper YT?
Interesting read, for the author questions the CO2 values because of the usage of bogus ice core data and 90,000 direct measurements of CO2 being thrown out. The reason, to make pre-industrial CO2 levels look much lower than they were.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/zjmar07.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Dr. Jaworowski has devoted much of his professional life to the study of the composition of the atmosphere, as part of his work to understand the consequences of radioactive fallout from nuclear-weapons testing and nuclear reactor accidents. After taking numerous ice samples over the course of a dozen field trips to glaciers in six continents, and studying how contaminants travel through ice over time, he came to realize how fraught with error ice-core samples were in reconstructing the atmosphere. The Chernobyl accident, whose contaminants he studied in the 1990s in a Scandinavian glacier, provided the most illumination.
"This ice contained extremely high radioactivity of cesium-137 from the Chernobyl fallout, more than a thousand times higher than that found in any glacier from nuclear-weapons fallout, and more than 100 times higher than found elsewhere from the Chernobyl fallout," he explained. "This unique contamination of glacier ice revealed how particulate contaminants migrated, and also made sense of other discoveries I made during my other glacier expeditions. It convinced me that ice is not a closed system, suitable for an exact reconstruction of the composition of the past atmosphere."
Because of the high importance of this realization, in 1994 Dr. Jaworowski, together with a team from the Norwegian Institute for Energy Technics, proposed a research project on the reliability of trace-gas determinations in the polar ice. The prospective sponsors of the research refused to fund it, claiming the research would be "immoral" if it served to undermine the foundations of climate research.
The refusal did not come as a surprise. Several years earlier, in a peer-reviewed article published by the Norwegian Polar Institute, Dr. Jaworowski criticized the methods by which CO2 levels were ascertained from ice cores, and cast doubt on the global-warming hypothesis. The institute's director, while agreeing to publish his article, also warned Dr. Jaworowski that "this is not the way one gets research projects." Once published, the institute came under fire, especially since the report soon sold out and was reprinted. Said one prominent critic, "this paper puts the Norsk Polarinstitutt in disrepute." Although none of the critics faulted Dr. Jaworowski's science, the institute nevertheless fired him to maintain its access to funding.
Okay you really are an idiot. As I've stated TWICE in this thread, that that was a hook and not my opinion. Your point is invalidtravelinman67 wrote:This...youngterrier wrote: <facepalm>
So let me get this straight, when I side with a widely supported theory, with good science behind it among professionals, I'm postulating myths and a victim to liberalist propaganda akin to the blatantly false straw men that BDK is putting up?
Makes perfect sense
...purports myth.
The vast majority of top tier scientists whose research has proven the IPCC/Hansen's models/theories flawed have no connection with the energy industry nor have benefitted from "dirty money" to taint their opinions...
...unlike those pro-GW researchers who are afloat in tens of billions of pro-GW/government-tainted funding.
You haven't done your homework here, YT.
I've provided the sources, rather than pulling a Douche1Bag, do some studying.
Go fuck yourself Teabagger. You're an idiot conk with your head in the sand, when it aint up your ass.travelinman67 wrote:This...youngterrier wrote: <facepalm>
So let me get this straight, when I side with a widely supported theory, with good science behind it among professionals, I'm postulating myths and a victim to liberalist propaganda akin to the blatantly false straw men that BDK is putting up?
Makes perfect sense
...purports myth.
The vast majority of top tier scientists whose research has proven the IPCC/Hansen's models/theories flawed have no connection with the energy industry nor have benefitted from "dirty money" to taint their opinions...
...unlike those pro-GW researchers who are afloat in tens of billions of pro-GW/government-tainted funding.
You haven't done your homework here, YT.
I've provided the sources, rather than pulling a Douche1Bag, do some studying.
Theory, by the way, that can't be falsified. Even if the temperature of the earth were to clearly start a declining trend, one could nevertheless argue that it is warmer than it would be without anthropogenic impacts.So let me get this straight, when I side with a widely supported theory
The argument isn't whether or not the world is getting warmer or not....the argument is whether or not it's cause by the sun primarily or by Carbon emissions.JohnStOnge wrote:Theory, by the way, that can't be falsified. Even if the temperature of the earth were to clearly start a declining trend, one could nevertheless argue that it is warmer than it would be without anthropogenic impacts.So let me get this straight, when I side with a widely supported theory
Of course that's not the reason why one needs to remain cautious about it. The reason one needs to remain cautious about it, as noted earlier, is that it's a "cause and effect" proposition that can't be tested by controlled experimentation.
Please, please add a photo of some poor child wallowing in filth in some god-forsaken landscape. You know, the one you use every time someone questions a government program that takes my money to give to some lazy, undeserving schmuck.D1B wrote: Billions of people becoming consumers. Massive burning of fossil fuels. Rapid deforestation. Rapid overpopulation.
Really, Fiver? You don't think we're having an impact?
Amazon rainforest deforestation
What he said. Doubled!JayBilasBitesPillows wrote:Please, please add a photo of some poor child wallowing in filth in some god-forsaken landscape. You know, the one you use every time someone questions a government program that takes my money to give to some lazy, undeserving schmuck.D1B wrote: Billions of people becoming consumers. Massive burning of fossil fuels. Rapid deforestation. Rapid overpopulation.
Really, Fiver? You don't think we're having an impact?
Amazon rainforest deforestation
Screw your attempt to form a globalized government under the guise of this sham. You suck.
Poor children wallowing in filth in some god-forsaken landscape are undeserving.TheDancinMonarch wrote:What he said. Doubled!JayBilasBitesPillows wrote:
Please, please add a photo of some poor child wallowing in filth in some god-forsaken landscape. You know, the one you use every time someone questions a government program that takes my money to give to some lazy, undeserving schmuck.
Screw your attempt to form a globalized government under the guise of this sham. You suck.
I suggest you start to realize that most of those you read about in scientific journals in a highly politicized issue such as have an agenda, as all scientists on both sides do, so you stop looking like a dumbass.youngterrier wrote:I suggest BDKJMU watch this....so you stop looking like a dumbass
[youtube][/youtube]
If you get your information about global warming from a media outlet but not from a scientific journals.....you are brainwashed
..peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard..
Now we can truly put this thread to bed.....SeattleGriz wrote:Yeah, sounds like big oil. Looks to me as if his science was solid and he got shutdown because he went against the climate change consensus.kalm wrote:
I stopped reading these after about the 10th straight one where connecting the dots between big energy and the author was a couple of clicks away. Has it changed any?
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news ... 9089a5dcb6" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Dr. Jaworowski has devoted much of his professional life to the study of the composition of the atmosphere, as part of his work to understand the consequences of radioactive fallout from nuclear-weapons testing and nuclear reactor accidents. After taking numerous ice samples over the course of a dozen field trips to glaciers in six continents, and studying how contaminants travel through ice over time, he came to realize how fraught with error ice-core samples were in reconstructing the atmosphere. The Chernobyl accident, whose contaminants he studied in the 1990s in a Scandinavian glacier, provided the most illumination.
"This ice contained extremely high radioactivity of cesium-137 from the Chernobyl fallout, more than a thousand times higher than that found in any glacier from nuclear-weapons fallout, and more than 100 times higher than found elsewhere from the Chernobyl fallout," he explained. "This unique contamination of glacier ice revealed how particulate contaminants migrated, and also made sense of other discoveries I made during my other glacier expeditions. It convinced me that ice is not a closed system, suitable for an exact reconstruction of the composition of the past atmosphere."
Because of the high importance of this realization, in 1994 Dr. Jaworowski, together with a team from the Norwegian Institute for Energy Technics, proposed a research project on the reliability of trace-gas determinations in the polar ice. The prospective sponsors of the research refused to fund it, claiming the research would be "immoral" if it served to undermine the foundations of climate research.
The refusal did not come as a surprise. Several years earlier, in a peer-reviewed article published by the Norwegian Polar Institute, Dr. Jaworowski criticized the methods by which CO2 levels were ascertained from ice cores, and cast doubt on the global-warming hypothesis. The institute's director, while agreeing to publish his article, also warned Dr. Jaworowski that "this is not the way one gets research projects." Once published, the institute came under fire, especially since the report soon sold out and was reprinted. Said one prominent critic, "this paper puts the Norsk Polarinstitutt in disrepute." Although none of the critics faulted Dr. Jaworowski's science, the institute nevertheless fired him to maintain its access to funding.
Now we can truly put this thread to bed.....SeattleGriz wrote:Yeah, sounds like big oil. Looks to me as if his science was solid and he got shutdown because he went against the climate change consensus.kalm wrote:
I stopped reading these after about the 10th straight one where connecting the dots between big energy and the author was a couple of clicks away. Has it changed any?
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news ... 9089a5dcb6" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Dr. Jaworowski has devoted much of his professional life to the study of the composition of the atmosphere, as part of his work to understand the consequences of radioactive fallout from nuclear-weapons testing and nuclear reactor accidents. After taking numerous ice samples over the course of a dozen field trips to glaciers in six continents, and studying how contaminants travel through ice over time, he came to realize how fraught with error ice-core samples were in reconstructing the atmosphere. The Chernobyl accident, whose contaminants he studied in the 1990s in a Scandinavian glacier, provided the most illumination.
"This ice contained extremely high radioactivity of cesium-137 from the Chernobyl fallout, more than a thousand times higher than that found in any glacier from nuclear-weapons fallout, and more than 100 times higher than found elsewhere from the Chernobyl fallout," he explained. "This unique contamination of glacier ice revealed how particulate contaminants migrated, and also made sense of other discoveries I made during my other glacier expeditions. It convinced me that ice is not a closed system, suitable for an exact reconstruction of the composition of the past atmosphere."
Because of the high importance of this realization, in 1994 Dr. Jaworowski, together with a team from the Norwegian Institute for Energy Technics, proposed a research project on the reliability of trace-gas determinations in the polar ice. The prospective sponsors of the research refused to fund it, claiming the research would be "immoral" if it served to undermine the foundations of climate research.
The refusal did not come as a surprise. Several years earlier, in a peer-reviewed article published by the Norwegian Polar Institute, Dr. Jaworowski criticized the methods by which CO2 levels were ascertained from ice cores, and cast doubt on the global-warming hypothesis. The institute's director, while agreeing to publish his article, also warned Dr. Jaworowski that "this is not the way one gets research projects." Once published, the institute came under fire, especially since the report soon sold out and was reprinted. Said one prominent critic, "this paper puts the Norsk Polarinstitutt in disrepute." Although none of the critics faulted Dr. Jaworowski's science, the institute nevertheless fired him to maintain its access to funding.
DJ has raised a truly awesome kid.youngterrier wrote:<facepalm>travelinman67 wrote:
Like Anthropogenic Global Warming theory?
So let me get this straight, when I side with a widely supported theory, with good science behind it among professionals, I'm postulating myths and a victim to liberalist propaganda akin to the blatantly false straw men that BDK is putting up?
Makes perfect sense
bench wrote:DJ has raised a truly awesome kid.youngterrier wrote: <facepalm>
So let me get this straight, when I side with a widely supported theory, with good science behind it among professionals, I'm postulating myths and a victim to liberalist propaganda akin to the blatantly false straw men that BDK is putting up?
Makes perfect sense
And please keep doing what you're doing, mostly so I can feel better about not having the patience to actually do it myself.
Really, you know this shit?Baldy wrote:Now we can truly put this thread to bed.....SeattleGriz wrote:
Yeah, sounds like big oil. Looks to me as if his science was solid and he got shutdown because he went against the climate change consensus.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news ... 9089a5dcb6" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
[/thread]
That's your rebuttal? I rest my case, because you have noneBDKJMU wrote:I suggest you start to realize that most of those you read about in scientific journals in a highly politicized issue such as have an agenda, as all scientists on both sides do, so you stop looking like a dumbass.youngterrier wrote:I suggest BDKJMU watch this....so you stop looking like a dumbass
[youtube][/youtube]
If you get your information about global warming from a media outlet but not from a scientific journals.....you are brainwashed
what a dumbassD1B wrote:Really, you know this shit?Baldy wrote:
Now we can truly put this thread to bed.....
[/thread]
You DO realize you live in one of the most polluted states, including a Top 10 most polluted, right? You do realize all your groundwater will be contaminated soon, right?
Georgia is a fucking cesspool. Nice work Baldy, PWNydick, and the rest of the GA conk brigade.
I'm sure you know-it-all's will be able to find at least one schlub scientist, working for the coal industry, that says otherwise.
Holy shit, it's worse than I previously thought. Wikipedia is on the conspiracy too:Baldy wrote:Now we can truly put this thread to bed.....SeattleGriz wrote:
Yeah, sounds like big oil. Looks to me as if his science was solid and he got shutdown because he went against the climate change consensus.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news ... 9089a5dcb6" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
[/thread]
As is SourceWatch...Jaworowski's works on ice cores were published in Jaworowski (1994, 1992) and in reports Jaworowski (1990, 1992). Jaworowski has suggested that the long-term CO2 record is an artifact caused by the structural changes of the ice with depth and by postcoring processes.However, Jaworowski's views are rejected by the scientific community. Increases in CO2 and CH4 concentrations in the Vostok core are similar for the last two glacial-interglacial transitions, even though only the most recent transition is located in the brittle zone. Such evidence argues that the atmospheric trace-gas signal is not strongly affected by the presence of the brittle zone. [3] Similarly Hans Oeschger [4] states that "...Some of (Jaworowski's) statements are drastically wrong from the physical point of view".
Opinions
Stephen Schneider said of him that "Jaworowski is perhaps even more contrarian than most, claiming that he can prove the climate is going to get colder through his work excavating glaciers on six different continents, which he says indicates what we should really be worrying about is 'The approaching new Ice Age...'."[3] Jaworowski wrote The current sunspot cycle is weaker than the preceding cycles, and the next two cycles will be even weaker. Bashkirtsev and Mishnich (2003)[5] expect that the minimum of the secular cycle of solar activity will occur between 2021 and 2026, which will result in the minimum global temperature of the surface air. The shift from warm to cool climate might have already started..
When approached to see if he would bet on future cooling, Jaworowski denied making any prediction, stating "I do not make my own detailed projections. In my paper I referred the reader to B&M paper, and that is all."[4]
Jaworowski published several papers[6][7][8][9] in 21st Century Science and Technology, a non-refereed magazine published by Lyndon LaRouche.[10]Jaworowski has also written that the movement to remove lead from gasoline was based on a "stupid and fraudulent myth," and that lead levels in the human bloodstream are not significantly affected by the use of leaded gasoline. [5]
.Zbigniew Jaworowski is chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw, Poland -- an organization which refuses to disclose its funding source -- and has served on the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. He is a global warming skeptic and has connections to Exxon Mobil and Texaco through the Biological Effects of Low Level Exposures group -- a front group for corporate interests -- of which he is listed as an "international member." He also has ties to Exxon through the Heartland Institute. Dr. Jaworowski was a speaker at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change, sponsored by the Heartland Institute
