jduff
-
Posts
150 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by jduff
-
-
You don't like liberals? Why don't you go cry to waitforufo, he feels your pain.
I never said I did not like liberals. They just do not seem to like me!
0 -
This is not just moving the goalpost, that is flying out to India, have craftsman hand-carve a new goalpost, continue travel to Japan to have it painted and then to Russia to have it fired into the stratosphere.
This type of argument would make a silly biscuit proud. Well done!
If it were well done Charon the silly liberals here would not be trying to neg rep me(I am Independent). Besides the truth be told, I care for my community. This shutdown is horrible. Need a bi-partisan comittee that represents both sides on this. With Mr. Obama agreeing to go with what they decide.
Nothing worse than elitists thinking they know whats better than anyone else!
0 -
Where else in reality would you seriously hold this stance? Do you fire the CEO because some of his mid-level directors completely violated procedure and caused a costly delay in the project? The problem area is clear and it needs to be surgically removed so sanity and profitability can return.
Its not me holding the stance Phi. Bad comparison by the way. Comparing a government which has no profitability to a corporation that is profitable. You are correct sanity is definitely needed. Almost as bad as Obama comparing (Obama Care)AHCA to Apple. Apple is profitable, Apple does not force its product on you. Apple will cut a program that is not working.
Need to quit with the non-partisan view. I can do the same just as shown above. Neither will accomplish anything. To prove that point, just look at our government NOW!
To accentuate the governments debt and ability to not gain a profit. Here is the daily treasury statement of the U.S gov. https://www.fms.treas.gov/fmsweb/viewDTSFiles?dir=w&fname=13100200.pdf
When reading the pdf remember its in millions. As the Treasury Dept shows in its header!
63 billion dollars spent
26 Billion dollars taxed
1.6 Billion dollars borrowed
1 Billion dollars paid in salaries!
That is just the first two days of Oct!
Not much anyone can argue on that!
-2 -
OK, this is something that I do not understand. The system is set up with check and balances and one of these is that congress has to authorize government funds. And they didn't. Over a law that itself has already passed. So, short of rewriting the constitution what could a president do in this regard?
Consider congress has sent four bills that have been rejected once they get to the senate. A partial bill short term to fund necessary government operations? I do not see your point. Both sides the left and right are fully ignoring each other.
As to the president. He is the leader of the U.S, If he wants both sides to get together he can make it happen. Regardless if both sides oppose each other,. HE is the chief. Just as Bush was before him. The issue currently is our president chose one side and not the other. He doesnt want to compromise. No bi-partisanship! This is by far the most divisive government I have seen in my lifetime. The government is non functional from my view. So when its all said and done. The man at the top gets the blame! So I agree with those complaining. For more than just one reason!
Good leadership means the government can function. Bad leadership it does not. Both Reagan and Clinton were able to overcome adversity in our government. Lets hope this president can too!
0 -
While I read this debate I get saddened. I watch political agenda in full display(almost disgusting). While I watch families around me suffer. I live near a military base. Of the 10,000 or so civilian workers, 7,000 were furloughed. Of the 18,000 or so troops that call this home. About 10,000 of them have families. The PX is closed due to this shutdown. Many military families are having to leave base just for necessities. Even now some are running out of money. As the lower enlisted ranks do not make much money. But still have families to take care of.
My wife who works in the town next to this base hears much. One of the things that she hears is the complaints from army dependents. They neither blame republicans nor democrats. But the stories they tell all have one thing in common. They blame president Obama and his administration. He is the commander and chief.
Things we see in the media, news channels, are the extension of the DC beltway politics. This includes ABC, MSNBC, CNN, and Fox. The reality of those outside that beltway are different. Each day this goes on people are getting angry. No superficial debate, argument, or words will settle this. The reality for most are a family, bills, food. The people outside the beltway are not blaming republicans or democrats, but government as a whole. This includes all three branches.
We in the U.S have about two weeks. If it is not settled by then, we will be in trouble! It is bad enough that low information struggling single mothers cannot get milk or cheese for children. Since WIC is closed and are not providing anymore vouchers. But, as of Oct 15th the foodstamp program goes on hold. By Nov it will be completely closed. Ever see crime shoot up or riots in the street. Considering 46 million Americans receive foodstamps! That will be D-Day for us in the U.S, Nothing worse than a drug user who uses foodstamps to support his/her habit. What do you think a addict will do if his or her source of income goes away? Worse, a low income family with multiple children.
This time around, the government shutdown is different. We have never had so many dependent on some form of government assistance. We have also not had so many government workers. Here, we can blame whoever we want. But in two weeks it wont matter. And this debate will be useless. Our government needs to settle this quickly!
0 -
I anticipate that some sort of language difficulty exists here somewhere.
What does "radio signature" mean?
What does "thermonic" mean?
What does "thermonic dispensation" mean?
What does "a 90 degree angle towards the bottom of the craft" mean?
What does it mean that "The intent of the dampener is to cause [the] heat ... not [to] escape away from the aircraft."
What does "C/RE7" stand for?
Ewmon , sorry for a bit of a delay, my time is very limited during the weekdays. I will do my best to answer your questions. And yes I do believe there may be some language difficulty. More with me than you. I also corrected thermonic to thermionic. As I have always usd thermonic throughout my life and was not corrected. Go figure!
Radio Signature: Is a individual or distinct mark or set of parameters that define a source. In radio it can be frequency, wavelength(Bandwidth). For instance a SA-300 radar array uses a specific telltale set of frequency and wavelength. Which gives it away. With a stealth fighter/bomber, the coating can be set to specific frequency and wavelengths. This can be altered even during flight. You can have a narrow set of parameters or a wider range depending.
As to thermonic. Yes, that is my fault. I have always used thermonic rather than thermionic.
Thermionic Dispensation: A arrangement that dispenses thermal emissions evenly throughout a area. In the case of a steath fighter/bomber. It is specifically done for absorbtion.
It is set to that angle from 45 degrees to 90 degrees(adjustable) so the engine exhaust gases(heat) will disperse evenly. And the heat from those gases can be absorbed.
The last question. Just security clearance levels. They differ depending on where you are at or what you do.
Hope that helps you. I will do my best to improve my communication skills when posting or replying to a article.
Also, please do not ask how certain things are done . As I cannot answer them publicly or directly. But you do have enough information to draw your own conclusion.
Just so you know!
1 -
If you hope you are wrong then you would not have posted the post you did. While in my disclaimer I stated I did not work for any government agency. I did work for a corporation as a adhesives/bonds specialist for many years. The coatings on a stealth aircraft come after the coatings that are used on heat windows. As well as the heat shield on the space shuttle. I am not allowed to go into detail about that process(Classified). As that would actually get me in trouble. And in case you are wondering what corporation I worked for you can take a look here http://www.southwall.com/southwall/Home.html;jsessionid=916291DFB98A291B1E912CF6FB8882C9
As to the engineering of a stealth aircraft structure. It is complete common knowledge. And can be found here http://science.howstuffworks.com/question69.htm
As to the coatings(non classified), Here is a example of how they work for the general public. http://www.southwall.com/southwall/Home/Company/Technology.html
It is non permissable for me to use information that is classified or C/RE7 and above. This is also a non classified source in pdf: http://buildings.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/31616.pdf
Thanks for the interest. I posted this piece for entertainment purposes.
0 -
It might be better if you didn't spend a lot of time contemplating a document which says
"as temperatures have declined and climate models have failed to predict this decline, the IPCC has gained confidence in catastrophic warming and dismisses the pause as unpredictable climate variability"
because the temperatures are not actually declining (unless you "coincidentally" choose to compare them to the highest value ever recorded).
Well John, they have. Perhaps less time with faulty global temperature models and more time solving things like irreversable pollution, or erosion would be a better solution!
0 -
stealth planes have flat facets to avoid deflect signals away from radar stations. Does this mean that a stealth plane has to be careful in its manuevers to avoid lining one of its facets up square with an enemy radar.
A stealth aircraft does indeed have to be careful when manuevering. A sharp turn or bank can cause a reflection back to the source. Vector and trajectory play a big role when a stealth fighter is on the move.
0 -
This is my last post today.
While its nice that we all go back and forth on this debate. I read a article that I believe everyone should read as well. While I go off to workland this week. I will be contemplating the words of this article. I hope that those of you who are in the scientific field take notice as well. It is a very stong statement.
Here is the link http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/28/ipcc-diagnosis-permanent-paradigm-paralysis/
Enjoy! Have a good day!
-2 -
Cool relative to what? Looks like two months have been cooler than last year, and the rest of the months have been warmer.
Well Swansont, I see what you are getting at. Global Temperature peaked in 1995-1996. Since then it has been getting lower or no movement. There has not been a temperature spike that has surpassed the 1995-96 year. I have given multiple links on multiple posts. As you told me about cherry picking. Those of you with the opposite view have put up a few links. Which were easily proven false. And even false claims :-/
So much information available to find the items of real value.I understand you are being objective. But as you and I both know objective only works if there is only a single set data stream. Which in all honesty is quite exhausting with this particular subject. I dont like data mining just to make a point with a erroneous subject such as Global Warming.
As such I concede. Besides. my time off comes to a end and im limited on my ability to post.
0 -
Protip: The United States is not a proxy for the world, so this has no direct relevance to the worldwide temperature. It's cherry-picking the data, which is not valid science. All you've shown is that the US had a relatively cool month.
Well there are various places you can use. For Worldwide global temperature here is a comparision of the past 13 months as of the end of July..
YR MON GLOBAL NH SH TROPICS
2012 1 -0.145 -0.088 -0.203 -0.245
2012 2 -0.140 -0.016 -0.263 -0.326
2012 3 +0.033 +0.064 +0.002 -0.238
2012 4 +0.230 +0.346 +0.114 -0.251
2012 5 +0.178 +0.338 +0.018 -0.102
2012 6 +0.244 +0.378 +0.111 -0.016
2012 7 +0.149 +0.263 +0.035 +0.146
2012 8 +0.210 +0.195 +0.225 +0.069
2012 9 +0.369 +0.376 +0.361 +0.174
2012 10 +0.367 +0.326 +0.409 +0.155
2012 11 +0.305 +0.319 +0.292 +0.209
2012 12 +0.229 +0.153 +0.305 +0.199
2013 1 +0.497 +0.512 +0.481 +0.387
2013 2 +0.203 +0.372 +0.034 +0.195
2013 3 +0.200 +0.333 +0.068 +0.243
2013 4 +0.114 +0.128 +0.101 +0.165
2013 5 +0.083 +0.180 -0.015 +0.112
2013 6 +0.295 +0.334 +0.255 +0.219
2013 7 +0.174 +0.134 +0.215 +0.077
Here is the site where you can view the reports pdf. http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/
This year so far has been cool.
0 -
What's the reference for this?
from http://wx.hamweather.com/maps/climate/records/4week/us.html?cat=maxtemp,mintemp,snow,lowma
The map and legend above is during this years summer peak period.
A point to make. Sept has been the opposite of the July-Aug figures. In the case of Sept. It has been quite warm. You can use the sites options to define a month/year you prefer to look at. As well as the variables High temp/ Min temp for further adjustment.
Also for real time events of natural or manmade disasters you can use the http://hisz.rsoe.hu/alertmap/index2.php for further inquirys.
Both are very useful tools. Enjoy!
0 -
I believe we do contribute. But not to the extent these global warming guys do. I do know we pollute the planet more than we change a gradient of temperature on this planet. That would be a better recourse of study. Than Global Warming!
0 -
Except, it's not cooling down. That's not an opinion, that's a fact.
There is no conversation to be had if you honestly think a short-term variation represents an overall cooling trend. You cannot ignore (and blatantly misrepresent) facts and expect to be taken seriously.
Yes, lets take a look at long term history shall we?
Now if you want to use history. Our warmup blip is just one of many. In fact there were hotter global temperatures 1000 years ago than now. AGW according to these charts would indicate than man played a very low if insignificant role in global temperature. You may see the charts of historical empirical evidence at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112000070
You are right, those graphs are definitely needed!! Need the long term, just my long term graphs go a bit longer than yours!
Also a note(quote) from Real Science: We are now at AR5 with zero warming since AR4. The last IPCC report which actually experienced any warming was SAR in 1995. In fact, the vast majority of the IPCC’s history(existence) has seen zero warming.
IMAGINE THAT!
0 -
heh pretty funny, I like this one too!
Ohh wait, your comics are meant to be funny. The people responsible for the polar bears are serious! I am not surprised you global warming types are not claiming victory for the current cooldown. Thats what it is all about right? Save the Polar Bears, make a better world? I would be darn happy if I believed in global warming. Means those grassfed bombs, Hybrid Prius Tanks, and drones that sing the lumaneers are working!
0 -
OK, the first page cited starts with,
"CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2 "
which is wrong.
As I already pointed out, you can carbon -date the CO2 that has been added to the air. It's old, soi its origin ie geological rather than oceanic.
It also says
"Prior research has shown infrared radiation from greenhouse gases is incapable of warming the oceans, only shortwave radiation from the Sun is capable of penetrating and heating the oceans and thereby driving global surface temperatures. "
which is silly.
The whole point about the greenhouse effect is that the sun warms the earth. The greenhouse stops the heat escaping.
The second web page says things like
"However, since the LWIR re-radiation from increasing 'greenhouse gases' is only capable of penetrating a minuscule few microns (millionths of a meter) past the surface and no further, it could therefore only cause evaporation (and thus cooling) of the surface 'skin' of the oceans."
which are unrealistic.
Heating the surface of the ocean makes it hotter.
It also makes the underlying water hotter by conduction.
The only way it could promote evaporation would be by heating.
Incidentally, that page also cites this guy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_A._Pielke#On_climate_change
He doesn't support your ideas that people are not responsible for climate change.
When you are citing people who don't agree with you in support of your ideas, it's probably time to find some better ideas.
I'm glad you find science funny.
There's not a lot of science in the pages you linked to- why is that?
Anyway, rather than posting links to stuff that doesn't stand up to any sort of analysis, why don't you answer my question?
Why don't you believe that the additional blanket we have put on is the reason we are hotter (and, yes- we are hotter- that's essentially the point Swansont is making)?
Man, that "doesnt stand up to analysis" seems familiar. Ohh yes, thats right, The Consensus Project
Here is a little info that does stand up. As it is observable. http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/09/23/september-21-breaks-the-record-for-most-sea-ice-ever-measured-at-either-pole/
You would believe the temperature globally would have increased globally in the past 15 years. But it has not. Sea Levels are currently decreasing, Volcanic Activity increasing. Sun spots at a minimum for the past two years. Started decreasing 5 years ago.
Over 2800 Cold records broken just in the past 3 months compared to the 669 warm temperatures broken in the past 3 months. One of the worst winters in South America ever! 250,00 Alpacas die due to a extreme winter storm.
References:ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/south/daily/data/
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/BREAKING_NEWS.pdf
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/tornado/tornadotrend.jpg
https://mobile.twitter.com/RyanMaue/status/382952569535877120/photo/1?screen_name=RyanMaue
And we now know why IPCC Climate Models fail. Along with any theory or assumption made by Climate Change/Global Warming supporters. REAL DATA says it all!
Photons are very objective, if they haven't enough energy they don't do the job.
Point well taken John. Except Photons dont lose but do share.
0 -
If you can't frame a decent argument as text here, then it also won't work as a video.
Perhaps you can explain something for me.
We know that there's roughly a third more CO2 in the air than there used to be. (The measurements way-back might be a little less precise than today's, but the general estimate would be pretty close to correct)
We know that this additional CO2 is due to our burning of fossil fuels. (Essentially, we know this because we paid tax on those fuels so they were quite well documented, but the radiocarbon signature also shows that this additional CO2 is geologically ancient).
We know that CO2 acts as a "greenhouse gas"- it absorbs infrared radiation.
We know that such IR absorbing gases will warm the earth.
We know that the earth is warming.
How do you come to the conclusion that we are not responsible for that warming?
.
LOL, man you guys sure come up with funny science! Enjoy! http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/08/new-blockbuster-paper-finds-man-made.html
Also http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/08/why-greenhouse-gases-wont-heat-oceans.html
-4 -
Now you quote me and add your own statements in the post. That is dishonest, even though you put your statements in red, you do not identify them as yours. All I said was that people can read the website and make up their own mind whether they have done a good job or not. Your statements in color red conclude things the web site does not say.
Well Ed, if people follow the set of threads, they will know the words are from me. Especially when they look at your OP then mine after. I apoligize sincerely if that offended you. Ill place my name in front of each comment if you like. But really will not be here much longer.
Nothing against you. But this subject has me a bit tainted.Besides, I really dont come to this site for the black/white debate. Have other things I came here for. My last thread concerning this subject.
0 -
Was this meant to be ironic?
"Just a quote for you!
MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen Rips UN IPCC Report: ‘The latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence’ — ‘It is quite amazing to see the contortions the IPCC has to go through in order to keep the international climate agenda going’
Have a good day!"
You quote someone who essentially just claims the ipcc report is rubbish- you don't offer any sort of evidence and then you say
"AND WHERES THE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE!"
Good question.
Where's the evidence that their report is wrong? Well before I give evidence, you still have to counter what I posted above this one. Disingenuous as the
Your characterization of the integrity of this project is incorrect IMO. The web site and its FAQ are available for everyone to read and judge for themselves; fortunately, they need no rely on your biases. Its not bias, its logic. Something I believe many who support this have a lack of. As they cannot go past the hype. Its not bias, as many here as well as that site itself are placing fake or disingenuous information to the public.
Perhaps if those advocates of Global Warming were honest instead of trying to cover /face. They would stop making junk science!
Also re" Really? You actually cannot defend your position other than trying to defame other scientists in the community who oppose your view. "
No, that's not wall I can do. I pointed out that one of your so called experts is a- shall we say - "questionable" witness.
And he was the first one I looked up, so I don't know what the others are like.
But the real point that you have missed is simple.
No, I didn't just question the reliability of your "experts"
I pointed out that , from a field of countless thousands of scientists, you can come up with a few dozen who support your belief and you pretend that those handful are enough to detract from the fact that the overwhelming consensus among scientists is that the world iw warming and we are at least partly responsible.
You said I can't defend my position.
Well saying that is obviously wrong. I had just defended it when you wrote that rant.
Were you lying deliberately, or did you just not understand that your were obviously utterly wrong?
Also, please learn to use the quote function correctly. As it stands you have falsely attributed some of your gibberish rant to me.
Your characterization of the integrity of this project is incorrect IMO. The web site and its FAQ are available for everyone to read and judge for themselves; fortunately, they need no rely on your biases.
Your opinion is just that, opinion. The reality is it is a junk science site. When a site lies from the beginning it can be no other than that. As shown in my post above. With shown evidence. The site remains a political /pseudoscience hack . I will be posting a nice you tube video to point it out.
0 -
Talk about another piece of false claims. A little frustrating, but here we go again.
Will help the reader undestand why this report is "FALSE".
First the claim.
Claim: 97% of papers published on Global Warming agree Global Warming is man-made.
Reality: That is 97% of the almost 4k papers made by 1200 respondents who were involved in the project. That is not a 97% of the papers peer reviewed world wide or a consensus among the the global scientific community. Rather they are peer reviewed papers by those involved with the project
The premise is both misleading and dishonest. Which as of late has been the usual norm IPCC and most global warming activists. This supposed fact" 97% of papers published on Global Warming agree Global Warming is man-made"is scientifically FALSE!
Continuation, using the reports own data. of the 8000 scientists only 1200 responded to paticipate in the project. That leaves 6800 who said no, not interested, or disagree with the premise. That is just among those scientists contacted.
Next, the peer reviewed papers themselves. A excuse of a pay wall does not articulate fact. As far as any reader is concerned a paper could be a picture of Micky Mouse holding a lit match. The reality is without actual support to the claim of AGW. It is still just hear-say. Which is not Empirical evidence. Regardless of how much or how many supposed papers that validate the claim. If they are not observable, they are not evidence.
I do not understand why some here cannot use logic or articulate to dispose a fudged fake advertisement such as the "Consensus Project" is.
I guess people buy into anything if it suits his or her beliefs or agenda!
Very embarassing if you believe that project!
Really? You think this planet can be occupied by a primate species with a population of more than 7,000,000,000 and not have any more effect on the environment than erosion? Mankind certainly contributes to climate change, only the magnitude of that contribution is debatable. One thing is not debatable though, the magnitude of mankinds pollution of the environment that we depend on for life. We're not just pissing in our bathwater, we've consumed an overdose of laxative so that we can make it toxic to life as we know it. As a whole we're proving to be a very irresponsible species on our host planet.
I agree, I never said that mankind does not contribute to the pollution and erosion that takes place in the world. You should perhaps read my article again. As I believe you may have missed some of the other things said in it.
0 -
If I counted correctly that's 35 scientists who believe mankind is not responsible for global warming.
Swansont's contention is that something like 95 % of scientists don't agree with that opinion. That's about 1 in 20.
Your "evidence" is a refutation as long as there are no more than 20 times 35 scientists in the world.
Otherwise it's just a list of names.
A different list would be the authors of the IPCC's latest report. There are about 600 of them.
So, I can easily cite a group that suggests that Swansont's position is reasonable.
Incidentally, would you like me to check up on the credentials of those 35?
how many of their wiki pages include stuff like ". Tennekes objected to the increase of computing power for medium-range weather forecasting, because he considered this unnecessary. According to Komen, Tennekes supported this decision by referring to biblical texts."? Really? You actually cannot defend your position other than trying to defame other scientists in the community who oppose your view. Thats a shameful action on your part. It is one thing to debate with evidence(which none of you have shown any). But quite another to attack people who are not even in this conversation. Talk about low character. If you are going to attack someone. You had better make sure they are present to do such.
you did not look at the other link provided, I will give you a link with a report. http://cfact.org/pdf/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.pdf as I stated, the wiki was a sampling. This report is a bit more in-depth.
Also I still have to see the hard evidence of 95% of scientists in the field agree with global warming. I am providing evidence. But as of yet, those of you arguing have provided no names, no anything. Other than empty jargon and a report from 2003.
Also consider this new report: http://climatechangereconsidered.org/
Just a quote for you!
MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen Rips UN IPCC Report: ‘The latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence’ — ‘It is quite amazing to see the contortions the IPCC has to go through in order to keep the international climate agenda going’Have a good day!
AND WHERES THE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE!
0 -
Now you are making things up. Proof of 95% of scientists in the field agree? Following the same suit as the Global Warming Scientists? Making things up then calling it fact? 95% of scientists agree the earth is round too! Does not matter! What does matter is real empiracal evidence to support the claim. Not faulty unproven and broken Climate Models which have been shown to be false over and over again.How does that in any way rebut the fact that >95% of scientists in the field agree that AGW is a thing?
Once again, another assumption, as well as a misdirection.This isn't about belief, and since the vast majority of the scientists are already "on our side" getting more would actually be a problem.
Now here is a list with credentials of scientists who differ from your view. By the way, this is just a sampling as it comes from wikpedia.
Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections
Scientists in this section have made comments that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.
- Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society %5B10%5D
- Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences%5B11%5D
- Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003), and author of books supporting the validity of dowsing%5B12%5D
- Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow ANU%5B13%5D
- Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London%5B14%5D
- Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
- Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences%5B17%5D
- Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics%5B18%5D%5B19%5D
- Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa%5B20%5D
- Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland%5B21%5D
- David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester%5B22%5D
- Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University%5B23%5D
- William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University%5B24%5D
- William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University%5B25%5D
- William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology%5B26%5D
- David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware%5B27%5D
- Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa%5B28%5D
- Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.%5B29%5D%5B30%5D
- Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of Mining Geology, the University of Adelaide.%5B31%5D
- Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University%5B32%5D%5B33%5D
- Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo%5B34%5D
- Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia%5B35%5D%5B36%5D%5B37%5D
- Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics%5B38%5D
- Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville%5B39%5D
- Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center%5B40%5D
- Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa%5B41%5D
Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown
Scientists in this section have made comments that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
- Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks%5B42%5D
- Claude Allègre, politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris)%5B43%5D
- Robert C. Balling, Jr., a professor of geography at Arizona State University%5B44%5D
- John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC%5B45%5D%5B46%5D
- Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory%5B47%5D
- Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology%5B48%5D
- David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma%5B49%5D
- Ivar Giaever, professor emeritus at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.%5B50%5D
- Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists%5B51%5D
Then you have this http://www.climatedepot.com/2010/12/08/special-report-more-than-1000-international-scientists-dissent-over-manmade-global-warming-claims-challenge-un-ipcc-gore-2/
At least if you are going to give a argument. Back it up! Otherwise it can be viewed as lying or deception. The same practice the IPCC has been doing for the past 5 years. Like I said, you have shown nothing to support your claims. While all anyone has to do is google the empirical evidence of the past 15 years for mine!
0 -
Well I do not agree or disagree with Obama Care. I just want a system that works. Regardless if its private or government run. The current system is not working. I honestly do not care if its defunded or have to wait. As long as we have a system that works. As well as those who need medical attention get it!
Now poltically, republicans put themselves into a bind. They are playing the waiting game with liberals. When has that ever worked? If it were the opposite spectrum. Liberals would do everything possible to kill it.
Pretty sad state of affairs there.
I am glad my wife and I have seperate health plans. I feel very bad for those who have to pay for family plans. Also to boot. You can no longer claim medical expenses on your taxes. Thats horrible. Can expect many people to not be happy about that.
This blob needs to be fixed or absolved. Either way im happy.
0
US Government Shut Down - new elections for senate and house of rep.?
in Politics
Posted
Considering Mr.Obama wants the shutdown as well. I do not see how its relevant. Both sides are doing it. Not just one. Democrats and Obama blame the Republicans. Republicans blame Democrats and Obama. Media is a one sided affair. More like CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC are just projecting the democrat agenda. Fox of course doing the GOP's bidding. I think both sides of government are horrible!
Also Black men are usually very good dancers!