Read on...

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/petition/secede.asp

In a recent opinion piece Mr. Hansen had this quote from Investors Business Daily: “The purpose of a carbon tax would be to penalize fossil fuel use in hopes of reducing carbon dioxide emissions, which have been hypothesized to cause global cooling (1970s), global warming (1980s-1990s), climate change (2000s) and extreme weather (2010s),”

1) If CO2 emissions were ever "hypothesized" to cause global cooling it wasn't the CO2 itself but rather all the particulate that were in emissions up to that time. This was the suspected cause of the cooler weather then and is now known that was correct.

2) The whole idea that climate scientists were predicting a "global cool down" or "imminent ice age" in the 70's is a myth if not a bold faced lie. The ONLY sources for this "hypothesis" are Time, Newsweek, etc editions from the 70's. These are NOT science journals nor peer reviewed sources i.e. sensationalistic headlines to sell mags. A review of the all the science journals of the 60's and 70's turned up 7 articles about cooling and 46 about about warming. The point being is that there was no widespread prediction in the scientific community of global cooling during the 70's and even then the research was pointing towards warming.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
George Will has been quoting a New York Times article for twenty years with a quote that says, " New York Times (Sept. 14, 1975) said “may mark the return to another ice age.”. Problem is the article is titled about warming and that quote isn't even in it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU_AtHkB4Ms&feature=sdig&et=1238150708.93

I have got to wonder why some would have to work so hard to establish the idea that scientists were predicting global cooling in the 1970's?

If one believes that all the climate researchers are fabricating a big hoax on warming why wouldn't one believe they were doing the same on cooling if researchers were predicting that as some now claim?

How it's communicated, a whole nodder deal...
Looney Tunes is Groovy...

_______

I agree with you. I like to read a transcript or listen to the
actual person talking instead of using the opinion of the
middle source. After all, that would be their spin on something. As for this chart, besides the information being
old, it is not taking relevant information into consideration.

I think N.D. still has 2 Air Force bases and by golly there
is something with oil going on. You would have to account
for all federal facilities like prisons also.

I think they start with the conclusion and work their way
back ....

Obama and his wife hate white people and continually stir up anti-white racism?

to take a stroll through the pro-Obama south side of Chicago. Pershing Ave. would be perfect. Take snow, scary, eyolf, dutch and a bunch of your other pals with. Then report back to us how it goes.

as a weapon and they wield it well. It's a part of their twisted and unnatural nature.
If it wasn't for the liberal use of racism Barry Obama would still be a small time Chicago, crooked politician that is friends with his terrorist/murdering neighbor.

is no more than a politically emboldening myth, the boastful residue of the decade it spent as a sovereign nation before joining America...
More reading time folks...
_______
How Texas Could Mess With Us...
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history/2012/11/texas_se...

How.?.
* Tea Party and Social Issue Conservatives will further erode GOP...
* Yet Another Bush will run...

The United States of America will do another First and Lead into the future...

Now, I know it's not a popular topic in the Lakes Region overall, but in the United States of America overall, a progressive direction forward...

The United States of America electorate is a true melting pot, and that's this Nation's strength...

For ALL it's Citizens...

with all the immigrants there........

This is reality. We are not going back to 1950.

With Mitt Romney's remark about the 47% the GOP offended most Americans who work hard for a living. Most of us are not priviliged like he. Obama won in a near landslide because he reflects the country and he understands what peoples lives are like.

47% the GOP offended most Americans .

Does 47% qualify as "most"?

Federal Spending, Taxes, and Deficits Are Lower Today Than When Obama Took Office.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/05/federal-spending-tax...

Gloom and doom is in the minds of those who don't seek the truth.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/repeat-after-me-obama-cut_b_1955...

A couple of weeks ago Mr. Galt wrote a comment to me on another thread. As I didn't have the time to research it I didn't respond (unlike Mr. Goldberg, who apparently doesn't know what the word means and whose article in, "Townhall.Com", that Mr. Galt posted, is below), however I was aware the whole thing was B.S.

A lot of scientists and published science papers use the word "trick" to mean, "a clever or new way to look at the problem" not deception.

The "decline" part is refering to a well known fact that the last 50 years of tree ring data (which has been used as one means to ascertain the climate of the past) doesn't match the thermometer record - it shows a decline while thermometers show increase - which are we going to believe? The thermometers or the trees - we need to find out why the trees and thermometers don't match from the last 50 years!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg&feature=plcp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXesBhYwdRo&feature=plcp

P.S. If Scientists are only in it for the grants and making a living don't the "skeptics" and "denialists" get grants, sell books, and do paid lectures etc. etc. ???
-------------------------------------------------------------------
- From Townhall.Com

"In a long string of embarrassing e-mail exchanges, CRU [Climatic Research Unit] scientists discuss with friendly outside colleagues, including Penn State University's Michael Mann, how to manipulate the data they want to show the world, and how to hide the often flawed data they don't. In one exchange, they discuss the "trick" of how to "hide the decline" in global temperatures since the 1960s. Again and again, the researchers don't object to just inconvenient truths but also inconvenient truth-tellers. They contemplate and orchestrate efforts to purge scientists and journals who won't sing the same global warming hymnal.
In one instance, Phil Jones, the CRU director, says a scientific journal must "rid (itself) of this troublesome editor," who happened to publish a problematic paper. In another, Jones says we "will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

------------------------------------------------------------------------
- From the website media matters

CLAIM: Email reveals that Jones used "trick" to distort data and hide decline in temperatures

■BECK: How about Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia? "I have just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years to hide the decline." Yes, he's talking about a trick that another scientist previously used in a peer-reviewed journal to apparently hide the decline in temperatures -- incredible. [Fox News' Glenn Beck, 11/23/09]
■In a November 23 editorial, Investor's Business Daily stated: "In one e-mail sent to Michael Mann, director of Penn State University's Earth System Science Center, Raymond Bradley, a climatologist at the University of Massachusetts, and Malcolm Hughes, a professor of dendrochronology at the University of Arizona's Laboratory for Tree-Ring Research, Jones speaks of the 'trick' of filling in gaps of data in order to hide evidence of temperature decline."

REALITY: "Decline" refers to unreliable tree-ring data, not instrumental temperatures. In a November 26 article, The Morning Call of Allentown, Pennsylvania, reported that Penn State scientist Michael Mann -- whose "trick" was referenced in Jones' email -- "said his trick, or 'trick of the trade,' for the Nature chart was to combine data from tree-ring measurements, which record world temperatures from 1,000 years ago until 1960, with actual temperature readings for 1961 through 1998" because "scientists have discovered that, for temperatures since 1960, tree rings have not been a reliable indicator." Jones has also stated that it is "well known" that tree ring data "does not show a realistic trend of temperature after 1960," and the CRU has said that "[t]he 'decline' in this set of tree-ring data should not be taken to mean that there is any problem with the instrumental temperature data." In a November 20 post, RealClimate.org's staff, which is comprised of several working climate scientists, including Mann, similarly stated:

As for the 'decline', it is well known that Keith Briffa's maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the "divergence problem"-see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while 'hiding' is probably a poor choice of words (since it is 'hidden' in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.

Several scientists have stated that the word "trick" is being misinterpreted. The (UK) Guardian reported in a November 20 article that Bob Ward, director of policy and communications at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics, said of Jones' email: "It does look incriminating on the surface, but there are lots of single sentences that taken out of context can appear incriminating. ... You can't tell what they are talking about. Scientists say 'trick' not just to mean deception. They mean it as a clever way of doing something -- a short cut can be a trick." RealClimate also explained that "the 'trick' is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term 'trick' to refer to ... 'a good way to deal with a problem', rather than something that is 'secret', and so there is nothing problematic in this at all."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CLAIM: Scientists conspired against academic journal because it published dissenting research

■In a December 1 editorial, The Washington Times claimed that Mann "threatened journals that had the gall to publish academic research at odds with the global-warming theocracy. Upset that the journal Climate Research had published such a paper, Mr. Mann wrote: 'I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.'"
■In a November 27 editorial, The Wall Street Journal wrote:
Mr. Mann noted in a March 2003 email, after the journal "Climate Research" published a paper not to Mr. Mann's liking, that "This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the 'peer-reviewed literature'. Obviously, they found a solution to that -- take over a journal!"
Mr. Mann went on to suggest that the journal itself be blackballed: "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board." In other words, keep dissent out of the respected journals. When that fails, redefine what constitutes a respected journal to exclude any that publish inconvenient views.

REALITY: Mann's email cited specific paper that Climate Research editors and publisher conceded should not have been published. In the March 11, 2003, email, Mann wrote that the paper by astrophysicists Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas "couldn't have cleared a 'legitimate' peer review process anywhere. That leaves only one possibility -- that the peer-review process at Climate Research has been hijacked by a few skeptics on the editorial board." The New York Times reported on August 5, 2003, that the Soon-Baliunas paper "has been heavily criticized by many scientists, including several of the journal editors. The editors said last week that whether or not the conclusions were correct, that analysis was deeply flawed." The Times further noted that the "publisher of the journal, Dr. Otto Kinne, and an editor who recently became editor in chief, Dr. Hans von Storch, both said that in retrospect the paper should not have been published as written" and that von Storch resigned, "saying he disagreed with the peer-review policies":

Advocates for cuts in emissions and scientists who hold the prevailing view on warming said the hearing backfired. It proved more convincingly, they said, that the skeptical scientists were a fringe element that had to rely increasingly on industry money and peripheral scientific journals to promote their work.

The hearing featured Dr. Willie Soon, an astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and a co-author of a study, with Dr. Sallie Baliunas, also an astrophysicist at the center, that said the 20th-century warming trend was unremarkable compared with other climate shifts over the last 1,000 years.

But the Soon-Baliunas paper, published in the journal Climate Research this year, has been heavily criticized by many scientists, including several of the journal editors. The editors said last week that whether or not the conclusions were correct, the analysis was deeply flawed.

The publisher of the journal, Dr. Otto Kinne, and an editor who recently became editor in chief, Dr. Hans von Storch, both said that in retrospect the paper should not have been published as written. Dr. Kinne defended the journal and its process of peer review, but distanced himself from the paper.

"I have not stood behind the paper by Soon and Baliunas," he wrote in an e-mail message. "Indeed: the reviewers failed to detect methodological flaws."

Dr. von Storch, who was not involved in overseeing the paper, resigned last week, saying he disagreed with the peer-review policies.

The Senate hearing also focused new scrutiny on Dr. Soon and Dr. Baliunas's and ties to advocacy groups. The scientists also receive income as senior scientists for the George C. Marshall Institute, a Washington group that has long fought limits on gas emissions. The study in Climate Research was in part underwritten by $53,000 from the American Petroleum Institute, the voice of the oil industry.

Mann: "I support the publication of 'skeptical' papers that meet the basic standards of scientific quality and merit." In response to the controversy surrounding the emails, Mann said that his email "[w]as in response to a very specific incident regarding a paper by Soon and Baliunas published in the journal 'Climate Research.' " Mann further stated: "I support the publication of 'skeptical' papers that meet the basic standards of scientific quality and merit. I myself have published scientific work that has been considered by some as representing a skeptical point of view on matters relating to climate change."