Global warming is of concern Global warming is of concern to me.
I’m not a tree hugger but I drive a small car and try not be be wasteful of resources, such as energy and water.
briansd1
October 22, 2009 @
11:04 PM
Interesting story.
I think Interesting story.
I think that the deniers are wrong. But hey, if people don’t want to contribute to solving the problem, then I have no reason to feel guilty about using my air-conditioner.
*
WASHINGTON — Americans seem to be cooling toward global warming.
Just 57 percent think there is solid evidence the world is getting warmer, down 20 points in just three years, a new poll says. And the share of people who believe pollution caused by humans is causing temperatures to rise has also taken a dip, even as the U.S. and world forums gear up for possible action against climate change.
In a poll of 1,500 adults by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, released Thursday, the number of people saying there is strong scientific evidence that the Earth has gotten warmer over the past few decades is down from 71 percent in April of last year and from 77 percent when Pew started asking the question in 2006. The number of people who see the situation as a serious problem also has declined.
I’m all for Mangos in I’m all for Mangos in Minnesota.
Plus, if enough polar ice melts, my Clairemont canyon home will be beach-front.
urbanrealtor
November 20, 2009 @
3:24 PM
I am humming Aenima as I read I am humming Aenima as I read this.
OwnerOfCalifornia
November 20, 2009 @
4:01 PM
I’ve a suggestion to keep you I’ve a suggestion to keep you all occupied: learn to swim.
SellingMyHome
November 21, 2009 @
8:11 PM
flinger wrote:I’ve a [quote=flinger]I’ve a suggestion to keep you all occupied: learn to swim.[/quote]
I love Tool too. Did you know Maynard just played here a few weeks ago with some new group called Pucifer or something like that? It’s been a few years since I’ve seen him.
Even if the so called devastating of effects climate change isn’t for real, i think it wouldn’t hurt to do as much as possible to slow it down. We can do it without hurting companies. Anyways, why should it be okay for a company to pollute? I’m sure many people said acid rain was fake, but rust belt cities benefited from the changes to stop it.
With this bad economy (and no, my pending short sale isn’t the reason for it 🙂 ), it seems like a good idea to make as many as “green” jobs as possible. Better than “dirty” jobs, whatever that may be.
Arraya
November 20, 2009 @
4:08 PM
urbanrealtor wrote:I am [quote=urbanrealtor]I am humming Aenima as I read this.[/quote]
Yup…
Allan from Fallbrook
November 20, 2009 @
4:33 PM
Arraya][quote=urbanrealtor [quote=Arraya][quote=urbanrealtor]I am humming Aenima as I read this.[/quote]
Yup…[/quote
Arraya: As my favorite (thinking/intellectual) conspiracy theorist, what do you think of this:
*Note: Delingpole is a righty and it ain’t like The Telegraph is The Guardian, so keep that in mind.
However, if true, I’d think this should be big news. Also, note the part about global warming adherents seeking to marginalize their opponents through ostracism and boycott. Interesting stuff. Of course, I also believe most of the hot air in the atmosphere happens to be coming out of Al Gore’s mouth…
Arraya
November 21, 2009 @
7:13 AM
Allan from [quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=Arraya][quote=urbanrealtor]I am humming Aenima as I read this.[/quote]
Yup…[/quote
Arraya: As my favorite (thinking/intellectual) conspiracy theorist, what do you think of this:
*Note: Delingpole is a righty and it ain’t like The Telegraph is The Guardian, so keep that in mind.
However, if true, I’d think this should be big news. Also, note the part about global warming adherents seeking to marginalize their opponents through ostracism and boycott. Interesting stuff. Of course, I also believe most of the hot air in the atmosphere happens to be coming out of Al Gore’s mouth…[/quote]
Yeah, CC is real and irrelevant, IMO. Those emails don’t amount to much. The science itself has been studied for about 5 decades now. Al Gore did not just invent it. My sister is an actual Duke educated environmental scientist, not climatology but ocean. Sure Al Gore and GS are positioned to make billions if cap and trade passes and really it is nothing more than another betting scheme and way to make up tax receipt shortfalls. The thing that always killed me about the CC debate was juxtaposing the IPCC recommendations for carbon decreases with what is going in the fossil fuel world.
Which leads to the real scandal which is what has been reveled at the IEA(international energy administration). Google IEA whistle blower.
Here is the reply from the scientists on the leaked emails. Good write up and commentary.
More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though.
Instead, there is a peek into how scientists actually interact and the conflicts show that the community is a far cry from the monolith that is sometimes imagined. People working constructively to improve joint publications; scientists who are friendly and agree on many of the big picture issues, disagreeing at times about details and engaging in ‘robust’ discussions; Scientists expressing frustration at the misrepresentation of their work in politicized arenas and complaining when media reports get it wrong; Scientists resenting the time they have to take out of their research to deal with over-hyped nonsense. None of this should be shocking.
KSMountain
November 21, 2009 @
12:56 PM
Tangentially-related:
What do Tangentially-related:
What do the piggs think about Nuclear? Seems in a lot of commercials recently that list our energy options, Nuclearn isn’t even listed as an option. It’s an unmentionable energy pariah. I think that’s unfortunate.
I dunno, seems like a good way to go to me if we’re concerned about global warming due to greenhouse gases.
Build 20 really big, really safe, really expensive, quadruple-containment reactors. (I’m talking $20B each, as an example). Generate a boatload of electricity and use that for heating, transportation, whatever can be driven electrically (which seems like a lot).
Heck, even if there were one meltdown per century say (which I doubt), would that be better than the global warming scenarios that are being bandied about?
As far as the generated waste, it seems like we’re actually dealing with that ok so far. And we probably could have used Yucca Mountain except it’s in Harry Reid’s state.
I dunno, aren’t the waste products and env damage associated with oil worse than anything that’s happened so far with nuclear waste? (e.g. Exxon Valdez, big coal mines, etc).
CardiffBaseball
November 20, 2009 @
9:04 PM
urbanrealtor wrote:I am [quote=urbanrealtor]I am humming Aenima as I read this.[/quote]
Damn I didn’t think you hardcore libs could be cool. … I noticed Maynard was born in the same place I was (Ravenna, OH.)
Funny some of these bands I like are polar opposites of me on the spectrum (SOAD, Rage, etc.). Loves me some Tool.
Allan from Fallbrook
November 20, 2009 @
9:58 PM
CardiffBaseball [quote=CardiffBaseball][quote=urbanrealtor]I am humming Aenima as I read this.[/quote]
Damn I didn’t think you hardcore libs could be cool. … I noticed Maynard was born in the same place I was (Ravenna, OH.)
Funny some of these bands I like are polar opposites of me on the spectrum (SOAD, Rage, etc.). Loves me some Tool.[/quote]
Cardiff: If you’re a RATM (Rage) fan, you probably know about Audioslave. If not, give them a listen.
I saw Zack de la Rocha (former Rage frontman) being interviewed and just about fell out laughing. He’s a Noam Chomsky devotee, but his hero worship of ‘ol Noam doesn’t translate too well in terms of his own politics.
Like most American Leftists, he’s incoherent and his rants about corporations (especially whilst pushing his CDs for the corporation that sponsors him) are hilarious, but unintentionally so.
If you want some truly insane metal, listen to All Shall Perish. Good, head banging Bay Area metal.
Jim Jones
November 20, 2009 @
6:51 PM
I myself am not sure what is I myself am not sure what is true and what is not but this article regarding stolen emails is just the beginning of a larger effort to level the playing field on public scrutiny of the theory.
I think everyone should repeat that three times “It’s only a theory”.
It’s a concern for me, but I It’s a concern for me, but I don’t feel like it’s the impending doom some others feel. I do believe we should strive to live cleaner, but there’s no reason to bankrupt ourselves to do so. Give it a couple generations for technology to solve the problem rather than trying to move backward through time and all move into huts with no electricity.
Allan from Fallbrook
November 20, 2009 @
7:32 PM
mike92104 wrote:It’s a [quote=mike92104]It’s a concern for me, but I don’t feel like it’s the impending doom some others feel. I do believe we should strive to live cleaner, but there’s no reason to bankrupt ourselves to do so. Give it a couple generations for technology to solve the problem rather than trying to move backward through time and all move into huts with no electricity.[/quote]
Mike: Excellent points. The problem is that any attempt to question the “settled science” (using Katie Couric’s words) is treated as heresy or blasphemy.
Skeptics such as Ross McKitrick (who debunked the “hockey stick” theorem of warming) and Bjorn Lomborg (“The Skeptical Environmentalist, Cool It”), have been treated as near criminals for their temerity.
Moreover, when one considers the costs inherent to the “solutions”, versus spending those same dollars on more logical and level headed programs, it becomes painfully apparent that this is a boondoggle of epic proportions. Then you do a little digging into Al Gore’s affairs, for instance, and find out he happens to own a company making a fortune off this very boondoggle.
mike92104
November 20, 2009 @
8:00 PM
Who can I sell my carbon Who can I sell my carbon credits to anyway? I’m pretty sure I use less than Al Gore.
garysears
November 21, 2009 @
1:25 PM
The proponents of global The proponents of global warming and climate change science seem pretty anxious to jump straight to legislation. This leads me to believe the “problem” is mostly a standard political agenda that uses fear to control people.
The debate doesn’t seem to be over whether our efforts would best be spent trying to 1) adapt to climate change or 2) prevent it.
This seems to be because man is the assumed culprit.
Whether or not that is true, can anyone show 1) why past climate change on earth has been so extreme or 2) that man caused warming will be as extreme.
Despite our human preference for the status quo and fear and inconvenience caused by change, is it not possible that the earth is a harsh and varying place with or without man?
My vote would be to spend our efforts adapting to change rather than attempting to keep constant our current preferred global climate.
EconProf
November 21, 2009 @
5:32 PM
Most measurements of global Most measurements of global temperatures peaked in about 1999 and have since leveled off or declined. Al Gore wrote his book at about mid-decade and based it on data from previous years. Maybe that’s why he won’t debate the subject with those who take a contrary stand. And perhaps that is why there is an effort to hurry up and get cap and trade legislation before more contrary data show up.
Eugene
November 21, 2009 @
7:25 PM
EconProf wrote:Most [quote=EconProf]Most measurements of global temperatures peaked in about 1999 and have since leveled off or declined. Al Gore wrote his book at about mid-decade and based it on data from previous years. Maybe that’s why he won’t debate the subject with those who take a contrary stand. And perhaps that is why there is an effort to hurry up and get cap and trade legislation before more contrary data show up.[/quote]
1999 was an abnormally warm year, a fluctuation. Temperatures are generally below the 1999 peak, but nevertheless most measures of global temperatures show that 2000’s are on track to be the warmest decade on record.
There’s no doubt that the Antarctic polar cap has been shrinking at a remarkable rate. 2007 was very warm in the Arctic, lowest sea ice minimum on record was observed, and 2008 and 2009 sea ice minima were both well below 1980-2000 averages.
EconProf
November 21, 2009 @
7:59 PM
Global water temperatures did Global water temperatures did indeed peak in 1999, and generally rose sharply through the 1990’s. That is why the global alarmists typically use that year as the end-date of their studies.
Yes, this decade will be the warmest decade on record, simply because the runup to 1999 included some early years of lower temperatures. My point is that since the temperature trend is now generally lower for the past decade, shouldn’t we be skeptical before we slam our economy with the new burden of cap and trade? China will happily take up the production slack when our costs skyrocket and employment falls.
air_ogi
November 21, 2009 @
9:11 PM
EconProf wrote: China will [quote=EconProf] China will happily take up the production slack when our costs skyrocket and employment falls.[/quote]
Yes, the job migration will occur as it did from EU to US, when EU enacted (much stronger) carbon limits. Honestly, the complete destruction of EU manufacturing is the primary reason for Dollar strength against Euro in the last decade. /s
China industrial rate is around 15c/kwh, which is significantly higher than average industrial rate in US. Are you saying that Chinese will out-compete us on a level playing field?
DWCAP
November 22, 2009 @
5:05 PM
I am always suprised that I am always suprised that people seem to think that because this is called ‘global warming’ it only means that temeratures have to go straight up like housing prices from 1998-2005, except never ending. Or that we are going to live some lame hollywood bastardization of the issue like ‘day after tomorrow’.
Look, the levels of CO2 in the atmoshphere are rising, and that is undoubadly because humans are releasing large amounts of it that use to be captured below ground. What the effects of this will be is still not fully understood. Globally we are getting warmer than we were, so it is called global warming. Polar ice packs, and most non polar glaciers, are melting at accelerating rates. In a personal anacadote, farms are moving farther and farther north in Minnesota, because they can.
Who knows what the overall repercussions of increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide will be. Shouldnt we try to A) find out, and B) minimize the negative effects? And considering we have no idea what the final effects are, shouldnt we try to slowdown the driver of the changes, increasing levels of CO2?
There, that wasnt so scarry was it?
SellingMyHome
November 22, 2009 @
5:10 PM
I think the earth would go I think the earth would go through global warming on its own, just not at the pace it has in the last 50 years. We should try and slow it down. The long-run economy will be fine with green policies, don’t believe the conservative argument otherwise.
Allan from Fallbrook
November 22, 2009 @
5:32 PM
SellingMyHome wrote:I think [quote=SellingMyHome]I think the earth would go through global warming on its own, just not at the pace it has in the last 50 years. We should try and slow it down. The long-run economy will be fine with green policies, don’t believe the conservative argument otherwise.[/quote]
Which conservative argument would that be, exactly? Dear God, more unfathomably witless stupidity and mendacity at work.
Have you spent any time reading up on these so-called “green” policies and what they will cost versus what they will accomplish? While you’re at it, check out the number of liberal politicians or center-left politicians throughout the world who oppose not only Kyoto, but the majority of these policies.
Finally, read some Bjorn Lomborg, who remains one of the most rational proponents of intelligent green policies and doesn’t succumb to the pressure of feckless idiots like Al Gore, who is simply in this for the money.
Do your homework and get your facts straight before making utterly vapid and wholly unsupported pronouncements.
SellingMyHome
November 22, 2009 @
5:50 PM
Allan from Fallbrook [quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=SellingMyHome]I think the earth would go through global warming on its own, just not at the pace it has in the last 50 years. We should try and slow it down. The long-run economy will be fine with green policies, don’t believe the conservative argument otherwise.[/quote]
Which conservative argument would that be, exactly? Dear God, more unfathomably witless stupidity and mendacity at work.
Have you spent any time reading up on these so-called “green” policies and what they will cost versus what they will accomplish? While you’re at it, check out the number of liberal politicians or center-left politicians throughout the world who oppose not only Kyoto, but the majority of these policies.
Finally, read some Bjorn Lomborg, who remains one of the most rational proponents of intelligent green policies and doesn’t succumb to the pressure of feckless idiots like Al Gore, who is simply in this for the money.
Do your homework and get your facts straight before making utterly vapid and wholly unsupported pronouncements.[/quote]
Allen, Allen, Allen, calm down now. Are you saying green policies are good or not?
Even Clinton wouldn’t sign Kyoto, but it was the feckless idiot conservatives that helped to keep it down. They probably threatened to disclose another one of his affairs!
I’m not happy with the Democrat’s answers to this either, but they are just as beholden to big business as the other side.
Friggin China is going to be producing less CO2 sooner than we will. Why? Because even they figured out their long term success depends on it.
Allan from Fallbrook
November 22, 2009 @
7:44 PM
SellingMyHome wrote:Allan [quote=SellingMyHome][quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=SellingMyHome]I think the earth would go through global warming on its own, just not at the pace it has in the last 50 years. We should try and slow it down. The long-run economy will be fine with green policies, don’t believe the conservative argument otherwise.[/quote]
Which conservative argument would that be, exactly? Dear God, more unfathomably witless stupidity and mendacity at work.
Have you spent any time reading up on these so-called “green” policies and what they will cost versus what they will accomplish? While you’re at it, check out the number of liberal politicians or center-left politicians throughout the world who oppose not only Kyoto, but the majority of these policies.
Finally, read some Bjorn Lomborg, who remains one of the most rational proponents of intelligent green policies and doesn’t succumb to the pressure of feckless idiots like Al Gore, who is simply in this for the money.
Do your homework and get your facts straight before making utterly vapid and wholly unsupported pronouncements.[/quote]
Allen, Allen, Allen, calm down now. Are you saying green policies are good or not?
Even Clinton wouldn’t sign Kyoto, but it was the feckless idiot conservatives that helped to keep it down. They probably threatened to disclose another one of his affairs!
I’m not happy with the Democrat’s answers to this either, but they are just as beholden to big business as the other side.
Friggin China is going to be producing less CO2 sooner than we will. Why? Because even they figured out their long term success depends on it.[/quote]
Clinton not signing Kyoto had nothing to do with fear of being outed for another affair. It had everything to do with listening to wise counsel about the financially ruinous costs inherent to the Protocols, all for negligible gains.
Tell me, what do you think “green” policies entail? You throw a strawman up and imply that somehow I’m against green policies. I’m not. What I’m against are ill thought out, politically motivated, scientifically unsupported money wasters that make people feel good, but fail to accomplish anything of value.
Again, which feckless conservatives helped “keep it (Kyoto) down” again? You also didn’t respond to my assertion regarding liberals and center-left politicians opposing Kyoto, either.
As far as China becoming “green”, give me a minute. I fell down on the floor after laughing my ass off. Why let the facts get in the way of a good story, right?
SellingMyHome
November 22, 2009 @
7:54 PM
Allan from Fallbrook wrote:As [quote=Allan from Fallbrook]As far as China becoming “green”, give me a minute. I fell down on the floor after laughing my ass off. Why let the facts get in the way of a good story, right?[/quote]
I’ve been hearing about their efforts to find alternative energy. They will do it, trust me. If they can save a buck and buy another dollar of our hides, they will do it.
I did admit to the liberal opposition to Kyoto, it’s sad.
moneymaker
November 22, 2009 @
8:25 PM
I think airplane exhausts at I think airplane exhausts at 30,000 feet (you know the kind Al Gore flies around in) are what are causing the ozone to thin. I’m with KUSI’ weather man(John Coleman) in denying that global warming exists. And why would that be? Because of something I learned in high school physics class,”black body radiation”, the hotter something is the more heat it radiates,i.e. the Earth will maintain equilibrium with it’s surroundings,i.e. space. I know there is a lot more to black body radiation as far as peak wavelenths and all that. Rich is there any correlation between the lengths of these topics and unemployment?
Allan from Fallbrook
November 22, 2009 @
9:45 PM
SellingMyHome wrote:I did [quote=SellingMyHome]I did admit to the liberal opposition to Kyoto, it’s sad.[/quote]
Article from the American on the upcoming expiration of Kyoto.
Interesting to note that, unlike your assessment of strong conservative opposition, the Senate vote back in 1997 (Clinton Administration) was 95 – 0 against and included Barack Obama’s vote in opposition. Al Gore was also against it and did not push for amendment or ratification.
One might infer, incorrectly, from your comment above, that liberals, for the most part, supported Kyoto. However, the facts tell a different story.
You declined to answer when I asked you what you thought about green policies (after you implied that I was somehow anti-green) and declined further to opine about the opposition from liberal and center-left governments, especially those in the OECD.
So, could it be that it wasn’t the “feckless conservatives” at all? Might it be that, after careful study and reviewing the facts, politicians of all stripes correctly conclude that ill-advised, overly expensive and ultimately pointless pieces of legislation like Kyoto are nothing more than window dressing for hand wringing do-gooders with more emotion than sense?
Of course, it might just be me.
LuckyInOC
November 22, 2009 @
9:57 PM
For sale: Wooden For sale: Wooden Boat…
Slightly used, only a total of 40 days on water.
Large enough to house several pairs of animals.
May need some repairs due to lack of use.
May need cleaning in cargo holds.
Slightly used, only a total of 40 days on water.
Large enough to house several pairs of animals.
May need some repairs due to lack of use.
May need cleaning in cargo holds.
OC: Yeah, but you’re gonna have to go to the top of Mt. Ararat in Turkey to pick the damn thing up!
urbanrealtor
November 22, 2009 @
10:14 PM
Allan from Fallbrook [quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Interesting to note that, unlike your assessment of strong conservative opposition, the Senate vote back in 1997 (Clinton Administration) was 95 – 0 against and included Barack Obama’s vote in opposition. [/quote]
He voted against Kyoto 8 years before he was in the senate?
He truly is magic.
Allan from Fallbrook
November 22, 2009 @
10:28 PM
urbanrealtor wrote:Allan from [quote=urbanrealtor][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Interesting to note that, unlike your assessment of strong conservative opposition, the Senate vote back in 1997 (Clinton Administration) was 95 – 0 against and included Barack Obama’s vote in opposition. [/quote]
He voted against Kyoto 8 years before he was in the senate?
He truly is magic.[/quote]
Dan: From the article: The story, at least on the international side, is complicated by our actual history with Kyoto, which is not as simple as some greens would portray it today. Rejection of Kyoto—in 1997, three years before Bush’s election—was a rare moment of bipartisan consensus on climate policy; the Senate voted unanimously (95-0) against its basic tenets, and the Clinton-Gore administration never submitted it for ratification. (Even a little-known state legislator from Illinois named Barack Obama voted to condemn Kyoto and prohibit the state from regulating greenhouse gas emissions.)
Whoops. I misread that and, as a result, misquoted. See above.
SellingMyHome
November 22, 2009 @
11:01 PM
Allan from Fallbrook [quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=urbanrealtor][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Interesting to note that, unlike your assessment of strong conservative opposition, the Senate vote back in 1997 (Clinton Administration) was 95 – 0 against and included Barack Obama’s vote in opposition. [/quote]
He voted against Kyoto 8 years before he was in the senate?
He truly is magic.[/quote]
Dan: From the article: The story, at least on the international side, is complicated by our actual history with Kyoto, which is not as simple as some greens would portray it today. Rejection of Kyoto—in 1997, three years before Bush’s election—was a rare moment of bipartisan consensus on climate policy; the Senate voted unanimously (95-0) against its basic tenets, and the Clinton-Gore administration never submitted it for ratification. (Even a little-known state legislator from Illinois named Barack Obama voted to condemn Kyoto and prohibit the state from regulating greenhouse gas emissions.)
Whoops. I misread that and, as a result, misquoted. See above.[/quote]
having a bit trusting your word now… Just kidding, one misread won’t kill your trustworthiness…
Allan from Fallbrook
November 22, 2009 @
11:14 PM
SellingMyHome wrote:having a [quote=SellingMyHome]having a bit trusting your word now… Just kidding, one misread won’t kill your trustworthiness…[/quote]
Ah, but I’m a conservative, ergo, I’m untrustworthy.
I am, however, a money grubbing, law flouting, Leftist gob smacking, junior plutocrat.
Oh, and, if you listen to the Russians and Chinese, A running dog imperialist exploiter of the masses.
Now, I must be off. Time for my anarcho-syndicalist book club meeting.
Allan from Fallbrook
November 22, 2009 @
10:29 PM
urbanrealtor wrote:
He truly [quote=urbanrealtor]
He truly is magic.[/quote]
Dan: You’ve been listening to Rush Limbaugh again, haven’t you?
SellingMyHome
November 22, 2009 @
11:12 PM
Allan from Fallbrook [quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
One might infer, incorrectly, from your comment above, that liberals, for the most part, supported Kyoto. However, the facts tell a different story.
You declined to answer when I asked you what you thought about green policies (after you implied that I was somehow anti-green) and declined further to opine about the opposition from liberal and center-left governments, especially those in the OECD.
So, could it be that it wasn’t the “feckless conservatives” at all? Might it be that, after careful study and reviewing the facts, politicians of all stripes correctly conclude that ill-advised, overly expensive and ultimately pointless pieces of legislation like Kyoto are nothing more than window dressing for hand wringing do-gooders with more emotion than sense?
Of course, it might just be me.[/quote]
I agree Kyoto wasn’t the best, Clinton couldn’t get them to agree to firm targets without undue restrictions on how to achieve them. So, Congress couldn’t vote for it.
I never said liberals supported it, please show me where. I said it was sad they didn’t. Between your mis-reading of articles (probably Wikipedia), and your mis-reading of my posts, I’m starting to worry.
But it isn’t a surprise they didn’t vote for it then. Why even try when a crazy, liberal-hunting Congress has control? Now that the liberals have control, they could try to push something through, but they won’t, they’ll screw things up…Sad. We may not even get health care.
Allan from Fallbrook
November 22, 2009 @
11:20 PM
SellingMyHome wrote:
I never [quote=SellingMyHome]
I never said liberals supported it, please show me where. I said it was sad they didn’t. Between your mis-reading of articles (probably Wikipedia), and your mis-reading of my posts, I’m starting to worry.
[/quote]
I stand corrected and you are right. I made a clumsy and incorrect inference after your shot at conservatives.
Bad knee jerk reaction on my part.
You probably should worry, but for reasons other than misreading.
Allan from Fallbrook
November 22, 2009 @
9:53 PM
SellingMyHome wrote:
I’ve [quote=SellingMyHome]
I’ve been hearing about their efforts to find alternative energy. They will do it, trust me. If they can save a buck and buy another dollar of our hides, they will do it.
[/quote]
Guardian article on China as world’s worst polluter. As far as the Chinese government’s “commitment” to “work” on “improvements”, its a joke. If you haven’t been to China, go. Visit the industrialized areas and spend a few days. Check out your clothes and hair after leaving and it will absolutely amaze you.
The Chinese government could give a shit about air quality, or safety, or health. Last week’s mine explosion is proof of that. If you actually buy in to what the Chinese government is telling you, well…
ucodegen
November 22, 2009 @
10:11 PM
@Allan from Fallbrook
The
@Allan from Fallbrook
The Chinese government could give a shit about air quality, or safety, or health. Last week’s mine explosion is proof of that. If you actually buy in to what the Chinese government is telling you, well…
China has a large solar initiative.. but it is not for ‘eco’ reasons. It is because recently they went from a net exporter to a net importer of oil. The Chinese realize that being a net importer of oil is equivalent to money dripping out of their pocket.
a quote: “Despite the economic slowdown in exports and domestic demand in the past year, China’s demand for energy remains high. China has emerged from being a net oil exporter in the early 1990s to become the world’s third-largest net importer of oil in 2006.”
urbanrealtor
November 22, 2009 @
10:30 PM
ucodegen wrote:
China has a [quote=ucodegen]
China has a large solar initiative.. but it is not for ‘eco’ reasons. It is because recently they went from a net exporter to a net importer of oil. The Chinese realize that being a net importer of oil is equivalent to money dripping out of their pocket.
[/quote]
The Chinese ain’t dumb.
They went from the 4th world to a global competitor since I graduated high school.
It makes a shitload of sense for them to be investing in renewable energy.
This is a strategic–not a moral–question.
Also, Allan I actually agree with you.
But my views on the irrelevancy of human contribution stand.
Allan from Fallbrook
November 22, 2009 @
10:55 PM
urbanrealtor wrote:Also, [quote=urbanrealtor]Also, Allan I actually agree with you.
[/quote]
Dan: I don’t know if I’m more pleased or frightened.
SellingMyHome
November 22, 2009 @
5:55 PM
Allan from Fallbrook [quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Finally, read some Bjorn Lomborg, who remains one of the most rational proponents of intelligent green policies [/quote]
Bjorn might have some good ideas, but he needs to be better at getting them out:
The DCSD cited The Skeptical Environmentalist for:
Fabrication of data;
Selective discarding of unwanted results (selective citation);
Deliberately misleading use of statistical methods;
Distorted interpretation of conclusions;
Plagiarism;
Deliberate misinterpretation of others’ results
OUCH.
Allan from Fallbrook
November 22, 2009 @
7:38 PM
SellingMyHome wrote:Allan [quote=SellingMyHome][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Finally, read some Bjorn Lomborg, who remains one of the most rational proponents of intelligent green policies [/quote]
Bjorn might have some good ideas, but he needs to be better at getting them out:
The DCSD cited The Skeptical Environmentalist for:
Fabrication of data;
Selective discarding of unwanted results (selective citation);
Deliberately misleading use of statistical methods;
Distorted interpretation of conclusions;
Plagiarism;
Deliberate misinterpretation of others’ results
OUCH.[/quote]
Uh, yeah. You might want to include the rest of that citation, but, in true Leftist fashion, you left out the important part:
MSTI review
On February 13, 2003, Lomborg filed a complaint against the DCSD’s decision, with the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MSTI), which has oversight over the DCSD. On December 17, 2003, the Ministry annulled the decision made by DCSD. In doing so, MSTI cited several procedural errors, including:
* The DCSD did not use a precise standard for deciding “good scientific practice” in the social sciences;[citation needed]
* The DCSD’s definition of “objective scientific dishonesty” was not clear about whether “distortion of statistical data” had to be deliberate or not;[citation needed]
* The DCSD had not properly documented that The Skeptical Environmentalist was a scientific publication on which they had the right to intervene in the first place;
* The DCSD did not provide specific statements on actual errors. On this point the MSTI stated “the DCSD has not documented where [Dr Lomborg] has allegedly been biased in his choice of data and in his argumentation, and … the ruling is completely void of argumentation for why the DCSD find that the complainants are right in their criticisms of [his] working methods. It is not sufficient that the criticisms of a researcher’s working methods exist; the DCSD must consider the criticisms and take a position on whether or not the criticisms are justified, and why.”[4]
The Ministry remitted the case to the DCSD. In doing so the Ministry indicated that it regarded the DCSD’s previous findings of scientific dishonesty in regard to the book as invalid.[5][6] The Ministry also instructed the DCSD to decide whether to reinvestigate.
[edit] DCSD response
On March 12, 2004, the Committee formally decided not to act further on the complaints, reasoning that renewed scrutiny would, in all likelihood, result in the same conclusion.[5]
[edit] Response of the scientific community
The original DCSD decision about Lomborg provoked a petition[7] among Danish academics. 308 scientists, many of them from the social sciences, criticised the DCSD’s methods in the case and called for the DCSD to be disbanded.[8] The Danish Minister of Science, Technology, and Innovation then asked the Danish Research Agency to form an independent working group to review DCSD practices.[9] In response to this, another group of Danish scientists collected over 600 signatures (primarily from the medical and natural sciences community) in support of the DCSD and presented their petition to the Danish Research Agency.[8]
The DCSD is a joke, as evidenced by the above. Lomborg has been subjected to numerous similar hit and hatchet jobs, and all for having sufficient integrity to pursue a scientifically centered and informed approach to environmentalism. Can’t have that. Just ask Al Gore. Don’t question the “settled science” or bad things will happen.
SellingMyHome
November 22, 2009 @
7:48 PM
Allan from Fallbrook [quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Uh, yeah. You might want to include the rest of that citation, but, in true Leftist fashion, you left out the important part:
The DCSD is a joke, as evidenced by the above. Lomborg has been subjected to numerous similar hit and hatchet jobs, and all for having sufficient integrity to pursue a scientifically centered and informed approach to environmentalism. Can’t have that. Just ask Al Gore. Don’t question the “settled science” or bad things will happen.[/quote]
I left out the rest, because it went both ways. The DCSD lost the decision to the MSTI, decided not to try it again knowing it would just have the same results. Over 600 scientists supported the DCSD.
I think he has some decent ideas, just got a bad rap due to some questionable acts. Funny though, like Al Gore, he got a lot of publicity, good and bad, all of it helping his cause.
SellingMyHome wrote:I think [quote=SellingMyHome]I think the earth would go through global warming on its own, just not at the pace it has in the last 50 years. We should try and slow it down. The long-run economy will be fine with green policies, don’t believe the conservative argument otherwise.[/quote]
I think you raise a good point and I think the vitriolic…
(section discussing Allan’s emotional stability deleted)….
Anyway back on the subject matter:
What I find interesting is that many make the argument that global warming is often due to natural processes. I believe this to be true.
However, I don’t think this changes anything.
If the temperature rises even a little, it would have a pretty serious impact.
urbanrealtor
November 22, 2009 @
9:00 PM
Also:
Learn to swim. Also:
Learn to swim.
Allan from Fallbrook
November 22, 2009 @
9:58 PM
urbanrealtor [quote=urbanrealtor][quote=SellingMyHome]I think the earth would go through global warming on its own, just not at the pace it has in the last 50 years. We should try and slow it down. The long-run economy will be fine with green policies, don’t believe the conservative argument otherwise.[/quote]
I think you raise a good point and I think the vitriolic…
(section discussing Allan’s emotional stability deleted)….
Anyway back on the subject matter:
What I find interesting is that many make the argument that global warming is often due to natural processes. I believe this to be true.
However, I don’t think this changes anything.
If the temperature rises even a little, it would have a pretty serious impact.[/quote]
Dan: You’re sort of missing the point here, too. Selling’s strawman is apparently very effective. I’m not denying climate change, nor am I denying the need for solutions. What I am arguing for are meaningful solutions that deliver results, not clever window dressing designed to enrich the few that are shilling their fix as the one and only answer.
Cui bono?
afx114
November 23, 2009 @
1:10 AM
Don’t worry everyone. The LHC Don’t worry everyone. The LHC just booted up again and it is going to fix everything.
urbanrealtor
November 23, 2009 @
7:10 AM
afx114 wrote:Don’t worry [quote=afx114]Don’t worry everyone. The LHC just booted up again and it is going to fix everything.[/quote]
LOL
Awesome.
Black hole here I come!
Arraya
November 23, 2009 @
7:17 AM
If the human problem gets to If the human problem gets to bad nature has a way of balancing things out.
Global warming/cooling have Global warming/cooling have happened in the past and will continue to do so. It has been so cold in the past that the sea levels were 400 feet lower (bearing straights, man walking to the new world) and warm enough so that deciduous trees grew north of the artic circle(100,000 years ago). There are passes in the alps that were ice free all year round during roman times and are becoming ice free again. This has been used as proof that global warming is here but is not mentioned in the context that it has all happened before. It is a normal proces that the earth has always been going through. The real question is, is the current warming trend made worse by CO2 being released? Unknown at this time. My problem is that the polar ice caps melting is used by some as a political football to scare people into believing that change in the earth’s climate is bad and is the result of evil capitalists and must be stopped. We are probably not able to stop the earth’s normal climatic changes anyway.
blahblahblah
November 23, 2009 @
8:20 AM
I’m surprised there has not I’m surprised there has not been more talk about the University of East Anglia email scandal that shows that scientists have been conspiring to distort and exclude data that does not support their AGW hypothesis. The emails have been confirmed as authentic.
Allan from Fallbrook
November 23, 2009 @
8:32 AM
CONCHO wrote:I’m surprised [quote=CONCHO]I’m surprised there has not been more talk about the University of East Anglia email scandal that shows that scientists have been conspiring to distort and exclude data that does not support their AGW hypothesis. The emails have been confirmed as authentic.[/quote]
The emails are being downplayed as a non-event in the MSM. Of course, given the amount of hype surrounding AGW (aka ManBearPig), this sort of thing is going to arouse some ire amongst Gore and his henchpersons and drastically cut into their earnings.
One of my wife’s friends is a die-hard Leftist, and literally became spitting mad when I mentioned those emails. Her first claim was that they were all forgeries and when I replied that they were genuine, she then said and I quote: “It doesn’t matter. It just doesn’t matter. They (the scientists) know best and if they have to do some finagling (her word) to help us, then so be it”.
I swear I could hear the “Internationale” playing in the background. Who needs peer reviews, academic rigor and integrity, if they “know better”, right? I mean eugenics wasn’t such a bad thing, really, just misunderstood. The Nazis knew better and were just trying to help us.
SellingMyHome
November 23, 2009 @
9:11 AM
Allan from Fallbrook wrote: [quote=Allan from Fallbrook] The Nazis knew better and were just trying to help us.[/quote]
To compare scientists trying to pump up global warming data to nazis is a big stretch!
It’s too bad they messed with the data. The time it will take to recover from their dipshit moves is going to hurt the cause.
The Earth goes through cycles, only Fundamentalists will doubt that (they think we’ve only been here a couple thousand years). I just think the most recent warming trend and changes to the environment are happening faster than normal.
yes, the ocean was some 400 ft lower, and 400 ft higher, but that was before recent civilization was here. We will not be able to withstand the accelerated changes, man-made or not. What we can do is man-made reductions…
Allan from Fallbrook
November 23, 2009 @
9:25 AM
SellingMyHome wrote:Allan [quote=SellingMyHome][quote=Allan from Fallbrook] The Nazis knew better and were just trying to help us.[/quote]
To compare scientists trying to pump up global warming data to nazis is a big stretch!
[/quote]
Except that it isn’t. My mention of eugenics was specific for a reason.
Do a little research on the topic, especially the “settled science” aspect of it in the 1930s and then look at how closely US, UK and German scientists and researchers agreed.
Check out the Tuskegee Experiments (which went on for FORTY years) and then explain to me how it is that science can go so badly off the rails.
You think its a big jump between this and the Nazis? Think again.
blahblahblah
November 23, 2009 @
9:39 AM
Humans are messing up the Humans are messing up the planet in innumerable ways. Deforestation, pollution, pesticides, GM organisms, resource overuse, you name it. Even though AGW may be a real phenomenon, the problem I have is that politicians are using it to push new taxes, trading schemes and laws that will do nothing to solve these very tough problems. The whole AGW movement is about making money for a select few at the top and for increasing government control. Companies will continue polluting, we will continue deforesting and contaminating the planet with carcinogenic poisons and GM plants.
If they really wanted to reduce CO2 emissions they would be rebuilding our rail infrastructure and building new nuclear power plants. They never talk about things like that, the only ideas they have are taxes and trading.
I do like Al Gore’s outlook on many topics. His book “The Assault On Reason” made many good points. Unfortunately the last time he made the TV talk show circuit pushing a big idea it was for NAFTA. Just ask your average Mexican how that worked out for them. Or your average American factory worker (if you can find one). It was a total disaster for all but those at the very top and I have a feeling we’ll soon be repeating this scenario with whatever carbon trading and tax scheme they come up with.
Allan from Fallbrook
November 23, 2009 @
9:58 AM
CONCHO wrote:Humans are [quote=CONCHO]Humans are messing up the planet in innumerable ways. Deforestation, pollution, pesticides, GM organisms, resource overuse, you name it. Even though AGW may be a real phenomenon, the problem I have is that politicians are using it to push new taxes, trading schemes and laws that will do nothing to solve these very tough problems. The whole AGW movement is about making money for a select few at the top and for increasing government control. Companies will continue polluting, we will continue deforesting and contaminating the planet with carcinogenic poisons and GM plants.
If they really wanted to reduce CO2 emissions they would be rebuilding our rail infrastructure and building new nuclear power plants. They never talk about things like that, the only ideas they have are taxes and trading.
I do like Al Gore’s outlook on many topics. His book “The Assault On Reason” made many good points. Unfortunately the last time he made the TV talk show circuit pushing a big idea it was for NAFTA. Just ask your average Mexican how that worked out for them. Or your average American factory worker (if you can find one). It was a total disaster for all but those at the very top and I have a feeling we’ll soon be repeating this scenario with whatever carbon trading and tax scheme they come up with.[/quote]
CONCHO: Excellent post and excellent points. The point I was making is exactly the same: Not denying the problem, but pushing for rational, well thought out and cost-effective solutions.
Of course, as I write this, I realize that I’m expecting the government to be rational, intelligent and cost-effective. Yeah, that’s gonna work.
Arraya
November 23, 2009 @
9:44 AM
Actually, the study eugenics Actually, the study eugenics was started by Rockefeller. Still, it’s not really a good analogy Allan. In theory we can change genetic composition by human selection which does not mean it is ethical or humane to try and do or even controllable. Eugenics was trying to control nature while climate science is trying to understand it. Big difference.
We live on a finite planet where the waste of consumption DOES effect the physics and chemistry of the atmosphere of the planet and the planet itself and subsequently the inhabitants of the planet. That is not in question. You are equating what you perceive potential governmental actions to this fact with the science of the fact.
Understanding climate drivers is a highly complex issue and any “skepticism” at this point is not healthy. It’s analogous to tobacco science. Funded by the likely suspects. Skepticism of solutions should be held in a separate light.
Allan from Fallbrook
November 23, 2009 @
10:02 AM
Arraya wrote:Actually, the [quote=Arraya]Actually, the study eugenics was started by Rockefeller. Still, it’s not really a good analogy Allan. In theory we can change genetic composition by human selection which does not mean it is ethical or humane to try and do or even controllable. Eugenics was trying to control nature while climate science is trying to understand it. Big difference.
We live on a finite planet where the waste of consumption DOES effect the physics and chemistry of the atmosphere of the planet and the planet itself and subsequently the inhabitants of the planet. That is not in question. You are equating what you perceive potential governmental actions to this fact with the science of the fact.
Understanding climate drivers is a highly complex issue and any “skepticism” at this point is not healthy. It’s analogous to tobacco science. Funded by the likely suspects. Skepticism of solutions should be held in a separate light.[/quote]
Arraya: My point was centered on “settled science” and the reactions encountered when skeptics tried to challenge it.
We have the same situation here. Any attempts to question, challenge or refute the status quo ante are treated as high treason. The AGW folks treat this as revealed truth and they have about the same mental flexibility as their peers in the Mother Church during the Middle Ages, which is to say, none.
Arraya
November 23, 2009 @
10:13 AM
Human induced is CC is mostly Human induced is CC is mostly settled and has been for decades. It is not doctrine, it is a theory with a half decade solidly supported by observable data that gets more solid with the passing days. Not the other way around as some frame it.
The question now is how much, how fast and what to do.
Zeitgeist
November 23, 2009 @
11:27 AM
“Obama has failed the world “Obama has failed the world on climate change,” Obama = Carter: Europe has figured it out-
“Der Spiegel announces after it turns out that the president was unable to persuade the Chinese to accept firm emission-reduction targets or his own Senate to pass his cap-and-trade bill. A serious matter, if you believe scientist/activist James Lovelock’s warning, “‘Human survival itself is at risk.'”
“So when about 20,000 United Nations bureaucrats, representatives of nongovernmental organizations and world leaders from 192 nations descend on Copenhagen, Denmark, in a few weeks for the 15th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, they will not be able to sign off on a legally binding substitute for the expiring Kyoto Protocol.”
There is climate change. The There is climate change. The question is, is it normal change, i.e. earth made or man made? You need to draw your own conclusions and not for political reasons, for personal knowledge.
“Here’s a few things most people don’t know, because most people like to get their news from propaganda movies which win Oscars (*achem* “An Inconvenient Truth”). So here’s some facts I bet Al Gore and your science teacher didn’t teach:”
“1. Contrary to the popular belief that glaciers all over the world are melting, in some places they are actually GROWING. In Iceland and Greenland, the first half of the twentieth century was warmer than the second half. In Iceland, most glaciers lost mass after 1930 because temperatures temporarily rose by .6 degrees Celsius. But since then the climate has gotten colder, and since 1970 the glaciers have been growing. Including eleven glaciers which are surging in size.”
http://www.helium.com/items/540228-global-warming-whats-the-real-truth
“These are just some of the facts people, from real scientists who do REAL research. These facts are not from politicians or actors. Whether the majority of scientists believe in it or not, there simply is not enough evidence to show that global warming is a threat in any way. Also, remember that it is merely a THEORY, and there are very little facts supporting it. I have a great deal more information if you’re at all interested. Remember, THINK FOR YOURSELVES! The truth is out there. Don’t be ignorant. Find the truth!”
If you own any shares in companies that produce reflecting telescopes, use differential and integral calculus, or rely on the laws of motion, I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the calculus myth has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after volumes of Newton’s private correspondence were compiled and published.
When you read some of these letters, you realise just why Newton and his collaborators might have preferred to keep them confidential. This scandal could well be the biggest in Renaissance science. These alleged letters – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists behind really hard math lessons – suggest:
Conspiracy, collusion in covering up the truth, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.
But perhaps the most damaging revelations are those concerning the way these math nerd scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence to support their cause.
ucodegen
November 23, 2009 @
2:16 PM
Eugenics was trying to
Eugenics was trying to control nature while climate science is trying to understand it.
Understanding climate drivers is a highly complex issue and any “skepticism” at this point is not healthy.
Not denying the problem, but pushing for rational, well thought out and cost-effective solutions
These statements are self contradictory. How can you have rational well thought out solutions when the mechanism and its drivers are not understood? We don’t even know if there really is a problem. When you are trying to understand a mechanism, skepticism is critical. It prevents theory from becoming religion. Skepticism is also fundamental to the scientific process.
Human induced is CC is mostly settled and has been for decades. It is not doctrine, it is a theory with a half decade solidly supported by observable data that gets more solid with the passing days. Not the other way around as some frame it.
Incorrect. It is not settled. It is so unsettled that one of the premier researchers on tornadoes threatened to sue the IPCC to get his name off their papers. In addition, if you go back further than 1 decade, it gets even more unsettled. Specifically to the 1400s. During the 1400s, grapes were grown in England. Its too cold to grow them in England now.
There are several problems with the theory of CO2 driving AGW.
1) Because the earth rotates in a hard vacuum(of space), the earth will not lose heat energy through convection. This means that there is no such thing as a C02 caused ‘blanket’. The only way the energy is radiated from the earth is through blackbody radiation. C02’s greenhouse gas effect is from absorbing blackbody radiation and converting that energy back into heat (which it then eventually re-radiates equally up to the upper atmosphere or back down to earth)
2) CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas. Its greenhouse effect is significantly weaker than H20. See image.. The Planks curve for blackbody radiation from the earth goes from about 1M to 30M, peaking at about 10M. C02 absorbs light energy (Infrared) at 2.7M, 4.3M and 15M wavelengths.
[img_assist|nid=12364|title=Atmospheric Absorption Spectra|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=70]
3) Three of CO2’s spectra are absorbing all of the photons within their absorption wavelengths. Additional concentrations of CO2 will not further increase the blackbody absorption.
4) The premise of C02 induced AGW has to do with CO2 making it just a tiny bit warmer, causing more H20 to be in the atmosphere and then creating a feedback look through H20’s greenhouse effect. The problem is that only 1 absorption band of C02 is different than H20 and it is already at saturation. This means that additional C02 will do nothing to increase temperatures. In addition, if there was a possible feedback effect, the variability in H20 in the atmosphere should have triggered a run-away (Basic feedback control systems – see Bode plots).
5) The C02 feedback through H20 ignores that H20 has both positive and negative feedback effects. In a gaseous form, the feedback is positive. As suspended water droplets(clouds), the feedback is strongly negative. Almost the entire Atmospheric Absorption Band gets blocked out, including the sun which is our ‘forcing function’. In addition, clouds themselves radiate IR when they rain because converting water vapor to condensed water releases 1000Calories per gram of water (phase change energy).
Jim Hensen, one of the leading proponents of AGW had to admit that more study was needed because the water cycle (evap – vapor – condense – rain) has not yet been accurately modeled. Considering that the surface of the earth is about 60% water and that water has the strongest global warming feedback as well as the strongest negative feedback, I would have to say that the lack of knowledge here is a very significant issue.
Arraya
November 23, 2009 @
2:38 PM
UCO
Please refer back to UCO
Please refer back to when DrChaos, piggington’s residential theoretical physicist explained CC to you. You seem to still be confused an rehashing things that he answered.
Please refer back to when DrChaos, piggington’s residential theoretical physicist explained CC to you. You seem to still be confused an rehashing things that he answered.
You obviously were not paying attention to that thread… I debated w/ DrChaos to a standstill.. maybe you need to review. I even corrected him on some of his use of terms w/ respect to blackbody radiation. ie
Ucodgen, sorry, I was sloppy in my use of the word “emissivity”. How about just “radiation”?
My primary point on this thread.. is that the science is in no way settled. There are also over 2700 scientists that agree with this, and Jim Hansen even had to hedge his position wrt H20 in the atmosphere.
Arraya
November 23, 2009 @
8:16 PM
ucodegen wrote:
Please refer [quote=ucodegen]
Please refer back to when DrChaos, piggington’s residential theoretical physicist explained CC to you. You seem to still be confused an rehashing things that he answered.
You obviously were not paying attention to that thread… I debated w/ DrChaos to a standstill.. maybe you need to review. I even corrected him on some of his use of terms w/ respect to blackbody radiation. ie
Ucodgen, sorry, I was sloppy in my use of the word “emissivity”. How about just “radiation”?
My primary point on this thread.. is that the science is in no way settled. There are also over 2700 scientists that agree with this, and Jim Hansen even had to hedge his position wrt H20 in the atmosphere.[/quote]
Nonsense, you corrected him on one point, which he agreed was a poor choice of words and that’s about it. The 380 other points he schooled you.
You are being completely disingenuous.
Who are your 2700 scientists? What are their fields, I like when they throw economics in as a science, which they often do on these lists
99.99% of climatologists agree along with these institutions: It is 100% settled and has been for years.
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
U.S. Global Change Research Program
InterAcademy Council
NASA
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
Joint science academies including: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Ghana, Germany, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, India, Japan, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, New Zealand, Russia, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Sweden, Tanzania, Uganda, United Kingdom, United States, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.
Network of African Science Academies (including major universities in Cameroon, Ghana, Kenya, Madagascar, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe, as well as the African Academy of Sciences)
Royal Society of New Zealand
Polish Academy of Sciences
National Research Council
American Association for the Advancement of Science
The European Science Foundation
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
American Geophysical Union
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
American Meteorological Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
American Quaternary Association
International Union for Quaternary Research
American Society for Microbiology
Institute of Biology (UK)
Society of American Foresters
American Academy of Pediatrics
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Medical Association
Australian Medical Association
World Federation of Public Health Associations
World Health Organization
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Institute of Physics
National Oceanographic & Atmospheric Administration(I know several scientists here)
Of course you have oil industry scientists funding junk science and other denier sites.
You, and other deniers , use the same links, the same arguments, and act as though the world’s leading climatologists are clueless to the things you speak about. Does that make sense to you? That they’re lying to everyone, one big massive cover-up (by scientist…not politicians), and that these Phd’s don’t understand solar cycles, little ice ages, and every climate cycle you can conjure up, that they can’t make the connections your blogging sites think they’ve discovered.
Big business doesn’t wanted to be handcuffed in anyway, they don’t want to be taxed, and they don’t want political pressure to adopt expensive alternatives. Everybody want a conspiracy…that’s where it is. Even now, as I drove home in the pouring rain, the GOP radio station was blabbering on about environmentalists and crack pot scientist who are trying to convince everyone about AGW, and that the same time these tree huggers are always getting in the way of big business for owls, tree’s, and lizards. He used the Mojave desert in California as an example, which makes a perfect place for a massive solar power project, except it would totally disrupt the natural desert ecosystem and is vehemently opposed by the local Indians. Indians, what do they know, right? Meanwhile, I have to listen to joe6pack calling in supporting these ridiculous talking points.
I’m sure all 2700 of your scientists are directly or indirectly, are being supported by big business that wishes to continue their various polluting industries without another environmentalist breathing down their back. Oh, and when did environmentalist or global warming alarmists get to be derogatory? We should be ALARMED at the state of our environment, we should be ALARMED that humans are changing the climate, and rest assured we should be ALARMED that there’s so much disinformation purposely being shoveled here and all over the world wide web. That sir is the conspiracy. It sure the hell isn’t the thousands of climate scientists who are SCREAMING warnings that we better do something, and do something quick.
SellingMyHome
November 23, 2009 @
8:33 PM
Wow Arraya, with a list like Wow Arraya, with a list like that is hard to argue against them. I never knew it was that conclusive, seriously! Reading the U-T daily has given me too much of the wrong ideas!
afx114
November 23, 2009 @
8:47 PM
Forget about the whole global Forget about the whole global warming/climate change thing for a minute and ask yourself this: how long will it remain in this nation’s best interests to prop up regimes in far off places by importing the only product they have to offer? Everyone on here likes to talk shit about how wasteful this country is, but have you considered how wasteful we are with the one commodity upon which all others depend (energy)?
Sure, transitioning to renewables is going to be a long, painful, expensive process, but ask yourself: what is the alternative? I know Mad Max was a sweeeeeettt fucking movie and all, but come on.
Whether or not you believe global warming is true or a not, surely everyone can have some common sense and agree that it is in our best interest to start the transition sooner rather than later. And the fact that we’ll all be breathing cleaner air as a result? Think of it as a big fat juice cherry on top.
ucodegen
November 23, 2009 @
9:36 PM
List of comments wrt the List of comments wrt the stolen Emails..
Please show references Please show references showing the list above as a current list of supporting organizations. You call for my ref.. thereby I call for yours refs as to the list you provided was voted on by their members and not just the administrators of those organizations.
Of course you have oil industry scientists funding junk science and other denier sites.
Vs the money that proponents get?.. get real http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/gore_fisker_car_loan/2009/09/27/265351.html
.. just one of many. Also.. to make such a statement, you must prove it.. since you are asking for my proof. Please show your proof that the oil industry is funding junk science and other denier sites.
Big business doesn’t wanted to be handcuffed in anyway, they don’t want to be taxed, and they don’t want political pressure to adopt expensive alternatives.
Depends upon the company. Companies like SDGE, General Electric, Siemens, SAP.. etc want greenhouse gas laws passed because it will throw them a lot of money. Companies like Goldman Sachs want cap and trade (because they can become the market maker for it). Each operates in their own interest.
How about how the IPCC writes the results of the science even before the science is in.. and then rewrites the conclusion of individual contributor papers to http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/01/ipcc-ar4.html
If I could post PDF docs, I could post the actual submission agreement for the IPCC papers that literally allows them to do this and states that they will.. source of the agreement is the IPCC itself.
I’m sure all 2700 of your scientists are directly or indirectly, are being supported by big business that wishes to continue their various polluting industries without another environmentalist breathing down their back.
That sir is the conspiracy. It sure the hell isn’t the thousands of climate scientists who are SCREAMING warnings that we better do something, and do something quick.
Actually it looks like it is 52 scientists…
Even now, as I drove home in the pouring rain, the GOP radio station was blabbering on
Irrelevant.. and I suspect a lie. I don’t think you would even tolerate listening to a GOP radio station.
I guess I need to unify my files.. the full list I had on scientists that disagree on AGW is on the machine I took down… time to go through backup files, as well as additional AGW and environmental info.
ucodegen
November 23, 2009 @
9:18 PM
We should be ALARMED at the
We should be ALARMED at the state of our environment, we should be ALARMED that humans are changing the climate, and rest assured we should be ALARMED that there’s so much disinformation purposely being shoveled here and all over the world wide web.
Actually, there are things going on that are much worse than the climate debate.. and the climate debate is overshadowing them.
Do you know that most second and third world countries do not treat their sewage before dumping it into the ocean?
Do you know that Sea Turtles are showing an increase rate of deformaties?
Do you know that China’s burning of coal is increasing the amount of mercury and heavy metals that are being deposited along the Aleutians and on down the US coast to Oregon? China uses older tech for coal plants which do not filter their particulates and heavy metals out. The full effect of this on one of the largest fisheries in the US is still out, but does not look good.
Do you know that the decreased air particulates have had a side effect of reduced cloud production. Artificial watering of the ground/agriculture may contribute to reduce cloud formation and less rain because of reduced particulates. By watering, man may have created some of the scarcity of rain. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_condensation_nuclei
I’m sure all 2700 of your scientists are directly or indirectly, are being supported by big business that wishes to continue their various polluting industries without another environmentalist breathing down their back. [/quote]
Arraya: You mention knowing scientists at NOAA, so I’m going to assume you have more than a passing familiarity with governmental research, funding and grants.
I left your “big business” quote in there as well and largely because governmental research IS Big Business.
I do a lot of work on the university research side, specifically tied to governmental research and for agencies like the Department of Defense (DoD), Department of State and DTRA (Defense Threat Reduction Agency). Funding generally runs into the tens of millions of dollars per annum and there are defense researchers at universities who have been working the funding and grant “machine” since the 1960s and 1970s. I personally know several defense scientists that are clearing, on average, nearly $500K per year in this endeavor. Last time I checked, that’s pretty damn good money and worth toeing the line over.
Lastly, one of the greatest dangers in research is the “Groupthink”/echo chamber mentality. I would respectfully suggest that, between the millions upon millions of dollars at stake, plus the desire to be among the fold, there is solid evidence to suggest that not only isn’t the science settled, its not even correct.
The opprobrium heaped upon Ross McKitrick for debunking the “hockey stick” theory was incredible. Yes, I can hear your argument that McKitrick is an economist and not part of the “hard” sciences, but still. This all smacks of medieval conformity, not true science.
Arraya
November 23, 2009 @
10:56 PM
Here is a response from a
Here is a response from a real live climate scientist:
There are undeniably people who fervently do not wish for results of the science to be true. This can be motivated many things – vested interest, inclination, background etc. Regardless of why that exists, it undoubtedly does. However, among the scientific community no-one doubts that humans are causing CO2 (and other GHGs) to rise, no-one is confused about the fact that there is a greenhouse effect and that we are enhancing it, and no-one is in denial of the fact that the temperatures (as predicted) are in fact warming. This information, and the vast amount of ancillary data, theory and modelling that exists has led the science community to warn that continued emissions of GHGs risk changing the climate substantially. Given the first group of people’s inclination to not want this to be true, there have been (and continue to be) determined efforts to undermine the scientific conclusions. One of the most effective tactics is to continually claim that data is being hidden and that the process is not open and transparent. This is successful, not because anything is actually being hidden, but because regardless of what data is available you can always ask for more. Five years ago it was a demand than Mann make his code and data available – it was, and nothing changed. A couple of years ago the demand was for the GISTEMP data and code – that was made available… and nothing changed. The requests then moved to CRU, who because of their agreements with the Met Centers, can’t release everything in the public domain. This fact has been greatly exploited by people who conveniently ignore it when making ever more harassing demands for ‘the data’. Whether they get it or not, nothing will change. The target will simply be moved. Meanwhile, the real need for openness and transparency is set back because the vast majority of demands are very clearly partisan and insincere.
If people want genuine public debate over issues that matter, the way is clear: Stop fuelling fake witchhunts looking for evidence that GW is a hoax, stop continually going back to long debunked talking points, and instead engage with scientists, here and elsewhere, on real questions. You will actually find scientists of all stripes remarkably keen to talk about their research and it’s implications once you get past the ‘when did you stop hiding your data’ type accusations. Not everyone has unlimited patience in dealing with constant attacks on their integrity that comes with being in the public eye on these issues, and so many choose not to be involved in that public debate at all. That is a shame, but it’s not a mystery. – gavin
Allan from Fallbrook
November 23, 2009 @
11:08 PM
Arraya: Going back to an Arraya: Going back to an earlier post of mine: I am not a denier. To the contrary. However, I don’t buy the “solutions” that are being presented (such as Kyoto), especially when there are other, better solutions available at a lesser cost.
I’m not claiming that anyone is hiding data, but I would be the first to question that data, not because I believe it to be untrue, but because I believe in empiricism and scrutiny.
The “Yamal Tree Ring Affair” eventually wound up involving the US National Academy of Science and shows the problem with an over-reliance on certain data.
Again, this isn’t denial, but it is skepticism. Moreover, I’m more than willing to be persuaded by the science, but I still don’t buy the solutions, especially those enjoying political/social patronage or favor. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Al Gore is full of shit and a hypocrite and stands to make a fortune from the “fixes” he’s shilling. Better, cheaper and more responsible solutions are available and should be considered, evaluated and, if feasible, implemented.
To me, that is how science is supposed to work.
Arraya
November 24, 2009 @
5:14 AM
Allan-Have you read the Allan-Have you read the criticisms of McKitrick, of which there is ample supply. His work as been rejected by numerous peer review publications.
A number of spurious criticisms regarding the Mann et al (1998) proxy-based temperature reconstruction have been made by two individuals
( McIntyre works in the mining industry, while McKitrick is an economist).
[McIntyre and McKitrick have additionally been discredited in a recent peer-reviewed article by Rutherford et al (2004)].
This is very common among “skeptics” they cite the need for scientific rigor then offer work with none.
Yes, there are people (including evil ones) who are positioning themselves to profit from how society will react to these issues. But that doesn’t mean the theory is bullshit. The fact that Goldman Sachs’ carbon credits scheme is a scam designed to loot the peasants does not mean the concept of man made global warming/climate change is a scam. I’d hope piggs would have the intellectual firepower to be able to distinguish the two.
As far as the 3 emails go: So there may be 50 years of research backing up man made climate change but all it will take is 3 emails from lord knows who that will be hyped to all hell by Glenn Beck to keep people thinking “it’s all just a bunch of Al Gore inspired hooey.”
Al Gore’s effect, fwiw, has been – whether he intended it or not – to make sure that half the population (conservatives) wouldn’t believe in the theory due to his presence/notoriety on it and the other half (liberals) would come to think of it as something that can be solved through “minor inconveniences” like buying a $30,000 hybrid instead of a $30,000 SUV and green products.
The fact is we DO NOT have a solutions proposed besides a mildly irritating cap and trade proposal because proposals aren’t profitable. Mostly, all the arguing and skepticism is over nothing besides whether or not to accept the concept. Which would never, ever, ever happen in a million years because Al Gore did a movie on it.
Lastly, I’ve concluded that the economy is going to fall far enough that it will reduce emissions to surpass what the IPCC want, in 30 years our oil and gas consumption will probably be half what it is today out of lack of resources. So really, I don’t even know why I bother in debating this other than I have a connection to the scientific world and get irritated when their work is misrepresented or the scientific process itself which is skeptical in nature.
Allan from Fallbrook
November 24, 2009 @
8:53 AM
Arraya: To use your turn of Arraya: To use your turn of phrase: I hear ya. I actually had heard some criticism(s) of McKitrick, and largely due to his employ, but hadn’t read anything in detail. I will do so.
That actually leads me to one of my pet peeves, and that is with organizations like Exxon Secrets (run by Greenpeace). While I don’t debate the need for transparency and being completely honest about one’s affiliations, I have a problem with the very broad brush (of tar) that gets applied by groups like this. In essence, their argument boils down to: “If you have ever taken even one dollar from ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron, et al, your work is suspect and probably untrustworthy”.
I’ve seen this brush applied to some of those I work with and all due to our work on blast protection and mitigation for the super majors, work that has nothing to do with the environment or climate change. It also completely dismisses the fact that many of the oil companies are involved in genuinely useful research and development (no one is more aware of Peak Oil than the oil companies themselves).
The gravest concerns I have center around the lack of coherent, forward thinking strategies and programs at the federal level. Much of this back and forth would be rendered moot if the US had a meaningful energy policy (promised to us during the Nixon Administration) or industrial policy (not since WWII, really) or technology policy. The one thing this nonsensical partisan infighting has produced is a government completely incapable of actually governing.
Zeitgeist
November 24, 2009 @
10:06 AM
Global warming as espoused by Global warming as espoused by the mainstream media and pimped by Al Gore is nothing more than big business, with scientists who bowed down to Mammon and committed academic fraud for their masters. Arraya’s tribe is just as corrupt as the Capitalists he derides. This religion is no better than the one the Christian haters attack here.
Gore’s Dual Role: Advocate and Investor-
WASHINGTON — “Former Vice President Al Gore thought he had spotted a winner last year when a small California firm sought financing for an energy-saving technology from the venture capital firm where Mr. Gore is a partner.”
But perhaps the most damaging revelations – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.
If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)
Hey Zeit, I’ll take those Hey Zeit, I’ll take those alternative energy stocks off your hands.
ucodegen
November 24, 2009 @
11:34 AM
The conspiracy behind the
The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)
That 61 megabytes is actually compressed. Uncompressed size is considerably larger.. 157Megabytes..
Zeitgeist
November 24, 2009 @
11:59 AM
“To whom do lions cast their “To whom do lions cast their gentle looks?
Not to the beast that would usurp their den.
The smallest worm will turn being trodden on,
And doves will peck in safeguard of their brood.”
~Shakespeare
afx114
November 24, 2009 @
12:31 PM
“It is difficult to get a man “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”
~Upton Sinclair
Arraya
November 24, 2009 @
12:36 PM
A stupid man’s report of what A stupid man’s report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.
Bertrand Russell
British author, mathematician, & philosopher (1872 – 1970)
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. Senator Byron Dorgan said on Tuesday he did not think the Senate would pass climate change legislation this year, but instead would focus on a separate energy bill that would have more bipartisan support.
Allan from [quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=CONCHO] Who needs peer reviews, academic rigor and integrity, if they “know better”, right?[/quote]
Everyone should trust scientists because they…….
This would require another thread but enough said.
The MSM is avoiding the East Anglia story for three reasons
1) It is official government policy in the UK that global warming is not a theory but a scientific model.
2) Anderson Cooper could not take any more boondoggles to far off places to do shows about nothing when his ratings tank.
3) They are so far in the tank for global warming that they will have to buy and apply their own tar and feathers.
sd_matt
November 23, 2009 @
8:24 PM
Reading the wikipedia article Reading the wikipedia article I find an estimate of 1 to 6 degrees increase in the coming decades, caused by man. That is a pretty wide range upon which to be basing hellfire and brimstone.
But prudence pays right?
So lets put up prize money for the green energy producing widget. Maybe instead of the Thneed we call it the Grneed.
The taxpayers put up a few billion of printed money for the cost competitive solar ( where people will actually want to buy it)…lets say .25 cents/ watt uninstalled.
And for our second goal…$2 at the pump in California for green oil.
Maybe give a few hundred million at a time to the X Prize foundation contingent upon success since government seems to be inefficient at…Oh wait…would we be stepping on the toes of Gores multi-trillion-necessary-expense-save-the-planet-by-example-even-though-example-never-converted-the-rest-of-the-world-to-Puritanism program.
Never mind.
Arraya
November 24, 2009 @
10:38 AM
Zeitgiest, you can’t stop it, Zeitgiest, you can’t stop it, you will be bowing down to your commie-lefty-pinko-tree’huggin’-flopped’neck-quiche’gobb’n-bed’wettin-limp’wristed-vegan overlords or you will wind up in Gitmo.
The Soros/Gore take over has been complete with the insertion of the Kenyan Muslim.
Prepare to hacky sack in hell!
Zeitgeist
November 24, 2009 @
10:48 AM
Bring it Arraya. The left is Bring it Arraya. The left is going to have to morph into something else. There are more red necks than reds. You are outnumbered and out gunned. Better dead than red.
Zeitgeist
November 24, 2009 @
10:57 AM
It turns out that Mann and It turns out that Mann and his associates used a non-standard formula to analyze his data, and this particular formula will turn anything into a hockey stick—including trendless data generated by computer. (Source: The Case for Skepticism on Global Warming by Michael Crichton)
I think the GW issue is real
I think the GW issue is real but is not as big a threat as they are claiming, also I think the Sun is in a stage where we may be wishing we had more carbon to throw into the air. (New mini Ice Age anyone ??)
Anyway I would still like to have a plugin electric Car that would yield about 100 Miles per Gal on average use just so we could finally become at least energy independent.
No kidding I don’t think people realize how much defect is just oil. And the support of the global infrastructure just for Oil.
I think all these defect hawks are looking in the wrong direction, all we need to do is get off foreign oil.
sd_matt
January 19, 2010 @
12:09 PM
Read MSimons quotes (well the Read MSimons quotes (well the ones following the comical first few). This is what did it for me. Maybe GW is happening but the current “science” behind it just isn’t science.
Here is another retraction:
A Here is another retraction:
A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.
Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world’s glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.
In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC’s 2007 report.
Too bad that emotions have been allowed to trump research. Maybe we can solve our own energy issues with commonsense instead of windmills. I do not like windmills because they kill birds.
October 22, 2009 @ 10:45 PM
Global warming is of concern
Global warming is of concern to me.
I’m not a tree hugger but I drive a small car and try not be be wasteful of resources, such as energy and water.
October 22, 2009 @ 11:04 PM
Interesting story.
I think
Interesting story.
I think that the deniers are wrong. But hey, if people don’t want to contribute to solving the problem, then I have no reason to feel guilty about using my air-conditioner.
*
WASHINGTON — Americans seem to be cooling toward global warming.
Just 57 percent think there is solid evidence the world is getting warmer, down 20 points in just three years, a new poll says. And the share of people who believe pollution caused by humans is causing temperatures to rise has also taken a dip, even as the U.S. and world forums gear up for possible action against climate change.
In a poll of 1,500 adults by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, released Thursday, the number of people saying there is strong scientific evidence that the Earth has gotten warmer over the past few decades is down from 71 percent in April of last year and from 77 percent when Pew started asking the question in 2006. The number of people who see the situation as a serious problem also has declined.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,569235,00.html
October 23, 2009 @ 12:11 AM
I’m fully convinced that
I’m fully convinced that global warming is real. I’m not convinced that it’s a bad thing.
November 20, 2009 @ 10:17 AM
This is
This is big:
http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/1648-Global-Warming-SCAM-HackLeak-FLASH.html
November 20, 2009 @ 11:08 AM
The Arctic ice cap is
The Arctic ice cap is thinning and shrinking, for whatever reason:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/seaice_status09.html
November 21, 2009 @ 9:38 PM
Rt.66 wrote:This is
[quote=Rt.66]This is big:
http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/1648-Global-Warming-SCAM-HackLeak-FLASH.html%5B/quote%5D
denninger is a right wing tool.
November 21, 2009 @ 10:17 PM
patb wrote:Rt.66 wrote:This
[quote=patb][quote=Rt.66]This is big:
http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/1648-Global-Warming-SCAM-HackLeak-FLASH.html%5B/quote%5D
denninger is a right wing tool.[/quote]
Did you have any valid arguments to share, or do you just call anybody with a differing opinion a “right wing tool”?
November 22, 2009 @ 4:30 PM
New article from the AP wire
New article from the AP wire regarding global warming. Man, I find it hard to argue against the data.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/sci_climate_09_post_kyoto
November 22, 2009 @ 4:58 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3uF-FDuIio
November 20, 2009 @ 2:00 PM
I’m all for Mangos in
I’m all for Mangos in Minnesota.
Plus, if enough polar ice melts, my Clairemont canyon home will be beach-front.
November 20, 2009 @ 3:24 PM
I am humming Aenima as I read
I am humming Aenima as I read this.
November 20, 2009 @ 4:01 PM
I’ve a suggestion to keep you
I’ve a suggestion to keep you all occupied: learn to swim.
November 21, 2009 @ 8:11 PM
flinger wrote:I’ve a
[quote=flinger]I’ve a suggestion to keep you all occupied: learn to swim.[/quote]
I love Tool too. Did you know Maynard just played here a few weeks ago with some new group called Pucifer or something like that? It’s been a few years since I’ve seen him.
Even if the so called devastating of effects climate change isn’t for real, i think it wouldn’t hurt to do as much as possible to slow it down. We can do it without hurting companies. Anyways, why should it be okay for a company to pollute? I’m sure many people said acid rain was fake, but rust belt cities benefited from the changes to stop it.
With this bad economy (and no, my pending short sale isn’t the reason for it 🙂 ), it seems like a good idea to make as many as “green” jobs as possible. Better than “dirty” jobs, whatever that may be.
November 20, 2009 @ 4:08 PM
urbanrealtor wrote:I am
[quote=urbanrealtor]I am humming Aenima as I read this.[/quote]
Yup…
November 20, 2009 @ 4:33 PM
Arraya][quote=urbanrealtor
[quote=Arraya][quote=urbanrealtor]I am humming Aenima as I read this.[/quote]
Yup…[/quote
Arraya: As my favorite (thinking/intellectual) conspiracy theorist, what do you think of this:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
*Note: Delingpole is a righty and it ain’t like The Telegraph is The Guardian, so keep that in mind.
However, if true, I’d think this should be big news. Also, note the part about global warming adherents seeking to marginalize their opponents through ostracism and boycott. Interesting stuff. Of course, I also believe most of the hot air in the atmosphere happens to be coming out of Al Gore’s mouth…
November 21, 2009 @ 7:13 AM
Allan from
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=Arraya][quote=urbanrealtor]I am humming Aenima as I read this.[/quote]
Yup…[/quote
Arraya: As my favorite (thinking/intellectual) conspiracy theorist, what do you think of this:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
*Note: Delingpole is a righty and it ain’t like The Telegraph is The Guardian, so keep that in mind.
However, if true, I’d think this should be big news. Also, note the part about global warming adherents seeking to marginalize their opponents through ostracism and boycott. Interesting stuff. Of course, I also believe most of the hot air in the atmosphere happens to be coming out of Al Gore’s mouth…[/quote]
Yeah, CC is real and irrelevant, IMO. Those emails don’t amount to much. The science itself has been studied for about 5 decades now. Al Gore did not just invent it. My sister is an actual Duke educated environmental scientist, not climatology but ocean. Sure Al Gore and GS are positioned to make billions if cap and trade passes and really it is nothing more than another betting scheme and way to make up tax receipt shortfalls. The thing that always killed me about the CC debate was juxtaposing the IPCC recommendations for carbon decreases with what is going in the fossil fuel world.
Which leads to the real scandal which is what has been reveled at the IEA(international energy administration). Google IEA whistle blower.
Here is the reply from the scientists on the leaked emails. Good write up and commentary.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/
November 21, 2009 @ 12:56 PM
Tangentially-related:
What do
Tangentially-related:
What do the piggs think about Nuclear? Seems in a lot of commercials recently that list our energy options, Nuclearn isn’t even listed as an option. It’s an unmentionable energy pariah. I think that’s unfortunate.
I dunno, seems like a good way to go to me if we’re concerned about global warming due to greenhouse gases.
Build 20 really big, really safe, really expensive, quadruple-containment reactors. (I’m talking $20B each, as an example). Generate a boatload of electricity and use that for heating, transportation, whatever can be driven electrically (which seems like a lot).
Heck, even if there were one meltdown per century say (which I doubt), would that be better than the global warming scenarios that are being bandied about?
As far as the generated waste, it seems like we’re actually dealing with that ok so far. And we probably could have used Yucca Mountain except it’s in Harry Reid’s state.
I dunno, aren’t the waste products and env damage associated with oil worse than anything that’s happened so far with nuclear waste? (e.g. Exxon Valdez, big coal mines, etc).
November 20, 2009 @ 9:04 PM
urbanrealtor wrote:I am
[quote=urbanrealtor]I am humming Aenima as I read this.[/quote]
Damn I didn’t think you hardcore libs could be cool.… I noticed Maynard was born in the same place I was (Ravenna, OH.)
Funny some of these bands I like are polar opposites of me on the spectrum (SOAD, Rage, etc.). Loves me some Tool.
November 20, 2009 @ 9:58 PM
CardiffBaseball
[quote=CardiffBaseball][quote=urbanrealtor]I am humming Aenima as I read this.[/quote]
Damn I didn’t think you hardcore libs could be cool.… I noticed Maynard was born in the same place I was (Ravenna, OH.)
Funny some of these bands I like are polar opposites of me on the spectrum (SOAD, Rage, etc.). Loves me some Tool.[/quote]
Cardiff: If you’re a RATM (Rage) fan, you probably know about Audioslave. If not, give them a listen.
I saw Zack de la Rocha (former Rage frontman) being interviewed and just about fell out laughing. He’s a Noam Chomsky devotee, but his hero worship of ‘ol Noam doesn’t translate too well in terms of his own politics.
Like most American Leftists, he’s incoherent and his rants about corporations (especially whilst pushing his CDs for the corporation that sponsors him) are hilarious, but unintentionally so.
If you want some truly insane metal, listen to All Shall Perish. Good, head banging Bay Area metal.
November 20, 2009 @ 6:51 PM
I myself am not sure what is
I myself am not sure what is true and what is not but this article regarding stolen emails is just the beginning of a larger effort to level the playing field on public scrutiny of the theory.
I think everyone should repeat that three times “It’s only a theory”.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/20/climate-sceptics-hackers-leaked-emails
November 20, 2009 @ 6:59 PM
It’s a concern for me, but I
It’s a concern for me, but I don’t feel like it’s the impending doom some others feel. I do believe we should strive to live cleaner, but there’s no reason to bankrupt ourselves to do so. Give it a couple generations for technology to solve the problem rather than trying to move backward through time and all move into huts with no electricity.
November 20, 2009 @ 7:32 PM
mike92104 wrote:It’s a
[quote=mike92104]It’s a concern for me, but I don’t feel like it’s the impending doom some others feel. I do believe we should strive to live cleaner, but there’s no reason to bankrupt ourselves to do so. Give it a couple generations for technology to solve the problem rather than trying to move backward through time and all move into huts with no electricity.[/quote]
Mike: Excellent points. The problem is that any attempt to question the “settled science” (using Katie Couric’s words) is treated as heresy or blasphemy.
Skeptics such as Ross McKitrick (who debunked the “hockey stick” theorem of warming) and Bjorn Lomborg (“The Skeptical Environmentalist, Cool It”), have been treated as near criminals for their temerity.
Moreover, when one considers the costs inherent to the “solutions”, versus spending those same dollars on more logical and level headed programs, it becomes painfully apparent that this is a boondoggle of epic proportions. Then you do a little digging into Al Gore’s affairs, for instance, and find out he happens to own a company making a fortune off this very boondoggle.
November 20, 2009 @ 8:00 PM
Who can I sell my carbon
Who can I sell my carbon credits to anyway? I’m pretty sure I use less than Al Gore.
November 21, 2009 @ 1:25 PM
The proponents of global
The proponents of global warming and climate change science seem pretty anxious to jump straight to legislation. This leads me to believe the “problem” is mostly a standard political agenda that uses fear to control people.
The debate doesn’t seem to be over whether our efforts would best be spent trying to 1) adapt to climate change or 2) prevent it.
This seems to be because man is the assumed culprit.
Whether or not that is true, can anyone show 1) why past climate change on earth has been so extreme or 2) that man caused warming will be as extreme.
Despite our human preference for the status quo and fear and inconvenience caused by change, is it not possible that the earth is a harsh and varying place with or without man?
My vote would be to spend our efforts adapting to change rather than attempting to keep constant our current preferred global climate.
November 21, 2009 @ 5:32 PM
Most measurements of global
Most measurements of global temperatures peaked in about 1999 and have since leveled off or declined. Al Gore wrote his book at about mid-decade and based it on data from previous years. Maybe that’s why he won’t debate the subject with those who take a contrary stand. And perhaps that is why there is an effort to hurry up and get cap and trade legislation before more contrary data show up.
November 21, 2009 @ 7:25 PM
EconProf wrote:Most
[quote=EconProf]Most measurements of global temperatures peaked in about 1999 and have since leveled off or declined. Al Gore wrote his book at about mid-decade and based it on data from previous years. Maybe that’s why he won’t debate the subject with those who take a contrary stand. And perhaps that is why there is an effort to hurry up and get cap and trade legislation before more contrary data show up.[/quote]
1999 was an abnormally warm year, a fluctuation. Temperatures are generally below the 1999 peak, but nevertheless most measures of global temperatures show that 2000’s are on track to be the warmest decade on record.
There’s no doubt that the Antarctic polar cap has been shrinking at a remarkable rate. 2007 was very warm in the Arctic, lowest sea ice minimum on record was observed, and 2008 and 2009 sea ice minima were both well below 1980-2000 averages.
November 21, 2009 @ 7:59 PM
Global water temperatures did
Global water temperatures did indeed peak in 1999, and generally rose sharply through the 1990’s. That is why the global alarmists typically use that year as the end-date of their studies.
Yes, this decade will be the warmest decade on record, simply because the runup to 1999 included some early years of lower temperatures. My point is that since the temperature trend is now generally lower for the past decade, shouldn’t we be skeptical before we slam our economy with the new burden of cap and trade? China will happily take up the production slack when our costs skyrocket and employment falls.
November 21, 2009 @ 9:11 PM
EconProf wrote: China will
[quote=EconProf] China will happily take up the production slack when our costs skyrocket and employment falls.[/quote]
Yes, the job migration will occur as it did from EU to US, when EU enacted (much stronger) carbon limits. Honestly, the complete destruction of EU manufacturing is the primary reason for Dollar strength against Euro in the last decade. /s
China industrial rate is around 15c/kwh, which is significantly higher than average industrial rate in US. Are you saying that Chinese will out-compete us on a level playing field?
November 22, 2009 @ 5:05 PM
I am always suprised that
I am always suprised that people seem to think that because this is called ‘global warming’ it only means that temeratures have to go straight up like housing prices from 1998-2005, except never ending. Or that we are going to live some lame hollywood bastardization of the issue like ‘day after tomorrow’.
Look, the levels of CO2 in the atmoshphere are rising, and that is undoubadly because humans are releasing large amounts of it that use to be captured below ground. What the effects of this will be is still not fully understood. Globally we are getting warmer than we were, so it is called global warming. Polar ice packs, and most non polar glaciers, are melting at accelerating rates. In a personal anacadote, farms are moving farther and farther north in Minnesota, because they can.
Who knows what the overall repercussions of increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide will be. Shouldnt we try to A) find out, and B) minimize the negative effects? And considering we have no idea what the final effects are, shouldnt we try to slowdown the driver of the changes, increasing levels of CO2?
There, that wasnt so scarry was it?
November 22, 2009 @ 5:10 PM
I think the earth would go
I think the earth would go through global warming on its own, just not at the pace it has in the last 50 years. We should try and slow it down. The long-run economy will be fine with green policies, don’t believe the conservative argument otherwise.
November 22, 2009 @ 5:32 PM
SellingMyHome wrote:I think
[quote=SellingMyHome]I think the earth would go through global warming on its own, just not at the pace it has in the last 50 years. We should try and slow it down. The long-run economy will be fine with green policies, don’t believe the conservative argument otherwise.[/quote]
Which conservative argument would that be, exactly? Dear God, more unfathomably witless stupidity and mendacity at work.
Have you spent any time reading up on these so-called “green” policies and what they will cost versus what they will accomplish? While you’re at it, check out the number of liberal politicians or center-left politicians throughout the world who oppose not only Kyoto, but the majority of these policies.
Finally, read some Bjorn Lomborg, who remains one of the most rational proponents of intelligent green policies and doesn’t succumb to the pressure of feckless idiots like Al Gore, who is simply in this for the money.
Do your homework and get your facts straight before making utterly vapid and wholly unsupported pronouncements.
November 22, 2009 @ 5:50 PM
Allan from Fallbrook
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=SellingMyHome]I think the earth would go through global warming on its own, just not at the pace it has in the last 50 years. We should try and slow it down. The long-run economy will be fine with green policies, don’t believe the conservative argument otherwise.[/quote]
Which conservative argument would that be, exactly? Dear God, more unfathomably witless stupidity and mendacity at work.
Have you spent any time reading up on these so-called “green” policies and what they will cost versus what they will accomplish? While you’re at it, check out the number of liberal politicians or center-left politicians throughout the world who oppose not only Kyoto, but the majority of these policies.
Finally, read some Bjorn Lomborg, who remains one of the most rational proponents of intelligent green policies and doesn’t succumb to the pressure of feckless idiots like Al Gore, who is simply in this for the money.
Do your homework and get your facts straight before making utterly vapid and wholly unsupported pronouncements.[/quote]
Allen, Allen, Allen, calm down now. Are you saying green policies are good or not?
Even Clinton wouldn’t sign Kyoto, but it was the feckless idiot conservatives that helped to keep it down. They probably threatened to disclose another one of his affairs!
I’m not happy with the Democrat’s answers to this either, but they are just as beholden to big business as the other side.
Friggin China is going to be producing less CO2 sooner than we will. Why? Because even they figured out their long term success depends on it.
November 22, 2009 @ 7:44 PM
SellingMyHome wrote:Allan
[quote=SellingMyHome][quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=SellingMyHome]I think the earth would go through global warming on its own, just not at the pace it has in the last 50 years. We should try and slow it down. The long-run economy will be fine with green policies, don’t believe the conservative argument otherwise.[/quote]
Which conservative argument would that be, exactly? Dear God, more unfathomably witless stupidity and mendacity at work.
Have you spent any time reading up on these so-called “green” policies and what they will cost versus what they will accomplish? While you’re at it, check out the number of liberal politicians or center-left politicians throughout the world who oppose not only Kyoto, but the majority of these policies.
Finally, read some Bjorn Lomborg, who remains one of the most rational proponents of intelligent green policies and doesn’t succumb to the pressure of feckless idiots like Al Gore, who is simply in this for the money.
Do your homework and get your facts straight before making utterly vapid and wholly unsupported pronouncements.[/quote]
Allen, Allen, Allen, calm down now. Are you saying green policies are good or not?
Even Clinton wouldn’t sign Kyoto, but it was the feckless idiot conservatives that helped to keep it down. They probably threatened to disclose another one of his affairs!
I’m not happy with the Democrat’s answers to this either, but they are just as beholden to big business as the other side.
Friggin China is going to be producing less CO2 sooner than we will. Why? Because even they figured out their long term success depends on it.[/quote]
Clinton not signing Kyoto had nothing to do with fear of being outed for another affair. It had everything to do with listening to wise counsel about the financially ruinous costs inherent to the Protocols, all for negligible gains.
Tell me, what do you think “green” policies entail? You throw a strawman up and imply that somehow I’m against green policies. I’m not. What I’m against are ill thought out, politically motivated, scientifically unsupported money wasters that make people feel good, but fail to accomplish anything of value.
Again, which feckless conservatives helped “keep it (Kyoto) down” again? You also didn’t respond to my assertion regarding liberals and center-left politicians opposing Kyoto, either.
As far as China becoming “green”, give me a minute. I fell down on the floor after laughing my ass off. Why let the facts get in the way of a good story, right?
November 22, 2009 @ 7:54 PM
Allan from Fallbrook wrote:As
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]As far as China becoming “green”, give me a minute. I fell down on the floor after laughing my ass off. Why let the facts get in the way of a good story, right?[/quote]
I’ve been hearing about their efforts to find alternative energy. They will do it, trust me. If they can save a buck and buy another dollar of our hides, they will do it.
I did admit to the liberal opposition to Kyoto, it’s sad.
November 22, 2009 @ 8:25 PM
I think airplane exhausts at
I think airplane exhausts at 30,000 feet (you know the kind Al Gore flies around in) are what are causing the ozone to thin. I’m with KUSI’ weather man(John Coleman) in denying that global warming exists. And why would that be? Because of something I learned in high school physics class,”black body radiation”, the hotter something is the more heat it radiates,i.e. the Earth will maintain equilibrium with it’s surroundings,i.e. space. I know there is a lot more to black body radiation as far as peak wavelenths and all that. Rich is there any correlation between the lengths of these topics and unemployment?
November 22, 2009 @ 9:45 PM
SellingMyHome wrote:I did
[quote=SellingMyHome]I did admit to the liberal opposition to Kyoto, it’s sad.[/quote]
http://www.american.com/archive/2009/november/the-quiet-yet-historic-death-of-the-kyoto-protoco
Article from the American on the upcoming expiration of Kyoto.
Interesting to note that, unlike your assessment of strong conservative opposition, the Senate vote back in 1997 (Clinton Administration) was 95 – 0 against and included Barack Obama’s vote in opposition. Al Gore was also against it and did not push for amendment or ratification.
One might infer, incorrectly, from your comment above, that liberals, for the most part, supported Kyoto. However, the facts tell a different story.
You declined to answer when I asked you what you thought about green policies (after you implied that I was somehow anti-green) and declined further to opine about the opposition from liberal and center-left governments, especially those in the OECD.
So, could it be that it wasn’t the “feckless conservatives” at all? Might it be that, after careful study and reviewing the facts, politicians of all stripes correctly conclude that ill-advised, overly expensive and ultimately pointless pieces of legislation like Kyoto are nothing more than window dressing for hand wringing do-gooders with more emotion than sense?
Of course, it might just be me.
November 22, 2009 @ 9:57 PM
For sale: Wooden
For sale: Wooden Boat…
Slightly used, only a total of 40 days on water.
Large enough to house several pairs of animals.
May need some repairs due to lack of use.
May need cleaning in cargo holds.
Noah
555-RAIN
Noah@Heaven.org
November 22, 2009 @ 10:01 PM
LuckyInOC wrote:For sale:
[quote=LuckyInOC]For sale: Wooden Boat…
Slightly used, only a total of 40 days on water.
Large enough to house several pairs of animals.
May need some repairs due to lack of use.
May need cleaning in cargo holds.
Noah
555-RAIN
Noah@Heaven.org[/quote]
OC: Yeah, but you’re gonna have to go to the top of Mt. Ararat in Turkey to pick the damn thing up!
November 22, 2009 @ 10:14 PM
Allan from Fallbrook
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Interesting to note that, unlike your assessment of strong conservative opposition, the Senate vote back in 1997 (Clinton Administration) was 95 – 0 against and included Barack Obama’s vote in opposition. [/quote]
He voted against Kyoto 8 years before he was in the senate?
He truly is magic.
November 22, 2009 @ 10:28 PM
urbanrealtor wrote:Allan from
[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Interesting to note that, unlike your assessment of strong conservative opposition, the Senate vote back in 1997 (Clinton Administration) was 95 – 0 against and included Barack Obama’s vote in opposition. [/quote]
He voted against Kyoto 8 years before he was in the senate?
He truly is magic.[/quote]
Dan: From the article: The story, at least on the international side, is complicated by our actual history with Kyoto, which is not as simple as some greens would portray it today. Rejection of Kyoto—in 1997, three years before Bush’s election—was a rare moment of bipartisan consensus on climate policy; the Senate voted unanimously (95-0) against its basic tenets, and the Clinton-Gore administration never submitted it for ratification. (Even a little-known state legislator from Illinois named Barack Obama voted to condemn Kyoto and prohibit the state from regulating greenhouse gas emissions.)
Whoops. I misread that and, as a result, misquoted. See above.
November 22, 2009 @ 11:01 PM
Allan from Fallbrook
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=urbanrealtor][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Interesting to note that, unlike your assessment of strong conservative opposition, the Senate vote back in 1997 (Clinton Administration) was 95 – 0 against and included Barack Obama’s vote in opposition. [/quote]
He voted against Kyoto 8 years before he was in the senate?
He truly is magic.[/quote]
Dan: From the article: The story, at least on the international side, is complicated by our actual history with Kyoto, which is not as simple as some greens would portray it today. Rejection of Kyoto—in 1997, three years before Bush’s election—was a rare moment of bipartisan consensus on climate policy; the Senate voted unanimously (95-0) against its basic tenets, and the Clinton-Gore administration never submitted it for ratification. (Even a little-known state legislator from Illinois named Barack Obama voted to condemn Kyoto and prohibit the state from regulating greenhouse gas emissions.)
Whoops. I misread that and, as a result, misquoted. See above.[/quote]
having a bit trusting your word now… Just kidding, one misread won’t kill your trustworthiness…
November 22, 2009 @ 11:14 PM
SellingMyHome wrote:having a
[quote=SellingMyHome]having a bit trusting your word now… Just kidding, one misread won’t kill your trustworthiness…[/quote]
Ah, but I’m a conservative, ergo, I’m untrustworthy.
I am, however, a money grubbing, law flouting, Leftist gob smacking, junior plutocrat.
Oh, and, if you listen to the Russians and Chinese, A running dog imperialist exploiter of the masses.
Now, I must be off. Time for my anarcho-syndicalist book club meeting.
November 22, 2009 @ 10:29 PM
urbanrealtor wrote:
He truly
[quote=urbanrealtor]
He truly is magic.[/quote]
Dan: You’ve been listening to Rush Limbaugh again, haven’t you?
November 22, 2009 @ 11:12 PM
Allan from Fallbrook
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
One might infer, incorrectly, from your comment above, that liberals, for the most part, supported Kyoto. However, the facts tell a different story.
You declined to answer when I asked you what you thought about green policies (after you implied that I was somehow anti-green) and declined further to opine about the opposition from liberal and center-left governments, especially those in the OECD.
So, could it be that it wasn’t the “feckless conservatives” at all? Might it be that, after careful study and reviewing the facts, politicians of all stripes correctly conclude that ill-advised, overly expensive and ultimately pointless pieces of legislation like Kyoto are nothing more than window dressing for hand wringing do-gooders with more emotion than sense?
Of course, it might just be me.[/quote]
I agree Kyoto wasn’t the best, Clinton couldn’t get them to agree to firm targets without undue restrictions on how to achieve them. So, Congress couldn’t vote for it.
I never said liberals supported it, please show me where. I said it was sad they didn’t. Between your mis-reading of articles (probably Wikipedia), and your mis-reading of my posts, I’m starting to worry.
But it isn’t a surprise they didn’t vote for it then. Why even try when a crazy, liberal-hunting Congress has control? Now that the liberals have control, they could try to push something through, but they won’t, they’ll screw things up…Sad. We may not even get health care.
November 22, 2009 @ 11:20 PM
SellingMyHome wrote:
I never
[quote=SellingMyHome]
I never said liberals supported it, please show me where. I said it was sad they didn’t. Between your mis-reading of articles (probably Wikipedia), and your mis-reading of my posts, I’m starting to worry.
[/quote]
I stand corrected and you are right. I made a clumsy and incorrect inference after your shot at conservatives.
Bad knee jerk reaction on my part.
You probably should worry, but for reasons other than misreading.
November 22, 2009 @ 9:53 PM
SellingMyHome wrote:
I’ve
[quote=SellingMyHome]
I’ve been hearing about their efforts to find alternative energy. They will do it, trust me. If they can save a buck and buy another dollar of our hides, they will do it.
[/quote]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jun/19/china.usnews
Guardian article on China as world’s worst polluter. As far as the Chinese government’s “commitment” to “work” on “improvements”, its a joke. If you haven’t been to China, go. Visit the industrialized areas and spend a few days. Check out your clothes and hair after leaving and it will absolutely amaze you.
The Chinese government could give a shit about air quality, or safety, or health. Last week’s mine explosion is proof of that. If you actually buy in to what the Chinese government is telling you, well…
November 22, 2009 @ 10:11 PM
@Allan from Fallbrook
The
China has a large solar initiative.. but it is not for ‘eco’ reasons. It is because recently they went from a net exporter to a net importer of oil. The Chinese realize that being a net importer of oil is equivalent to money dripping out of their pocket.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/China/Background.html
a quote:
“Despite the economic slowdown in exports and domestic demand in the past year, China’s demand for energy remains high. China has emerged from being a net oil exporter in the early 1990s to become the world’s third-largest net importer of oil in 2006.”
November 22, 2009 @ 10:30 PM
ucodegen wrote:
China has a
[quote=ucodegen]
China has a large solar initiative.. but it is not for ‘eco’ reasons. It is because recently they went from a net exporter to a net importer of oil. The Chinese realize that being a net importer of oil is equivalent to money dripping out of their pocket.
[/quote]
The Chinese ain’t dumb.
They went from the 4th world to a global competitor since I graduated high school.
It makes a shitload of sense for them to be investing in renewable energy.
This is a strategic–not a moral–question.
Also, Allan I actually agree with you.
But my views on the irrelevancy of human contribution stand.
November 22, 2009 @ 10:55 PM
urbanrealtor wrote:Also,
[quote=urbanrealtor]Also, Allan I actually agree with you.
[/quote]
Dan: I don’t know if I’m more pleased or frightened.
November 22, 2009 @ 5:55 PM
Allan from Fallbrook
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Finally, read some Bjorn Lomborg, who remains one of the most rational proponents of intelligent green policies [/quote]
Bjorn might have some good ideas, but he needs to be better at getting them out:
The DCSD cited The Skeptical Environmentalist for:
Fabrication of data;
Selective discarding of unwanted results (selective citation);
Deliberately misleading use of statistical methods;
Distorted interpretation of conclusions;
Plagiarism;
Deliberate misinterpretation of others’ results
OUCH.
November 22, 2009 @ 7:38 PM
SellingMyHome wrote:Allan
[quote=SellingMyHome][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Finally, read some Bjorn Lomborg, who remains one of the most rational proponents of intelligent green policies [/quote]
Bjorn might have some good ideas, but he needs to be better at getting them out:
The DCSD cited The Skeptical Environmentalist for:
Fabrication of data;
Selective discarding of unwanted results (selective citation);
Deliberately misleading use of statistical methods;
Distorted interpretation of conclusions;
Plagiarism;
Deliberate misinterpretation of others’ results
OUCH.[/quote]
Uh, yeah. You might want to include the rest of that citation, but, in true Leftist fashion, you left out the important part:
MSTI review
On February 13, 2003, Lomborg filed a complaint against the DCSD’s decision, with the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MSTI), which has oversight over the DCSD. On December 17, 2003, the Ministry annulled the decision made by DCSD. In doing so, MSTI cited several procedural errors, including:
* The DCSD did not use a precise standard for deciding “good scientific practice” in the social sciences;[citation needed]
* The DCSD’s definition of “objective scientific dishonesty” was not clear about whether “distortion of statistical data” had to be deliberate or not;[citation needed]
* The DCSD had not properly documented that The Skeptical Environmentalist was a scientific publication on which they had the right to intervene in the first place;
* The DCSD did not provide specific statements on actual errors. On this point the MSTI stated “the DCSD has not documented where [Dr Lomborg] has allegedly been biased in his choice of data and in his argumentation, and … the ruling is completely void of argumentation for why the DCSD find that the complainants are right in their criticisms of [his] working methods. It is not sufficient that the criticisms of a researcher’s working methods exist; the DCSD must consider the criticisms and take a position on whether or not the criticisms are justified, and why.”[4]
The Ministry remitted the case to the DCSD. In doing so the Ministry indicated that it regarded the DCSD’s previous findings of scientific dishonesty in regard to the book as invalid.[5][6] The Ministry also instructed the DCSD to decide whether to reinvestigate.
[edit] DCSD response
On March 12, 2004, the Committee formally decided not to act further on the complaints, reasoning that renewed scrutiny would, in all likelihood, result in the same conclusion.[5]
[edit] Response of the scientific community
The original DCSD decision about Lomborg provoked a petition[7] among Danish academics. 308 scientists, many of them from the social sciences, criticised the DCSD’s methods in the case and called for the DCSD to be disbanded.[8] The Danish Minister of Science, Technology, and Innovation then asked the Danish Research Agency to form an independent working group to review DCSD practices.[9] In response to this, another group of Danish scientists collected over 600 signatures (primarily from the medical and natural sciences community) in support of the DCSD and presented their petition to the Danish Research Agency.[8]
The DCSD is a joke, as evidenced by the above. Lomborg has been subjected to numerous similar hit and hatchet jobs, and all for having sufficient integrity to pursue a scientifically centered and informed approach to environmentalism. Can’t have that. Just ask Al Gore. Don’t question the “settled science” or bad things will happen.
November 22, 2009 @ 7:48 PM
Allan from Fallbrook
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Uh, yeah. You might want to include the rest of that citation, but, in true Leftist fashion, you left out the important part:
The DCSD is a joke, as evidenced by the above. Lomborg has been subjected to numerous similar hit and hatchet jobs, and all for having sufficient integrity to pursue a scientifically centered and informed approach to environmentalism. Can’t have that. Just ask Al Gore. Don’t question the “settled science” or bad things will happen.[/quote]
I left out the rest, because it went both ways. The DCSD lost the decision to the MSTI, decided not to try it again knowing it would just have the same results. Over 600 scientists supported the DCSD.
I think he has some decent ideas, just got a bad rap due to some questionable acts. Funny though, like Al Gore, he got a lot of publicity, good and bad, all of it helping his cause.
November 22, 2009 @ 5:35 PM
Futbol=Soccer
Golbal=Golf?
Wh
Futbol=Soccer
Golbal=Golf?
Why would anyone heat their golbals?
November 22, 2009 @ 8:59 PM
SellingMyHome wrote:I think
[quote=SellingMyHome]I think the earth would go through global warming on its own, just not at the pace it has in the last 50 years. We should try and slow it down. The long-run economy will be fine with green policies, don’t believe the conservative argument otherwise.[/quote]
I think you raise a good point and I think the vitriolic…
(section discussing Allan’s emotional stability deleted)….
Anyway back on the subject matter:
What I find interesting is that many make the argument that global warming is often due to natural processes. I believe this to be true.
However, I don’t think this changes anything.
If the temperature rises even a little, it would have a pretty serious impact.
November 22, 2009 @ 9:00 PM
Also:
Learn to swim.
Also:
Learn to swim.
November 22, 2009 @ 9:58 PM
urbanrealtor
[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=SellingMyHome]I think the earth would go through global warming on its own, just not at the pace it has in the last 50 years. We should try and slow it down. The long-run economy will be fine with green policies, don’t believe the conservative argument otherwise.[/quote]
I think you raise a good point and I think the vitriolic…
(section discussing Allan’s emotional stability deleted)….
Anyway back on the subject matter:
What I find interesting is that many make the argument that global warming is often due to natural processes. I believe this to be true.
However, I don’t think this changes anything.
If the temperature rises even a little, it would have a pretty serious impact.[/quote]
Dan: You’re sort of missing the point here, too. Selling’s strawman is apparently very effective. I’m not denying climate change, nor am I denying the need for solutions. What I am arguing for are meaningful solutions that deliver results, not clever window dressing designed to enrich the few that are shilling their fix as the one and only answer.
Cui bono?
November 23, 2009 @ 1:10 AM
Don’t worry everyone. The LHC
Don’t worry everyone. The LHC just booted up again and it is going to fix everything.
November 23, 2009 @ 7:10 AM
afx114 wrote:Don’t worry
[quote=afx114]Don’t worry everyone. The LHC just booted up again and it is going to fix everything.[/quote]
LOL
Awesome.
Black hole here I come!
November 23, 2009 @ 7:17 AM
If the human problem gets to
If the human problem gets to bad nature has a way of balancing things out.
Ukrainian Black Lung Deaths Doubling Every Two Weeks Throughout Europe
http://www.businessinsider.com/ukrainian-black-lung-deaths-doubling-every-two-weeks-throughout-europe-2009-11
The mutated H1N1 strain that’s been making its way across Europe continues to claim more lives.
November 23, 2009 @ 7:46 AM
Global warming/cooling have
Global warming/cooling have happened in the past and will continue to do so. It has been so cold in the past that the sea levels were 400 feet lower (bearing straights, man walking to the new world) and warm enough so that deciduous trees grew north of the artic circle(100,000 years ago). There are passes in the alps that were ice free all year round during roman times and are becoming ice free again. This has been used as proof that global warming is here but is not mentioned in the context that it has all happened before. It is a normal proces that the earth has always been going through. The real question is, is the current warming trend made worse by CO2 being released? Unknown at this time. My problem is that the polar ice caps melting is used by some as a political football to scare people into believing that change in the earth’s climate is bad and is the result of evil capitalists and must be stopped. We are probably not able to stop the earth’s normal climatic changes anyway.
November 23, 2009 @ 8:20 AM
I’m surprised there has not
I’m surprised there has not been more talk about the University of East Anglia email scandal that shows that scientists have been conspiring to distort and exclude data that does not support their AGW hypothesis. The emails have been confirmed as authentic.
November 23, 2009 @ 8:32 AM
CONCHO wrote:I’m surprised
[quote=CONCHO]I’m surprised there has not been more talk about the University of East Anglia email scandal that shows that scientists have been conspiring to distort and exclude data that does not support their AGW hypothesis. The emails have been confirmed as authentic.[/quote]
CONCHO: James Delingpole had a good follow up on the lack of reporting: http://jamesdelingpole.com/2009/11/22/climategate-how-the-msm-reported-the-greatest-scandal-in-modern-science/
The emails are being downplayed as a non-event in the MSM. Of course, given the amount of hype surrounding AGW (aka ManBearPig), this sort of thing is going to arouse some ire amongst Gore and his henchpersons and drastically cut into their earnings.
One of my wife’s friends is a die-hard Leftist, and literally became spitting mad when I mentioned those emails. Her first claim was that they were all forgeries and when I replied that they were genuine, she then said and I quote: “It doesn’t matter. It just doesn’t matter. They (the scientists) know best and if they have to do some finagling (her word) to help us, then so be it”.
I swear I could hear the “Internationale” playing in the background. Who needs peer reviews, academic rigor and integrity, if they “know better”, right? I mean eugenics wasn’t such a bad thing, really, just misunderstood. The Nazis knew better and were just trying to help us.
November 23, 2009 @ 9:11 AM
Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] The Nazis knew better and were just trying to help us.[/quote]
To compare scientists trying to pump up global warming data to nazis is a big stretch!
It’s too bad they messed with the data. The time it will take to recover from their dipshit moves is going to hurt the cause.
The Earth goes through cycles, only Fundamentalists will doubt that (they think we’ve only been here a couple thousand years). I just think the most recent warming trend and changes to the environment are happening faster than normal.
yes, the ocean was some 400 ft lower, and 400 ft higher, but that was before recent civilization was here. We will not be able to withstand the accelerated changes, man-made or not. What we can do is man-made reductions…
November 23, 2009 @ 9:25 AM
SellingMyHome wrote:Allan
[quote=SellingMyHome][quote=Allan from Fallbrook] The Nazis knew better and were just trying to help us.[/quote]
To compare scientists trying to pump up global warming data to nazis is a big stretch!
[/quote]
Except that it isn’t. My mention of eugenics was specific for a reason.
Do a little research on the topic, especially the “settled science” aspect of it in the 1930s and then look at how closely US, UK and German scientists and researchers agreed.
Check out the Tuskegee Experiments (which went on for FORTY years) and then explain to me how it is that science can go so badly off the rails.
You think its a big jump between this and the Nazis? Think again.
November 23, 2009 @ 9:39 AM
Humans are messing up the
Humans are messing up the planet in innumerable ways. Deforestation, pollution, pesticides, GM organisms, resource overuse, you name it. Even though AGW may be a real phenomenon, the problem I have is that politicians are using it to push new taxes, trading schemes and laws that will do nothing to solve these very tough problems. The whole AGW movement is about making money for a select few at the top and for increasing government control. Companies will continue polluting, we will continue deforesting and contaminating the planet with carcinogenic poisons and GM plants.
If they really wanted to reduce CO2 emissions they would be rebuilding our rail infrastructure and building new nuclear power plants. They never talk about things like that, the only ideas they have are taxes and trading.
I do like Al Gore’s outlook on many topics. His book “The Assault On Reason” made many good points. Unfortunately the last time he made the TV talk show circuit pushing a big idea it was for NAFTA. Just ask your average Mexican how that worked out for them. Or your average American factory worker (if you can find one). It was a total disaster for all but those at the very top and I have a feeling we’ll soon be repeating this scenario with whatever carbon trading and tax scheme they come up with.
November 23, 2009 @ 9:58 AM
CONCHO wrote:Humans are
[quote=CONCHO]Humans are messing up the planet in innumerable ways. Deforestation, pollution, pesticides, GM organisms, resource overuse, you name it. Even though AGW may be a real phenomenon, the problem I have is that politicians are using it to push new taxes, trading schemes and laws that will do nothing to solve these very tough problems. The whole AGW movement is about making money for a select few at the top and for increasing government control. Companies will continue polluting, we will continue deforesting and contaminating the planet with carcinogenic poisons and GM plants.
If they really wanted to reduce CO2 emissions they would be rebuilding our rail infrastructure and building new nuclear power plants. They never talk about things like that, the only ideas they have are taxes and trading.
I do like Al Gore’s outlook on many topics. His book “The Assault On Reason” made many good points. Unfortunately the last time he made the TV talk show circuit pushing a big idea it was for NAFTA. Just ask your average Mexican how that worked out for them. Or your average American factory worker (if you can find one). It was a total disaster for all but those at the very top and I have a feeling we’ll soon be repeating this scenario with whatever carbon trading and tax scheme they come up with.[/quote]
CONCHO: Excellent post and excellent points. The point I was making is exactly the same: Not denying the problem, but pushing for rational, well thought out and cost-effective solutions.
Of course, as I write this, I realize that I’m expecting the government to be rational, intelligent and cost-effective. Yeah, that’s gonna work.
November 23, 2009 @ 9:44 AM
Actually, the study eugenics
Actually, the study eugenics was started by Rockefeller. Still, it’s not really a good analogy Allan. In theory we can change genetic composition by human selection which does not mean it is ethical or humane to try and do or even controllable. Eugenics was trying to control nature while climate science is trying to understand it. Big difference.
We live on a finite planet where the waste of consumption DOES effect the physics and chemistry of the atmosphere of the planet and the planet itself and subsequently the inhabitants of the planet. That is not in question. You are equating what you perceive potential governmental actions to this fact with the science of the fact.
Understanding climate drivers is a highly complex issue and any “skepticism” at this point is not healthy. It’s analogous to tobacco science. Funded by the likely suspects. Skepticism of solutions should be held in a separate light.
November 23, 2009 @ 10:02 AM
Arraya wrote:Actually, the
[quote=Arraya]Actually, the study eugenics was started by Rockefeller. Still, it’s not really a good analogy Allan. In theory we can change genetic composition by human selection which does not mean it is ethical or humane to try and do or even controllable. Eugenics was trying to control nature while climate science is trying to understand it. Big difference.
We live on a finite planet where the waste of consumption DOES effect the physics and chemistry of the atmosphere of the planet and the planet itself and subsequently the inhabitants of the planet. That is not in question. You are equating what you perceive potential governmental actions to this fact with the science of the fact.
Understanding climate drivers is a highly complex issue and any “skepticism” at this point is not healthy. It’s analogous to tobacco science. Funded by the likely suspects. Skepticism of solutions should be held in a separate light.[/quote]
Arraya: My point was centered on “settled science” and the reactions encountered when skeptics tried to challenge it.
We have the same situation here. Any attempts to question, challenge or refute the status quo ante are treated as high treason. The AGW folks treat this as revealed truth and they have about the same mental flexibility as their peers in the Mother Church during the Middle Ages, which is to say, none.
November 23, 2009 @ 10:13 AM
Human induced is CC is mostly
Human induced is CC is mostly settled and has been for decades. It is not doctrine, it is a theory with a half decade solidly supported by observable data that gets more solid with the passing days. Not the other way around as some frame it.
The question now is how much, how fast and what to do.
November 23, 2009 @ 11:27 AM
“Obama has failed the world
“Obama has failed the world on climate change,” Obama = Carter: Europe has figured it out-
“Der Spiegel announces after it turns out that the president was unable to persuade the Chinese to accept firm emission-reduction targets or his own Senate to pass his cap-and-trade bill. A serious matter, if you believe scientist/activist James Lovelock’s warning, “‘Human survival itself is at risk.'”
“So when about 20,000 United Nations bureaucrats, representatives of nongovernmental organizations and world leaders from 192 nations descend on Copenhagen, Denmark, in a few weeks for the 15th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, they will not be able to sign off on a legally binding substitute for the expiring Kyoto Protocol.”
November 23, 2009 @ 12:35 PM
If we dont’ have global
If we dont’ have global warming, maybe there’s another explanation why Over 100 icebergs drifting to N.Zealand
November 23, 2009 @ 1:05 PM
There is climate change. The
There is climate change. The question is, is it normal change, i.e. earth made or man made? You need to draw your own conclusions and not for political reasons, for personal knowledge.
“Here’s a few things most people don’t know, because most people like to get their news from propaganda movies which win Oscars (*achem* “An Inconvenient Truth”). So here’s some facts I bet Al Gore and your science teacher didn’t teach:”
“1. Contrary to the popular belief that glaciers all over the world are melting, in some places they are actually GROWING. In Iceland and Greenland, the first half of the twentieth century was warmer than the second half. In Iceland, most glaciers lost mass after 1930 because temperatures temporarily rose by .6 degrees Celsius. But since then the climate has gotten colder, and since 1970 the glaciers have been growing. Including eleven glaciers which are surging in size.”
http://www.helium.com/items/540228-global-warming-whats-the-real-truth
“These are just some of the facts people, from real scientists who do REAL research. These facts are not from politicians or actors. Whether the majority of scientists believe in it or not, there simply is not enough evidence to show that global warming is a threat in any way. Also, remember that it is merely a THEORY, and there are very little facts supporting it. I have a great deal more information if you’re at all interested. Remember, THINK FOR YOURSELVES! The truth is out there. Don’t be ignorant. Find the truth!”
November 23, 2009 @ 1:48 PM
Newtongate: the final nail in
Newtongate: the final nail in the coffin of Renaissance and Enlightenment ‘thinking’
November 23, 2009 @ 2:16 PM
Eugenics was trying to
These statements are self contradictory. How can you have rational well thought out solutions when the mechanism and its drivers are not understood? We don’t even know if there really is a problem. When you are trying to understand a mechanism, skepticism is critical. It prevents theory from becoming religion. Skepticism is also fundamental to the scientific process.
Incorrect. It is not settled. It is so unsettled that one of the premier researchers on tornadoes threatened to sue the IPCC to get his name off their papers. In addition, if you go back further than 1 decade, it gets even more unsettled. Specifically to the 1400s. During the 1400s, grapes were grown in England. Its too cold to grow them in England now.
There are several problems with the theory of CO2 driving AGW.
1) Because the earth rotates in a hard vacuum(of space), the earth will not lose heat energy through convection. This means that there is no such thing as a C02 caused ‘blanket’. The only way the energy is radiated from the earth is through blackbody radiation. C02’s greenhouse gas effect is from absorbing blackbody radiation and converting that energy back into heat (which it then eventually re-radiates equally up to the upper atmosphere or back down to earth)
2) CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas. Its greenhouse effect is significantly weaker than H20. See image.. The Planks curve for blackbody radiation from the earth goes from about 1M to 30M, peaking at about 10M. C02 absorbs light energy (Infrared) at 2.7M, 4.3M and 15M wavelengths.
[img_assist|nid=12364|title=Atmospheric Absorption Spectra|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=70]
3) Three of CO2’s spectra are absorbing all of the photons within their absorption wavelengths. Additional concentrations of CO2 will not further increase the blackbody absorption.
4) The premise of C02 induced AGW has to do with CO2 making it just a tiny bit warmer, causing more H20 to be in the atmosphere and then creating a feedback look through H20’s greenhouse effect. The problem is that only 1 absorption band of C02 is different than H20 and it is already at saturation. This means that additional C02 will do nothing to increase temperatures. In addition, if there was a possible feedback effect, the variability in H20 in the atmosphere should have triggered a run-away (Basic feedback control systems – see Bode plots).
5) The C02 feedback through H20 ignores that H20 has both positive and negative feedback effects. In a gaseous form, the feedback is positive. As suspended water droplets(clouds), the feedback is strongly negative. Almost the entire Atmospheric Absorption Band gets blocked out, including the sun which is our ‘forcing function’. In addition, clouds themselves radiate IR when they rain because converting water vapor to condensed water releases 1000Calories per gram of water (phase change energy).
Jim Hensen, one of the leading proponents of AGW had to admit that more study was needed because the water cycle (evap – vapor – condense – rain) has not yet been accurately modeled. Considering that the surface of the earth is about 60% water and that water has the strongest global warming feedback as well as the strongest negative feedback, I would have to say that the lack of knowledge here is a very significant issue.
November 23, 2009 @ 2:38 PM
UCO
Please refer back to
UCO
Please refer back to when DrChaos, piggington’s residential theoretical physicist explained CC to you. You seem to still be confused an rehashing things that he answered.
http://piggington.com/global_warming
For everybody else, it is a good tutorial.
November 23, 2009 @ 7:25 PM
Please refer back to when
You obviously were not paying attention to that thread… I debated w/ DrChaos to a standstill.. maybe you need to review. I even corrected him on some of his use of terms w/ respect to blackbody radiation. ie
My primary point on this thread.. is that the science is in no way settled. There are also over 2700 scientists that agree with this, and Jim Hansen even had to hedge his position wrt H20 in the atmosphere.
November 23, 2009 @ 8:16 PM
ucodegen wrote:
Please refer
[quote=ucodegen]
You obviously were not paying attention to that thread… I debated w/ DrChaos to a standstill.. maybe you need to review. I even corrected him on some of his use of terms w/ respect to blackbody radiation. ie
My primary point on this thread.. is that the science is in no way settled. There are also over 2700 scientists that agree with this, and Jim Hansen even had to hedge his position wrt H20 in the atmosphere.[/quote]
Nonsense, you corrected him on one point, which he agreed was a poor choice of words and that’s about it. The 380 other points he schooled you.
You are being completely disingenuous.
Who are your 2700 scientists? What are their fields, I like when they throw economics in as a science, which they often do on these lists
99.99% of climatologists agree along with these institutions: It is 100% settled and has been for years.
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
U.S. Global Change Research Program
InterAcademy Council
NASA
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
Joint science academies including: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Ghana, Germany, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, India, Japan, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, New Zealand, Russia, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Sweden, Tanzania, Uganda, United Kingdom, United States, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.
Network of African Science Academies (including major universities in Cameroon, Ghana, Kenya, Madagascar, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe, as well as the African Academy of Sciences)
Royal Society of New Zealand
Polish Academy of Sciences
National Research Council
American Association for the Advancement of Science
The European Science Foundation
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
American Geophysical Union
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
American Meteorological Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
American Quaternary Association
International Union for Quaternary Research
American Society for Microbiology
Institute of Biology (UK)
Society of American Foresters
American Academy of Pediatrics
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Medical Association
Australian Medical Association
World Federation of Public Health Associations
World Health Organization
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Institute of Physics
National Oceanographic & Atmospheric Administration(I know several scientists here)
Of course you have oil industry scientists funding junk science and other denier sites.
You, and other deniers , use the same links, the same arguments, and act as though the world’s leading climatologists are clueless to the things you speak about. Does that make sense to you? That they’re lying to everyone, one big massive cover-up (by scientist…not politicians), and that these Phd’s don’t understand solar cycles, little ice ages, and every climate cycle you can conjure up, that they can’t make the connections your blogging sites think they’ve discovered.
Big business doesn’t wanted to be handcuffed in anyway, they don’t want to be taxed, and they don’t want political pressure to adopt expensive alternatives. Everybody want a conspiracy…that’s where it is. Even now, as I drove home in the pouring rain, the GOP radio station was blabbering on about environmentalists and crack pot scientist who are trying to convince everyone about AGW, and that the same time these tree huggers are always getting in the way of big business for owls, tree’s, and lizards. He used the Mojave desert in California as an example, which makes a perfect place for a massive solar power project, except it would totally disrupt the natural desert ecosystem and is vehemently opposed by the local Indians. Indians, what do they know, right? Meanwhile, I have to listen to joe6pack calling in supporting these ridiculous talking points.
I’m sure all 2700 of your scientists are directly or indirectly, are being supported by big business that wishes to continue their various polluting industries without another environmentalist breathing down their back. Oh, and when did environmentalist or global warming alarmists get to be derogatory? We should be ALARMED at the state of our environment, we should be ALARMED that humans are changing the climate, and rest assured we should be ALARMED that there’s so much disinformation purposely being shoveled here and all over the world wide web. That sir is the conspiracy. It sure the hell isn’t the thousands of climate scientists who are SCREAMING warnings that we better do something, and do something quick.
November 23, 2009 @ 8:33 PM
Wow Arraya, with a list like
Wow Arraya, with a list like that is hard to argue against them. I never knew it was that conclusive, seriously! Reading the U-T daily has given me too much of the wrong ideas!
November 23, 2009 @ 8:47 PM
Forget about the whole global
Forget about the whole global warming/climate change thing for a minute and ask yourself this: how long will it remain in this nation’s best interests to prop up regimes in far off places by importing the only product they have to offer? Everyone on here likes to talk shit about how wasteful this country is, but have you considered how wasteful we are with the one commodity upon which all others depend (energy)?
Sure, transitioning to renewables is going to be a long, painful, expensive process, but ask yourself: what is the alternative? I know Mad Max was a sweeeeeettt fucking movie and all, but come on.
Whether or not you believe global warming is true or a not, surely everyone can have some common sense and agree that it is in our best interest to start the transition sooner rather than later. And the fact that we’ll all be breathing cleaner air as a result? Think of it as a big fat juice cherry on top.
November 23, 2009 @ 9:36 PM
List of comments wrt the
List of comments wrt the stolen Emails..
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html
November 23, 2009 @ 9:04 PM
Please show references
Please show references showing the list above as a current list of supporting organizations. You call for my ref.. thereby I call for yours refs as to the list you provided was voted on by their members and not just the administrators of those organizations.
Here is just a small portion of the people who disagree.. from a very simple source. (looking through my links for the longer list).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
I don’t know how accurate the count of 30,000 is(this guy should be familiar to San Diegans)..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ&feature=related
another interesting note:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=595F6F41-802A-23AD-4BC4-B364B623ADA3
quote: “But what you don’t hear is that both the NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to directly vote on these climate statements. ”
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=1a5e6e32-802a-23ad-40ed-ecd53cd3d320
Inhofe claims over 600 vs the 52 on IPCC… don’t know how true it is.. a lot of supporting links though.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7
Vs the money that proponents get?.. get real
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/gore_fisker_car_loan/2009/09/27/265351.html
.. just one of many. Also.. to make such a statement, you must prove it.. since you are asking for my proof. Please show your proof that the oil industry is funding junk science and other denier sites.
Depends upon the company. Companies like SDGE, General Electric, Siemens, SAP.. etc want greenhouse gas laws passed because it will throw them a lot of money. Companies like Goldman Sachs want cap and trade (because they can become the market maker for it). Each operates in their own interest.
How about how the IPCC writes the results of the science even before the science is in.. and then rewrites the conclusion of individual contributor papers to
http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/01/ipcc-ar4.html
If I could post PDF docs, I could post the actual submission agreement for the IPCC papers that literally allows them to do this and states that they will.. source of the agreement is the IPCC itself.
Ref on suppressing info.
http://www.examiner.com/x-11224-Baltimore-Weather-Examiner~y2009m6d30-Why-did-the-EPA-smother-a-scientific-report-that-questioned-global-warming
Talk about a conspiracy… you wish.
The tornado researcher I was mentioning:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/01/18/2500-less-1-2/
Actually it looks like it is 52 scientists…
Irrelevant.. and I suspect a lie. I don’t think you would even tolerate listening to a GOP radio station.
I guess I need to unify my files.. the full list I had on scientists that disagree on AGW is on the machine I took down… time to go through backup files, as well as additional AGW and environmental info.
November 23, 2009 @ 9:18 PM
We should be ALARMED at the
Actually, there are things going on that are much worse than the climate debate.. and the climate debate is overshadowing them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_condensation_nuclei
November 23, 2009 @ 10:21 PM
Arraya wrote:National
[quote=Arraya]National Oceanographic & Atmospheric Administration(I know several scientists here)
I’m sure all 2700 of your scientists are directly or indirectly, are being supported by big business that wishes to continue their various polluting industries without another environmentalist breathing down their back. [/quote]
Arraya: You mention knowing scientists at NOAA, so I’m going to assume you have more than a passing familiarity with governmental research, funding and grants.
I left your “big business” quote in there as well and largely because governmental research IS Big Business.
I do a lot of work on the university research side, specifically tied to governmental research and for agencies like the Department of Defense (DoD), Department of State and DTRA (Defense Threat Reduction Agency). Funding generally runs into the tens of millions of dollars per annum and there are defense researchers at universities who have been working the funding and grant “machine” since the 1960s and 1970s. I personally know several defense scientists that are clearing, on average, nearly $500K per year in this endeavor. Last time I checked, that’s pretty damn good money and worth toeing the line over.
Lastly, one of the greatest dangers in research is the “Groupthink”/echo chamber mentality. I would respectfully suggest that, between the millions upon millions of dollars at stake, plus the desire to be among the fold, there is solid evidence to suggest that not only isn’t the science settled, its not even correct.
The opprobrium heaped upon Ross McKitrick for debunking the “hockey stick” theory was incredible. Yes, I can hear your argument that McKitrick is an economist and not part of the “hard” sciences, but still. This all smacks of medieval conformity, not true science.
November 23, 2009 @ 10:56 PM
Here is a response from a
Here is a response from a real live climate scientist:
There are undeniably people who fervently do not wish for results of the science to be true. This can be motivated many things – vested interest, inclination, background etc. Regardless of why that exists, it undoubtedly does. However, among the scientific community no-one doubts that humans are causing CO2 (and other GHGs) to rise, no-one is confused about the fact that there is a greenhouse effect and that we are enhancing it, and no-one is in denial of the fact that the temperatures (as predicted) are in fact warming. This information, and the vast amount of ancillary data, theory and modelling that exists has led the science community to warn that continued emissions of GHGs risk changing the climate substantially. Given the first group of people’s inclination to not want this to be true, there have been (and continue to be) determined efforts to undermine the scientific conclusions. One of the most effective tactics is to continually claim that data is being hidden and that the process is not open and transparent. This is successful, not because anything is actually being hidden, but because regardless of what data is available you can always ask for more. Five years ago it was a demand than Mann make his code and data available – it was, and nothing changed. A couple of years ago the demand was for the GISTEMP data and code – that was made available… and nothing changed. The requests then moved to CRU, who because of their agreements with the Met Centers, can’t release everything in the public domain. This fact has been greatly exploited by people who conveniently ignore it when making ever more harassing demands for ‘the data’. Whether they get it or not, nothing will change. The target will simply be moved. Meanwhile, the real need for openness and transparency is set back because the vast majority of demands are very clearly partisan and insincere.
If people want genuine public debate over issues that matter, the way is clear: Stop fuelling fake witchhunts looking for evidence that GW is a hoax, stop continually going back to long debunked talking points, and instead engage with scientists, here and elsewhere, on real questions. You will actually find scientists of all stripes remarkably keen to talk about their research and it’s implications once you get past the ‘when did you stop hiding your data’ type accusations. Not everyone has unlimited patience in dealing with constant attacks on their integrity that comes with being in the public eye on these issues, and so many choose not to be involved in that public debate at all. That is a shame, but it’s not a mystery. – gavin
November 23, 2009 @ 11:08 PM
Arraya: Going back to an
Arraya: Going back to an earlier post of mine: I am not a denier. To the contrary. However, I don’t buy the “solutions” that are being presented (such as Kyoto), especially when there are other, better solutions available at a lesser cost.
I’m not claiming that anyone is hiding data, but I would be the first to question that data, not because I believe it to be untrue, but because I believe in empiricism and scrutiny.
Following is a link to McKitrick’s Financial Post article discussing his involvement in debunking Mann’s “hockey stick” theory: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/02/ross-mckitrick-sums-up-the-yamal-tree-ring-affair-in-the-financial-post/
The “Yamal Tree Ring Affair” eventually wound up involving the US National Academy of Science and shows the problem with an over-reliance on certain data.
Again, this isn’t denial, but it is skepticism. Moreover, I’m more than willing to be persuaded by the science, but I still don’t buy the solutions, especially those enjoying political/social patronage or favor. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Al Gore is full of shit and a hypocrite and stands to make a fortune from the “fixes” he’s shilling. Better, cheaper and more responsible solutions are available and should be considered, evaluated and, if feasible, implemented.
To me, that is how science is supposed to work.
November 24, 2009 @ 5:14 AM
Allan-Have you read the
Allan-Have you read the criticisms of McKitrick, of which there is ample supply. His work as been rejected by numerous peer review publications.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/false-claims-by-mcintyre-and-mckitrick-regarding-the-mann-et-al-1998reconstruction/
McIntyre and McKitrick
or this
Myth vs. Fact Regarding the “Hockey Stick”
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stick/
This is very common among “skeptics” they cite the need for scientific rigor then offer work with none.
Yes, there are people (including evil ones) who are positioning themselves to profit from how society will react to these issues. But that doesn’t mean the theory is bullshit. The fact that Goldman Sachs’ carbon credits scheme is a scam designed to loot the peasants does not mean the concept of man made global warming/climate change is a scam. I’d hope piggs would have the intellectual firepower to be able to distinguish the two.
As far as the 3 emails go: So there may be 50 years of research backing up man made climate change but all it will take is 3 emails from lord knows who that will be hyped to all hell by Glenn Beck to keep people thinking “it’s all just a bunch of Al Gore inspired hooey.”
Al Gore’s effect, fwiw, has been – whether he intended it or not – to make sure that half the population (conservatives) wouldn’t believe in the theory due to his presence/notoriety on it and the other half (liberals) would come to think of it as something that can be solved through “minor inconveniences” like buying a $30,000 hybrid instead of a $30,000 SUV and green products.
The fact is we DO NOT have a solutions proposed besides a mildly irritating cap and trade proposal because proposals aren’t profitable. Mostly, all the arguing and skepticism is over nothing besides whether or not to accept the concept. Which would never, ever, ever happen in a million years because Al Gore did a movie on it.
Lastly, I’ve concluded that the economy is going to fall far enough that it will reduce emissions to surpass what the IPCC want, in 30 years our oil and gas consumption will probably be half what it is today out of lack of resources. So really, I don’t even know why I bother in debating this other than I have a connection to the scientific world and get irritated when their work is misrepresented or the scientific process itself which is skeptical in nature.
November 24, 2009 @ 8:53 AM
Arraya: To use your turn of
Arraya: To use your turn of phrase: I hear ya. I actually had heard some criticism(s) of McKitrick, and largely due to his employ, but hadn’t read anything in detail. I will do so.
That actually leads me to one of my pet peeves, and that is with organizations like Exxon Secrets (run by Greenpeace). While I don’t debate the need for transparency and being completely honest about one’s affiliations, I have a problem with the very broad brush (of tar) that gets applied by groups like this. In essence, their argument boils down to: “If you have ever taken even one dollar from ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron, et al, your work is suspect and probably untrustworthy”.
I’ve seen this brush applied to some of those I work with and all due to our work on blast protection and mitigation for the super majors, work that has nothing to do with the environment or climate change. It also completely dismisses the fact that many of the oil companies are involved in genuinely useful research and development (no one is more aware of Peak Oil than the oil companies themselves).
The gravest concerns I have center around the lack of coherent, forward thinking strategies and programs at the federal level. Much of this back and forth would be rendered moot if the US had a meaningful energy policy (promised to us during the Nixon Administration) or industrial policy (not since WWII, really) or technology policy. The one thing this nonsensical partisan infighting has produced is a government completely incapable of actually governing.
November 24, 2009 @ 10:06 AM
Global warming as espoused by
Global warming as espoused by the mainstream media and pimped by Al Gore is nothing more than big business, with scientists who bowed down to Mammon and committed academic fraud for their masters. Arraya’s tribe is just as corrupt as the Capitalists he derides. This religion is no better than the one the Christian haters attack here.
Gore’s Dual Role: Advocate and Investor-
WASHINGTON — “Former Vice President Al Gore thought he had spotted a winner last year when a small California firm sought financing for an energy-saving technology from the venture capital firm where Mr. Gore is a partner.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/business/energy-environment/03gore.html
Time to dump those alternative energy stocks:
But perhaps the most damaging revelations – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.
If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
November 24, 2009 @ 10:08 AM
Hey Zeit, I’ll take those
Hey Zeit, I’ll take those alternative energy stocks off your hands.
November 24, 2009 @ 11:34 AM
The conspiracy behind the
That 61 megabytes is actually compressed. Uncompressed size is considerably larger.. 157Megabytes..
November 24, 2009 @ 11:59 AM
“To whom do lions cast their
“To whom do lions cast their gentle looks?
Not to the beast that would usurp their den.
The smallest worm will turn being trodden on,
And doves will peck in safeguard of their brood.”
~Shakespeare
November 24, 2009 @ 12:31 PM
“It is difficult to get a man
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”
~Upton Sinclair
November 24, 2009 @ 12:36 PM
A stupid man’s report of what
A stupid man’s report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.
Bertrand Russell
British author, mathematician, & philosopher (1872 – 1970)
November 24, 2009 @ 1:53 PM
Global Warming is causing
Global Warming is causing unexplained rainbows in back yards all over America: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_c6HsiixFS8
January 19, 2010 @ 11:34 AM
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. Senator Byron Dorgan said on Tuesday he did not think the Senate would pass climate change legislation this year, but instead would focus on a separate energy bill that would have more bipartisan support.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60I3NA20100119?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews&rpc=22&sp=true
November 23, 2009 @ 8:00 PM
Allan from
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=CONCHO] Who needs peer reviews, academic rigor and integrity, if they “know better”, right?[/quote]
Everyone should trust scientists because they…….
This would require another thread but enough said.
The MSM is avoiding the East Anglia story for three reasons
1) It is official government policy in the UK that global warming is not a theory but a scientific model.
2) Anderson Cooper could not take any more boondoggles to far off places to do shows about nothing when his ratings tank.
3) They are so far in the tank for global warming that they will have to buy and apply their own tar and feathers.
November 23, 2009 @ 8:24 PM
Reading the wikipedia article
Reading the wikipedia article I find an estimate of 1 to 6 degrees increase in the coming decades, caused by man. That is a pretty wide range upon which to be basing hellfire and brimstone.
But prudence pays right?
So lets put up prize money for the green energy producing widget. Maybe instead of the Thneed we call it the Grneed.
The taxpayers put up a few billion of printed money for the cost competitive solar ( where people will actually want to buy it)…lets say .25 cents/ watt uninstalled.
And for our second goal…$2 at the pump in California for green oil.
Maybe give a few hundred million at a time to the X Prize foundation contingent upon success since government seems to be inefficient at…Oh wait…would we be stepping on the toes of Gores multi-trillion-necessary-expense-save-the-planet-by-example-even-though-example-never-converted-the-rest-of-the-world-to-Puritanism program.
Never mind.
November 24, 2009 @ 10:38 AM
Zeitgiest, you can’t stop it,
Zeitgiest, you can’t stop it, you will be bowing down to your commie-lefty-pinko-tree’huggin’-flopped’neck-quiche’gobb’n-bed’wettin-limp’wristed-vegan overlords or you will wind up in Gitmo.
The Soros/Gore take over has been complete with the insertion of the Kenyan Muslim.
Prepare to hacky sack in hell!
November 24, 2009 @ 10:48 AM
Bring it Arraya. The left is
Bring it Arraya. The left is going to have to morph into something else. There are more red necks than reds. You are outnumbered and out gunned. Better dead than red.
November 24, 2009 @ 10:57 AM
It turns out that Mann and
It turns out that Mann and his associates used a non-standard formula to analyze his data, and this particular formula will turn anything into a hockey stick—including trendless data generated by computer. (Source: The Case for Skepticism on Global Warming by Michael Crichton)
http://www.skepticalscience.com/%5Bimg_assist|nid=12369|title=Bogus data|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=75]
January 19, 2010 @ 11:56 AM
I think the GW issue is real
I think the GW issue is real but is not as big a threat as they are claiming, also I think the Sun is in a stage where we may be wishing we had more carbon to throw into the air. (New mini Ice Age anyone ??)
Anyway I would still like to have a plugin electric Car that would yield about 100 Miles per Gal on average use just so we could finally become at least energy independent.
No kidding I don’t think people realize how much defect is just oil. And the support of the global infrastructure just for Oil.
I think all these defect hawks are looking in the wrong direction, all we need to do is get off foreign oil.
January 19, 2010 @ 12:09 PM
Read MSimons quotes (well the
Read MSimons quotes (well the ones following the comical first few). This is what did it for me. Maybe GW is happening but the current “science” behind it just isn’t science.
http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?t=1593&highlight=global+warming
January 20, 2010 @ 11:11 AM
Here is another retraction:
A
Here is another retraction:
A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.
Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world’s glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.
In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC’s 2007 report.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece
Too bad that emotions have been allowed to trump research. Maybe we can solve our own energy issues with commonsense instead of windmills. I do not like windmills because they kill birds.