Watchdog Central Dog House

News for 12/11/2009

Posted in Uncategorized by Desiree Paquette on December 11, 2009

Smoking Guns Abound In Climategate Scandal  examiner.com

White House Searches for A Billionaire to Blame  washingtonexaminer.com

Islamification of America and Emasculation of  US Military  Canada Free Press

Nations Seek Climate Financing For Poor Countries  AP/Yahoo

Scientists Behaving Badly  The Weekly Standard

Amnesty – Here It Comes December 15th  Randy’s Right

Climategate Investigations Galore  Accuracy In Media

Socialists Demand “Trillions” in “Climate Debt”  Accuracy In Media

Advertisements

2 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. hkyson said, on December 12, 2009 at 9:51 pm

    “Climategate” started out when there appeared on the Internet a collection of e-mails of a group of climatologists who work in the University of East Anglia in England. These documents reveal that some climatologists of international preeminence have manipulated the data of their investigations and have strongly tried to discredit climatologists who are not convinced that the increasing quantities of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere are the cause of global warming.

    It is true that a majority of the scientists who study climatic tendencies in our atmosphere have arrived at the conclusion that the world’s climate is changing, and they have convinced a group of politicians, some of whom are politically powerful, of the truth of their conclusions.

    A minority, however, is skeptical. Some believe that recent data that suggest that the average temperature of the atmosphere is going up can be explained by natural variations in solar radiation and that global warming is a temporary phenomenon. Others believe that the historical evidence indicating that the temperature of the atmosphere is going up at a dangerous rate is simply not reliable.

    Such lacks of agreement are common in the sciences. They are reduced and eventually eliminated with the accumulation of new evidence and of more refined theories or even by completely new ones. Such debates can persist for a period of decades. Academics often throw invective at one another in these debates. But typically this does not mean much.

    But the case of climate change is different. If the evidence indicates that global warming is progressive, is caused principally by our industrial processes, and will probably cause disastrous changes in our atmosphere before the end of the twenty-first century, then we do not have the time to verify precisely if this evidence is reliable. Such a process would be a question of many years of new investigations. And if the alarmist climatologists are right, such a delay would be tragic for all humanity.

    The difficulty is that economic and climatologic systems are very complicated. They are not like celestial mechanics, which involves only the interaction of gravity and centrifugal force, and efforts to construct computerized models to describe these complicated systems simply cannot include all the factors that are influential in the evolution of these complicated systems.

    All this does not necessarily indicate that the alarmist climatologists are not right. But it really means that if global warming is occurring, we cannot know exactly what will be the average temperature of our atmosphere in the year 2100 and what will be the average sea level of the world’s ocean in that year.

    It also means that we cannot be confident that efforts by the industrialized countries to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere will have a significant influence on the evolution of the world’s climate.

    Alas, the reduction of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere would be very costly and would greatly change the lives of all the inhabitants of our planet–with the possibility (perhaps even the probability!) that all these efforts will be completely useless.

    Harleigh Kyson Jr.

    • Desiree Paquette said, on December 12, 2009 at 10:26 pm

      I understand that you believe the majority of scientists agree there is global warming. I disagree. I refuse to use the term climate change as that is an absurd term, denoting something completely different than what you espouse. The climate has been changing, to and fro, in a cyclical manner throughout the course of time. The whole global warming group started out shouting about global cooling in the 70s. Then changed their alarms to global warming when that was proven wrong. When that was proven wrong they switched finally to climate change. Very convenient. (eye roll)

      Scientists agree as they are made to agree in order to facilitate funding.

      You are entitled to your opinion. I am entitled to mine. Guess we’ll have to hide and watch how it all turns out.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: