bmac32 Loc: West Florida

Intellectual nobody George Will — only one of the most perceptive, articulate and honest conservative commentators working within mainstream media today — meekly posited a theory to explain President Barack Obama’s ongoing obsession with man-made c*****e c****e as a matter of “settled science” over the weekend.

Appearing on a Fox News panel Sunday, Will nailed Obama’s motives to the wall: The President denies there’s a debate about the role man plays in shaping enormous natural forces, and he’s doing so because he wants to spend some money on a government-controlled cottage industry.

I’m one of those who are called “deniers.” And the imputation is that I “deny” c*****e c****e. It would be impossible to state with greater precision the opposite of my “view,” which is that, of course the climate is changing — it’s always changing.

…When a politician, on a subject implicating science — hard science, economic science, social science — says “The debate is over,” you may be sure of two things: the debate is raging, and he’s losing it. So I think, frankly, as a policy question, Chris — Holman Jenkins…at The Wall Street Journal put it perfectly: The only question is, how much money are we going to spend? How much wealth are we going to forego creating in order to have zero discernable effect on the environment?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xMYshWO5kHk

Retired669

If you want to learn anything about science you don't listen to i***ts like will who is a paid pimp for corporations who don't believe the climate is changing, you listen to science experts like Bill Nye who teaches science and have a much better understanding of what is happening to our planet everyday.

Plus if you want to learn anything you wouldn't listen to or watch faux to begin with unless you're completely stupid and don't care which I'd say is the boat you and many others on this board are in. :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

Donmac Loc: Lincoln, RI

George Will and the Wall St. reporter have it right on the mark. C*****e C****e is all about MONEY. The climate has always been changing and we can spend ourselves silly and it will still keep changing. UTTER NONSENSE!

jackmcgr1

The Planet Earth has been Constantly changing for 4.5 billion years, GENERALLY ACCEPTED.
The Federal Gov't since 1989 has spent $79 Billion of Tax Payers' Money on policies related to C*****e C****e, including Science, Technology Research, Administration, Propaganda Campaign, Foreign Aid, and Tax Breaks. Most of this spending unnecessary. This year your Govt. will spend $4 Billion on G****l W*****g, better known as C*****e C****e today.
The Fed. Govt. could be spending that $4 Billion to help Feed and House the Needy, the Poor, the Children, the Seniors and the Veterans. Instead they want to WASTE it on something that Man will never FIGURE OUT OR CONTROL. Pres. Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize for doing absolutely nothing. What is he going to win for turning his back on the American Needy and Poor?
" YOU DON'T MESS WITH MOTHER NATURE

Donmac Loc: Lincoln, RI

Exactly right......this money could be put to much better use and the effect would be more dramatic.
C*****e c****e isn't any different with all this outlay of funds, and it will not be any different if trillions more is spent as foolishly.
The trouble is, those who are prospering by this change.....they are filling their coffers dramatically. Sad and true.....

bmac32 Loc: West Florida

Of course c*****e c****es, it has been for millions of years but man is foolish if he thinks he can control it. Experts come and go, while I has a kid it was g****l C*****G, we must do something but in that 40 years nature has done something. Throwing money at it has no effect, NONE!

bobgssc

Paid pimp, seriously? You should probably go hang out with John Kerry.
As far as who is the stupid one in your posts, I believe your statements clearly define the true fool. And while Bill Nye is a scientist, he teaches his own brand of dumbed down, kiddie science. Bill Nye was great, when I was six. He used to teach real science (like how to make a battery from a potato, or how to make a radio with some simple parts you could get at radio shack or find around the house often). He simply is not a climatologist. The fact that he says there is no disagreement in the "scientific community" does prove he either doesn't know what he is talking about, or he is more biased than most people on this board. And btw, any "scientist who teaches that the CO2 levels in glacial ice (higher in warm times) "PROVES" that man is the cause, is teaching from a completely closed mind. There is no PROOF there at all. The higher levels of CO2 which coincide with the warmer times in our history simply prove that CO2 was higher in those times... this is what is referred to as anecdotal data. An open mind might consider that the CO2 was the result of the warming trend, just as easily as it could have been the cause. The problem with most "science" is that while much data is entirely open to interpretation, the closed mind is not. I'm sure I'll take some flack over this post but wh**ever, I'm sure I heard worse in the military.

Kevyn

Will is right the debate is raging, it is just not raging among scientists. The vast majority of scientists including those at NOAH and NASA agree that man made c*****e c****e is real and is happening now. The hand full of scientists that deny this are in the employ of corporations and business that are threatened by proposed reforms to protect the planet. Thease guys are of the same ilk as the tobacco scientists who stammered on about the health benefits of a three pack a day habit. The c*****e c****e debate rages because of a big marketing campaign to dispute long settled science. It is paid for by the big polluters and their supporters.

Kevyn

Will is right the debate is raging, it is just not raging among scientists. The vast majority of scientists including those at NOAH and NASA agree that man made c*****e c****e is real and is happening now. The hand full of scientists that deny this are in the employ of corporations and business that are threatened by proposed reforms to protect the planet. Thease guys are of the same ilk as the tobacco scientists who stammered on about the health benefits of a three pack a day habit. The c*****e c****e debate rages because of a big marketing campaign to dispute long settled science. It is paid for by the big polluters and their supporters.

Kevyn

Sorry my so called smart phone refreshed and I posted twice.

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

mwdegutis Loc: Illinois

bmac32 Loc: West Florida

Hansen Admits G****l W*****g is Not Man-Made + NASA Data Discredits ‘C*****e C****e Theory’

After spending more than a decade observing the glaciers in Greenland, scientists have concluded that they are not melting with the veracity that c*****e c****e alarmists would have us believe. Along with the glaciers not preforming up to c*****e c****e alarmists expectations, it has been noted that flowers are blooming up to 8 times faster than were projected. In a study published in the journal Remote Sensing, co-author Dr. Roy Spencer reported that real data from NASA’s Terra Satellite completely contradicts the assumptions made by c*****e c****e alarmists. According to a press release, at the University of Alabama, Spencer said: “The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show. There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans…..

”te=Kevyn]Will is right the debate is raging, it is just not raging among scientists. The vast majority of scientists including those at NOAH and NASA agree that man made c*****e c****e is real and is happening now. The hand full of scientists that deny this are in the employ of corporations and business that are threatened by proposed reforms to protect the planet. Thease guys are of the same ilk as the tobacco scientists who stammered on about the health benefits of a three pack a day habit. The c*****e c****e debate rages because of a big marketing campaign to dispute long settled science. It is paid for by the big polluters and their supporters.[/quote]

Donmac Loc: Lincoln, RI

If you can't prove what you say, just call them names.....that will solve a lot!

rumitoid

[/quote]

I tried to find a report I read in the last two days about a new compilation of satellite data on reflected heat in the polar regions. It seems their calculations were way off and far more heat is being absorbed than projected. Had to with albedo. Will look some more but it made no mention if this effect were somehow man-made.