Windows Forum·65,705 discussions

Heads you win, tails I lose – all based on a false premise

Locked

Global warming will destroy the planet. No, on second thought, since the global warming claim has been debunked, it’s now climate change. Therefore, when it should be cold, but it gets colder; and when it should be warm, but it gets warmer; then that’s proof of man-made climate change. And when it should be warm, but it get colder; and when it should be cold, but it gets warmer; then that’s also proof of man-made climate change. In other words, regardless of what happens, it’s proof of man-made global warming and/or climate change. Heads you win, tails I lose. How convenient!

And it’s all based on the premise that the global temperature and climate patterns are static – even though the history of the globe shows that global temperatures and climate patterns are dynamic.

One word describes the whole issue: Lunacy.

Three words: Lunacy run amok.

Three different words: Lunacy with power.

Two words: Be careful.

Three words: Be VERY careful.

I’ve said it for years, and I maintain the same position: The notion that human activity is affecting the global temperature and/or climate patterns is the biggest lie perpetrated in the history of mankind. Okay, I’ll admit, some of the historical religious claims might come close. But then again, what’s the difference?

Topic

One of them

In reply to Heads you win, tails I lose – all based on a false premise

Is the difference that makes a difference.

Can you support it though?

In reply to Heads you win, tails I lose – all based on a false premise

[i]” since the global warming claim has been debunked, it’s now climate change”[/i]

They are the same thing. A sales rep is now called an account manager. An old age pensioner is now called a senior citizen. This doesn’t mean sales reps were proven false old old age pensioners no longer exist.

[i]”Therefore, when it should be cold, but it gets colder; and when it should be warm, but it gets warmer; then that’s proof of man-made climate change.”[/i]

According to whom?

[i]”proof of man-made global warming and/or climate change[/i]

Again, who says man MADE climate change?

[i]And it’s all based on the premise that the global temperature and climate patterns are static -[/i]

And once again, according to whom?

What kind of right wing rant blog do you find such things mentioned?

Look at any conclusions based on scientific study and I have yet to see any of this mentioned.

What’s wrong, that old horse doesn’t have enough bullets in it for you yet?

All you need, Oz, is. . . . . . .

In reply to Can you support it though?

….. snow for the Olympics.

Too much or too little, it’s all proof of man-made global warming and/or climate change.

P.S. Move it to Colorado. We have plenty of snow! (And it could have happened in 1976.)

There’s plenty of snow

In reply to All you need, Oz, is. . . . . . .

Athletes have all said they prefer it soft on Cyress as opposed to a hard pack. The events there, are freestyle and snowboard.

They have made plenty of snow and it will be just fine, of course someone will lose and complain but goes without saying, regardless of snow condistions.

The issue is that Cyrpess itself has little snow on normal runs, which, from a Vancouver viewpoint makes it look bare.

I was up on New Years eve, having drinks and hanging out with a local team (not Olympiads…yet) and there was plenty of snow, with more being made.

As for your reply, I’ll just assume, as I did anyway, that there is no such solid proof of your assertions at all, perhaps a few nubags like Gore but nothign substantial.

It’s nice to see you around again, even if it was just to flog that same old bag of a mare.

climate change, the age old battle

In reply to Heads you win, tails I lose – all based on a false premise

it is always going to be, no matter what we say.

really it is something kept alive by the governments of the world to scare us. :p

But

In reply to climate change, the age old battle

despite that fact that the most active scientists agree, and have done all along, that the Earth naturally cools and warms (hasn’t anyone even watched the Planet Earth series)the causes of that natural warming and cooling over the Earth;s history are shown to be due to factors that our industrial and private emissions increase.

Thus, it’s not a matter of IF, because anyone with half a brain cell know it IS.

It’s a matter of us shortening the natural time frame of such evolution. The problem is due to gases and Earth core evolution that we farm for resources and expel at a greater rate than is naturally ocurring.

natural volcanic activity, and animal life are bigger factors

In reply to But

than human industry. Having said that, yes, we should clean up our act to minimise what effect we do have with our industry, but there’s no way we can have the sort of significant impact the climate change priests claim.

No. They are not

In reply to natural volcanic activity, and animal life are bigger factors

Yes, we can and do

Most of the effect of animal life

In reply to natural volcanic activity, and animal life are bigger factors

is farming…..

Either animal husbandry or us killing off natural habitats for food and resources.

Taking a wild guess here, but you still haven’t done as I suggested and read James Gleick’s Chaos yet have you.

Give it a go, no climate change or anti-religious stuff in it, and it’s a very readable book.

At the end of it you should come to the conclusion that neither the treehuggers nor the moneyhuggers are right.

Binary versus fuzzy sets

In reply to Most of the effect of animal life

I get the feeling that a lot of people seem to think that human generated global climate change is an either/or proposition. Either we have an effect and are responsible for the changes or we don’t.

I wish that more people would consider that there are several factors involved, each of which contributes to the overall scheme of things. These factors even vary from day to day, making it hard to figure out their contribution accurately. And to further complicate things, we’re still learning about events that could have an impact on global climate change. The picture we have of how climate systems work is rather fuzzy and will remain so for quite some time.

A lot of the factors that affect global climate change are things we can’t control, as shown by very long term climatic history. It happened before and it will happen again, and there will be die backs of various scales.

The big issue is whether human changes in the environment are large enough to cause problems when combined with other changes. Saying that the impact of humans is too small to have any effect is as bad as saying that they are the sole cause of global climate change. All you would need to disprove either side is one example to the contrary.

We do have examples where human changes to the environment have had regional impacts. Acid rain is one example that is well documented. At the same time, acid rain can also be generated by volcanoes, wildfires, asteroid strikes and rotting organic matter. The natural sources may be bigger but our addition to the problem is something that is ADDED to the overall scheme of things in places that are close to where we live.

Does that small percentage make a difference? You could ask people living downwind of coal fired power plants that have scrubbers on them, like those in the North East US. Or you could ask people in Japan who have to deal with acid rain created by unscrubbed coal fired power plants in China.

I think it’s fair to say that anyone who’s really looked at

In reply to Binary versus fuzzy sets

what’s involved knows and agrees that humans do have an impact, just as every living thing has an impact. The problem is the people, most of whom have a very vested financial interest in pushing the line, that humans are the MAJOR factor in climate change, and can thus have a significant impact if they spend enough money to change the way the human impact is – and they get big payouts for pushing that line by being employed in high paid cushy jobs, etc.

The truth of the matter is the human impact is not the biggest impact, but one of the smallest, and that’s where the first bone of contention lies. Instead of being something like 60% of the problem, human effort is more like 6%. And no one knows enough to give a realistic evaluation.

The second bone of contention is the argument about paying people in other organisations to change the level of human impact, and the cost involved in that. Not a smart thing to do, unless you want to waste money and give it to con artists.

The third bone of contention is what do they use as measures of the impact involved, and are they reliable. So many people want to cut things out of what’s measured as it gives them a bigger slice of the money bucket being offered.

The fourth bone of contention is the way those pushing this whole issue are saying that you can have different rules for different countries and it’s perfectly OK. Yet they get to decide what category a country belongs in. So developing countries with a need for a growing population like Canada, the USA, and Australia are being hit with the same rules to comply with as fully developed countries with a hundred times the population density like France, Belgium, etc. Again, it all comes down to the money bag those behind the Human cause claim are pushing for.

Economics and politics

In reply to I think it’s fair to say that anyone who’s really looked at

The economic factor comes into play on both sides of the fence. One side could make billions if they can convince people that humans have a major impact on climate change. The other side could lose billions if it can be shown that humans do have a major impact on climate change.

When it comes to the first bone of contention, the true human impact, even six percent can be a problem can be a problem if we’re close to a cusp. If this impact is cumulative, it can build up fast. Then you have to factor in population growth.

We really need to know more about our impact in order to make informed decisions. And it needs to be ‘honest’ knowledge, not hyped up or toned down to meet some political/economic agenda.

Bone of contention two does bring up a good point. It could easily become a money pit and scam center. At the same time, human impact could be changed through economic incentives/disincentives and advertising. We would ‘just’ have to figure out which activity changes have the biggest bang for the buck and use advertising and economic incentives to promote them.

Bone of contention three, the measurement standards, could be solved by identifying every unit of measure that is applicable and coming up with reliable and low cost ways of measuring them. The additional data would be worth it in terms of knowledge.

Bone of contention four, different rules for different countries, is a tricky one. Rich countries can get an advantage over poor countries by demanding that the highest standards be met. Poor countries can get an advantage over rich countries by demanding that they get a break because they don’t have the money or technology to meet the highest standards. In either case, the environment is not a winner.

Correct in all you say, and it’s a large part of why I have

In reply to I think it’s fair to say that anyone who’s really looked at

major concerns on all these issues. The politics and money are behind most of what’s happening in this arena.

Look at the countries pushing the Kyoto Protocol, and look at their economies and their level of development.

All the European countries just love Kyoto, but they’re 98% fully developed and very high population densities. They have no land on which they can create what they call greenhouse sinks by planting acres of trees. The items they wish to measure are at very stable levels in those countries.

Then look at Canada, the USA, and Australia – we have much more land, much lower populations and are still developing much of the country. We also have huge areas that are still forested and many more we can plant forest on. Thus, we’d get an advantage if greenhouse sinks were allowed. Our greenhouse gas emissions are still rising as we take in migrants and develop the infrastructure required to support them, also just moving things like food about the country takes more than it does in Europe.

The Europeans want countries to pay a cash penalty based solely on gas emissions of the country divided by the number of people. They absolutely refuse to make allowance for the size of the country or the amount of forestation the country has. Based on the figures the Europeans want, and got in Kyoto, they would have to pay damn little while doing next to nothing to combat the greenhouse gases they create; while they force heavy payments on the USA, Australia, and Canada. If they allow adjustments for forestation then Canada, the USA, and Australia would be able to offset quite a large amount of their emission due to the large swathes of forest and brush, and pay a lot less; they could also make money by selling land for afforestation to the Europeans. If the per population and per square kilometre aspect were added, then the Europeans would be paying about five times what they should under Kyoto.

The other side is the majority of the people screaming about how extremely harmful the humans are are not those that have been heavily involved in world wide climate research for decades, and nearly all are currently in positions where they get paid good money to promote the concept. Take away the problem and they lose a lot of their salaries and power.

I agree much more research is needed, and we should work at decreasing our impact, but we should not be panicing the way these people are pushing things.

Here’s an interesting web site:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countries_by_population_density

Have a look at the figures for the countries really pushing for the Kyoto reasoning and process, and have a look at those who’ve stood against it.

three against Kyoto

Australia — 2,966,200 sq miles — pop density 7.472 per sq mile

Canada — 3,855,100 sq miles — pop density 8.819 per sq mile

USA — 3,717,813 sq miles — pop density 83.019 per sq mile

four for Kyoto

Germany — 137,847 sq miles — pop density 594.009 per sq mile

Netherlands — 16.033 sq miles — pop density 1,034.672 per sq mile

UK — 94,060 sq miles — pop density 659.608 per sq mile

Belgium — 11,787 sq miles — pop density 918.614 per sq mile
…………

The World — 148,940,000 sq miles — pop density per 118.280 sq mile

European union — 1,707,670 sq miles — pop density est114.000 per sq mile
……..

Canada, the USA, and Australia represent about 18.326% of the total world land area, but have only 5.363% of the world population, while the EU has 7.264 of the world’s population in 2.969% of the world’s land. Yet the EU is pushing the rest of the world to accept there ideas on what constitutes climate change and how to manage it. The way they’re going will give them a huge economic advantage over Canada, the USA, and Australia by burdening those three countries with the bulk of the charges for they wish to impose for climate change as they’ll give exemptions to many others as being developing countries while claiming these three are developed – when the only fully developed countries today exist in Europe. On a percentage basis, the EU has about 1.4 times the population on about one six of the land of the three anti-Kyoto countries.
…………
Under Kyoto, countries in Asia and South America are allowed to keep ripping up forests and shoving emission out at levels not permitted countries like Canada, USA, and Australia, nor will they be charged for doing so. Hell, the way China is going, it will soon be more developed than the USA, Canada or Australia.

We need to get the politicians out of the loop, all these BS programs like Kyoto need to be scrapped and one set of behaviour rules applied to all – end of story. Kyoto is simply about making the EU countries more economically viable at the expense of what they call 2nd world countries.

Population Density – A well reasoned argument

In reply to I think it’s fair to say that anyone who’s really looked at

I like your use of the population density figures. It contributes to a well reasoned argument for rejecting Kyoto.

To be fair for all involved, it would be worthwhile to add in factors that consider the size of the country, the total environmental footprint, the potential for self mitigation of the environmental footprint, the level of development, the income range of the residents, the cost of living of the residents, and the efficiency of the infrastructure.

Some sort of rating system based on population density, plus all of the above factors, could then be created. It should be a rating system with multiple ‘grades’ that can show the good, the bad and the indifferent. First world countries might rate high in things like population density, infrastructure efficiency and income ranges, but they would need to show improvement in their environmental footprint and their cost of living. Second and third world countries would have a different mix of pluses and minuses.

This ‘dashboard’ would need to be something that reflects the impact of man on the life support systems of the planet. It would also need to be something that could be verified using hard data that is available for all to see.

The designers of the ‘dashboard’ would need to be scientists, not politicians and pundits. The spectrum of opinions that go into the construction of the ‘dashboard’ would need to be part of the backup data that supports the ‘dashboard’. If there are several distinct and opposing ‘camps’, a ‘dashboard’ element may have several readings, all of which would have supporting data behind them. (The supporting data might have ‘peer review percentage acceptance’ ratings to show which views dominate.)

The ‘dashboard’ results could then be used in the political and economic arena. Perhaps countries could have mutual assistance agreements where they work at improving each other’s ‘dashboard’ scores via trade and tech transfers. Countries would also have the right to limit their trade with other countries that have undesirable ‘dashboard’ scores, though that could backfire.

I suspect that an accurate ‘dashboard’ would be rather complex. But if it is well designed, it could evolve as we learn more and it could accurately reflect the state of both humankind AND the life support systems of the planet.

6% + 30% + 30% equals

In reply to I think it’s fair to say that anyone who’s really looked at

buggered!

The only truth in either for or against human caused climate change belief, is some people see a way to gain power, others see their power being eroded.

Whether we cook or freeze is irrelevant to you people.

Meanwhile, I’ll buy goods that last, and keep them until they don’t work. Use public transport, grow plants, only eat things in season, recycle anything I can, and point out to people yourself and Tarquin the tree hugger, that I see no difference between you.

You’re denying that the sky could ever fall, Tarquin is flying around saying it is…

Neither one of you makes sense to me.

Tony

In reply to I think it’s fair to say that anyone who’s really looked at

You aren’t so far off base. Your personal committment to being wiser in the use of resources is really a key personal factor. Unforunately, most people dismiss such efforts as a result of not “buying into” GW.

As if, because they don’t feel it is correct for whatever reaons, they then don’t have a reason to care about personally contributing to becoming more resourceful.

You would fare well with the one tonne challenge (reducing your carbon footprint by one tonne per year) just by doing the simple things you do. I’m sure it doesn’t impede your lifestyle and you eat healthier too, well done!
I don’t buy into heavy, government imposed industry regulations either, however they have proven they are not ready to become responsible for their own actions. they just point at China and say “well they aren’t changing anything, why should I?”

Brings to mine the old jumping off a cliff scenario.

To Oz

In reply to I think it’s fair to say that anyone who’s really looked at

It’s the so called science on both sides that’s doing me in.

It’s bollocks, models and statistics is the entirety of it.

Psuedo science equivalent to finding codes in the bible, or evidence of aliens landing because you can draw a line through some pyramid shaped edifices on two different continents, if you squint just right.

Last I heard every decently complex model of our climate we have can’t reliably predict even gross local climatic conditions beyond ten days, and all of those have to be tweaked so they don’t fall into white earth.

Any one who takes the above as scientific proof of human derived climate change or lack of it, has absolutely no defence against the opposite conclusion, becasue there isn’t enough quality evidence to generate more than an opinion.

The only real science we have that’s of any use is chaos, and that tells us.

Different starting conditions means different behaviour, and we don’t know what they were or are.

That small factors can have huge effects.

That any non linear system with feedback when peturbed can go through violent changes in state, before settling into stability.

That the more factors there are in a system, the more attractors towards stable states it has.

So any conclusion either side draws from their pseudo science is mere opinion.

By their methodology I could claim and then prove that enough of us wearing odd socks would stave off climate change or cause it.

The ‘scientific’ positions in the debate are essentially whether these odd socks are different sizes or different colours, perhaps both in the more complex scenarios…

The motivations of both camps are obvious and that’s what drives their science.
Theye are choosing evidence that matches a conclusion they’ve already drawn.

Scientists my f’ing arse. Pollsters, lobbyists, pedants, and self deluded fanatics, the lot of them.

Oh yeah.

In reply to I think it’s fair to say that anyone who’s really looked at

[i]The only truth in either for or against human caused climate change belief, is some people see a way to gain power,[/i]

Nub.

Well good lord.

In reply to I think it’s fair to say that anyone who’s really looked at

Oh yeah.

[i]It’s the so called science on both sides that’s doing me in.

It’s bollocks, models and statistics is the entirety of it.[/i]

Challenging facts

In reply to I think it’s fair to say that anyone who’s really looked at

First of all, when the news broke of the Arctic ice being at its 30 year low in 2007, thousands of scientists saw a similar pattern, however the U. of Illinois reported the Antarctic at its record high.

So that FACT is that ice caps are diminishing in the Acrtic. To counter that FACT, the U of Illinois countered that it isn’t in Antacrtica? So if I say life in Iraq if horrific, a fair counter is that life in Australia is not?

The variety of climatic proxies in an ice core sample is greater than in any other natural recorder of climate, such as tree rings or sediment layers.
The heavier, water, isotopes offer lower vapor pressure so, when the temperature falls, the heavier water molecules will condense faster than the normal water molecules. This makes dating and atmospheric contect to temperature measurement actually rather accurate, even moreso than carbon dating which is also considered very scientifically accurate, but not as accurate as ice core sampling.

So you rash dismissal is simply a rash dismissal.

You say it is a result of politics, however many nations supporting different political views, agree on the same scientific conclusions?

Scientists have nothing to gain by not presenting the truth of their findings and everything to gain by proving otherwise. So if there is proof that it is a hoax, why hasn’t some scientist proven that and claimed his Nobel Peace Prize already and gone down in history? Is it that these 1000’s of scientists worldide are all being paid off to keep quiet by their respective governments, it is a mass corraboration of government? Not bloody likely.

You have made it more than clear that you simply ignore any ‘news and discoveries’, you dismiss any reports instantly without further consideration, resulting in the ignorance you have shown here.

You won’t convince me that God exists, you won’t convince me that science is a government hoax.

And

In reply to I think it’s fair to say that anyone who’s really looked at

It’s a fact that my socks match in size and colour, medium, navy blue for the intensely curious.

What concusions do you draw from this fact?

That I either wear white shoes and trousers exhibiting absolutely no sense of colour, or that I wear dark casual or sober shoes and jeans.

Perhaps if you surveyed the rest of the TR membership, who habitually wear dark matching socks, you could get a more ‘scientific’ appraisal of my fashion sense, or lack of .

Perhaps you could do a model, hue of socks and trousers predicting fashion sense , artistic school, introvert or extrovert….

All this ‘science’ might have some value, but for two crippling details that stop you from drawing any conclusion about teh object of study, moi.

Never told you what colour of shoes I wear did I?

And dark socks with light trousers on occasion is seen as fashionable…..

Read a real scientific proof of something, it might lack the rigour of a mathematical proof, but won’t have this sort of bollocks in it. Accepting it as proof simply shows that you believe the theory.

No control = no scientific method.

no control

In reply to I think it’s fair to say that anyone who’s really looked at

is your belief anyway. no criteria is your belief.

As for the colour of your socks, I have yet to own blue socks of any sort, something I may consider if I take up banking I suppose.

Whether we cook or freeze is irrelevant to you people.

In reply to I think it’s fair to say that anyone who’s really looked at

Because if and whichever it does, humans will adapt.

Now that you mention it…

In reply to I think it’s fair to say that anyone who’s really looked at

[i]It’s a fact that my socks match in size and colour,[/i]

Mine don’t. I have a pair on right now. One is blue and the other black. I have another pair just like them at home 🙂

Ah butb can we correlate your hasty rush at the sock

In reply to I think it’s fair to say that anyone who’s really looked at

supply this morning to human impact. Mind you it could have been the missus, mixing blue and black do to poor lighting conditions in an unseasonal storm.

‘Proof’ climate change leand to increase in mismatched socks.
😀

Having a control is integral to the scientific method

In reply to I think it’s fair to say that anyone who’s really looked at

If you wish to assess the impact of factor in an experiment, you subject none and some to the same conditions, the difference in behaviour is what you measure.

My greenness, is essentially an aesthetic position.

I’d rather see awoodland habitat teeming with life, than a car park and a slightly healthier bank balance.

The scientist have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that

In reply to Heads you win, tails I lose – all based on a false premise

humans do have an effect on the climate, such an effect it comes to two tenths of nothing – and all the money being spent on treating climate change will have even less effect, except on the personal bank accounts of the fraudsters working the scams.

The world has been warming up for over ten thousand years, the evidence is there, yet according to the fraudsters it all started just over two hundred years ago. Just a couple of years after a major volcanic eruption caused wide spread famine because the volcanic cloud it blasted into the upper atmosphere dropped the average temperature around the world by several degrees. And the world has been warming up again since, hmm, sounds about what a natural rebalance would do.

In the last 2,000 years, the seas have retreated, due to water being turned to Arctic and Antarctic ice as the world cooled a bit, yet that’s not visible to those who push the human caused climate change religion.

Two hundred years

In reply to The scientist have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that

I don’t know what ‘science’ you are referring to but aything I’ve seen here atributed it to the earliest formations of the Earth itself.

You have to remember, the US is very reluctant to teach science, as it conflict with religion and the US is still a very religious country compared to most others, therefore Americans find such topics incredibly hard to fathom. All they see is one radical politician arguing with another.

With over two dozen US TV channels on my tube, not one focuses on science or Earth’s creation and evolution. With cable and satellite becoming more mainstream ,it helps but it still isn’t quite there yet.

To Americans, I am not taking a shot at you per se, you don’t have any control over your exposure to such things. Just like war news, world news etc., it is simply doled out very carefully to the public audience.

Jesus H. Christ

In reply to Two hundred years

Will you, please, except at least me?

Do I have to come to your door?

The festival of life is tryin’ to save my f’in soul.

In reply to Jesus H. Christ

Warning: Lyrics may be offense to those with a stick up their arse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJynygnjMC0

Excerpt your post brough to mind.

“It’s Saturday afternoon at last, it’s what you’ve waited for all week
Relax and put the feet up, turn the footy on TV
You’re expecting Vern and Bluey round, they’ll probably stay all night
A coupla mates and a coupla beers – aw, Christ, this is the life

Well, here they are already, you just heard the car door slam
You wedge yourself out of your chair, get up to let ’em in
But it’s some wanker that you’ve never met, with a briefcase in his hand
Some prlck just out of Bible school, who thinks he’s God’s right hand”

Ahh, Kevin Bloody Wilson, his albums are fantastic.

Halleluiah, Hallelujah, Hallelujah

Aside from

In reply to The festival of life is tryin’ to save my f’in soul.

“Fuckin”, what did you hope to accomplish with that?

A welcome to my door

In reply to Aside from

/

Please do me the courtesy

In reply to Jesus H. Christ

of not using the name of my Lord in that way?

I do not slander the names of any religious leaders such as Buddha or Mohammed or Shiva, none of whom died for me so I would appreciate it as a personal favor. Thanks.

So,

In reply to Please do me the courtesy

Well surely God, Buddha, Mohammed or Shiva are all reckoned to be big enough to look after themselves (except for Buddha of course but I don’t reckon he’d have cared much). What’s a poor atheist to do without offending SOMEONE?

Look, you can’t ALL be right so some of you are demonstrably deluded and, in that case, your Deity is fair game. (In my estimation, you’re ALL deluded but that’s for another day).

If there is a God and He’s yours, Santee is in for a serious afterlife kicking. I mean, you’ve got a whole COMMANDMENT against it. That’s a tenth of your Holy Commands. If there isn’t or He’s somebody elses then it hardly matters, does it? Win-win for you.

🙂

Sorry, but I’m in a bad mood…

Exactly why

In reply to So,

are you apologizing? Hmmmm?

I’m going soft

In reply to Exactly why

in my old age.

Neil 🙂

Anyway, I never upset people who might – just might – have the inside track to someone who can fling thunderbolts.

Well, not upset them as much as I could…

So I SERIOUSLY do not want to piss off anyone who worships Zeus!

That’s why I asked nicely

In reply to So,

I was not making any comparisons or valuations, just stating my position and asking a favor. Whether I’m right or not is irrelevant.

RE: Polite

In reply to So,

Neil, I would like to point out some differences if you’ll spare me a minute.

I wasn’t offended, I just don’t like to hear/see His name used that way. True christians don’t EVER start fights about this, you’re correct, that’s up to God.

If I were in a crowd of strangers, I would not presume to try to censor what anyone was saying – I’m a big proponent of free speech.

This is not, however, a crowd of strangers, and I believe I have the right to ask an almost friend to do me a favor just as he has the right to say no.

I’ll say it again, this has nothing to do with who’s right or wrong, I just made a polite request.

Done

In reply to Please do me the courtesy

But only as personal courtesy to you.

Your presence here is too great a plus for me to risk diminishing in any way.

Thanks

In reply to Done

More people should use the polite option, as you have.

Polite

In reply to Thanks

Is there anything else that we may not post less we trample on your sensibilities?

With the rise and rise of political correctness, society has become obsessed with not offending people who have religious beliefs of one sort or another. I’m afraid that I do not subscribe to that philosophy.

As I get older, I am finding it harder and harder to politely listen to people spout off about God and Allah and being forced – by law! – to remain quiet.

Groups bomb my city in the name of religion. The previous leaders of both our countries think it’s OK to cause bombs to be dropped on both guilty and innocent people when they ‘passionately believe’ something is right.

Not in MY name.

I’m not getting militant about it and I’m not trying to make enemies or insult people. But I have, these past few years, decided not to be quiet about it any more.

🙂

Say what you will

In reply to Thanks

And, how you will, Neil.

I will squelch you only as to epistemological merits of what you say, as in, “irrationality of religious belief” (below in the thread).

Religious belief [i]is[/i] rationality. The construct of God is deep foundation and font of rationality; that without which there is no rationality.

Furthermore, we don’t get to recursively apply “rational” to the components that constitute rationality. If we could, you could — as you do — apply the word to the components of your own construction, the selfsame construction that amounts to your rationality. It is, in short, because you say so.

Were you God, for example, fashioning [i]Logic[/i] to unleash upon us for the first time, would you knowingly pronounce each of the parts of Logic, “logical”, before being brought together and comprising that very Logic?

Same with, “knowingly”. Where did knowing — aka, [i]scientia[/i] — come from? Was science present before being, according to Neil?

That touches on three of the biggies: rationality, logic, and knowing. There are more.

Your sensibilities, [b]JackOfAllTech[/b], betray you. You have yet to do the hard work of God as betrayed by your delicate preoccupation with polity. You may “know” that what you are onto is of mind-boggling importance; that it literally is how you are — “is” being another biggie. But, neither you nor Neil evidence a prayer of getting out of your own respective ways, and into the construction of self.

Santee: I got myself into it

In reply to Thanks

I can get myself out of it. Should I so choose. But it’s taken me a while to get here so I may stay for a while.

Oh, and science didn’t exist. Stuff still did stuff, though. And did stuff properly.

I can get behind, “stuff”

In reply to Thanks

Until we get around to decomposing, “stuff”. Which brings us right back to where we “are”.

Neil

In reply to Thanks

would you intentionally offend, just for the sake of offending?

JD: Sometimes

In reply to Thanks

It depends on the circumstances and on my mood. In this particular case I didn’t post to insult, just to say “Hey, don’t get so uptight.”. Santee posted as you can see above and I just felt the need to ask Jack why he thought his particular beliefs were so important.

Santee is nicer than me – although he hasn’t edit the post, I notice.

Neil 🙂

Everything that we say that is anything other than totally bland is going to upset someone, somewhere. This country is full of laws against “hate crime” which is interpreted by some as the need to prevent anything that might ruffle the sensibilities of one group or another. Well, I say “Hey, I don’t hate you but you do and say an awful lot of things that I don’t like! And I’m not allowed to tell you so.”

Mostly it’s religions that that “need” such protection and I fail to see why they think they need it and why we feel obliged to supply it. Stop treating your women badly, making them wear such ridiculous clothes. WHY can’t women be priests? You believe WHAT?

(That last one’s aimed at Scientology).

(Among others)

(Many others)

(OK, most)

(But DEFINITELY Scientology)

Neil, you do realize

In reply to Thanks

That I love you for that?

My God is not so fragile that He can’t stand to hear what people say about Him. Frankly, I get a mental image of Him rocked back on His heels and laughing at so many of us. But then, the God of my faith is also capable of taking to the pub, buying you a pint, and engaging in conversation.

Of course, your mileage may vary.

Neil, you know there is a difference

In reply to Thanks

Between expressing yourself in a discussion verses going around intentionally trying to offend others.

Hate crime laws are stupid. Should it be more of a crime to kill someone I don’t like compared to someone I don’t know? Is it worse to kill someone because of race/sexual orientation instead of for their wallet?

Many dishonest people in this country claimed GW Bush was racist because he didn’t apply “hate crime” status on some rednecks that dragged a man to death. They were already convicted of murder and given the death sentence, what more can you do to them?

oh yeah

In reply to Thanks

I am not part of a major religion that tells women what they can or can’t be.

The whole Human Cause Climat Change / Global Warming thing

In reply to Two hundred years

started because some one noticed that the old records of weather information around the world showed a slight, but fairly regular rise, starting just over two hundred years ago. They correlated this with the Industrial revolution and said the temperature rise was due solely to man and the industrial revolution. Mind you, they totally missed the fact that regular recording of weather and temperature information at land based weather stations had only just started at the time their source statistics start, and they never tried to correlate it with the many centuries of older weather and temperature information available from maritime logs.

Since the global warming scare has started, some senior climatologists started gathering the older maritime log information into a database and found out that the temperatures today aren’t as warm as they were three hundred years back. They started running models and found a significant drop in temps in the early 1800s when a major out of season freeze across the whole or Europe caused widespread famine – they now call the event ‘The Year Without Summer.’ Further investigation showed a major volcanic eruption in Indonesia several months before that. The modelling of the whole of Earth weather patterns shows that what’s likely happened is a huge cloud of volcanic ash went into the upper atmosphere and messed things up real bad for about a year – it took that long to break up fully. The result was a drop in average temperatures of several degrees world wide. Naturally, the world is now returning to what it called normal before that.

None of the people who do the actual studies of world wide climate support the human caused climate change religion, and they have tonnes of evidence to prove it wrong. But the supporters, and all the really big ones get a financial gain out of supporting it, push that all aside as it doesn’t suit their belief structure on this issue.

Two hundred years ago

In reply to The whole Human Cause Climat Change / Global Warming thing

Again, we have since found proof of the Earth’s changes over millions of years.

They have been looking at ice cores for more than 200 years and those core samples show carbon monoxide context predating the ice age. Mineral samples taken from the Himalaya’s, which were once the sea floor before being thrust thousands of feet in the air, show similar activity dating back billions of years.

Though todays tchnological and scientific analysis processes are able to determine far more than a core sampled 200 years ago would, this 200 year study stuff is simply hogwash.

Try changing the channel or reading someone else’s book. You’d be amazed and what conclusive evidence of teh Earth’s patterns is there and how imminent such effects are. The balance being a very fine line is easily tipped and thus teh natural effects expediated with the additional emissions man creates in the millions of tonnes per year.

200 years is hogwash, but it’s the hog the whole Climat Change

In reply to Two hundred years ago

religious fervour is based on. What man does is a pin prick compared to a significant volcanic eruption.

One last try

In reply to 200 years is hogwash, but it’s the hog the whole Climat Change

OK, Ernest, here’s what you do.

You go and find links to the gaseous output of volcanoes over the last few hundred years. I’ll let you include Krakatoa, no problem. You can even have Tambora! Then you find yourself a few links to the CO2 production by Man but, because I’m fair, you limit that to the burning of fossil fuels and to cement production.

Then you compare the two.

Then, because you aren’t going to be able to do anything else, you STFU about volcanoes.

Neil 🙂

Then we can move on…

I said that the volcanoes have a bigger effect, and they do

In reply to One last try

one thing that distorts a lot of this discussion is people wanting to limit the total effects to things like CO2 and CFC emissions and only them, when the whole issue is much wider.

From the following web sites:

http://environment.about.com/od/greenhouseeffect/a/volcano-gas.htm

quote

Furthermore, some scientists believe that spectacular volcanic eruptions, like that of Mt. St. Helens in 1980 and Mt. Pinatubo in 1991, actually lead to short-term global cooling, not warming, as sulfur dioxide (SO2), ash and other particles in the air and stratosphere reflect some solar energy instead of letting it into Earth?s atmosphere. SO2, which converts to sulfuric acid aerosol when it hits the stratosphere, can linger there for as long as seven years and can exercise a cooling effect long after a volcanic eruption has taken place.

Scientists tracking the effects of the major 1991 eruption of the Philippines? Mt. Pinatubo found that the overall effect of the blast was to cool the surface of the Earth globally by some 0.5 degrees Celsius a year later, even though rising human greenhouse gas emissions and an El Nino event (a warm water current which periodically flows along the coast of Ecuador and Peru in South America) caused some surface warming during the 1991-1993 study period.

end quote

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1997/of97-262/of97-262.html

quote

Gases from volcanoes give rise to numerous impacts on climate, the environment, and people. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) scientists are inventorying gas emissions at many of the almost 70 active volcanoes in the United States. This effort helps build a better understanding of the dynamic processes at work on the Earth’s surface and is contributing important new information on how volcanic emissions affect global change.

….

Ash column generated by the eruption of Mount Pinatubo, a volcano in the Philippines Luzon volcanic arc, on June 12, 1991. The climactic eruption of Mount Pinatubo occurred three days later on June 15, 1991, and was one of the largest eruptions of this century. The climactic event lasted about 9 hours and erupted over a cubic mile of rock material. It injected a 20- million ton sulfur dioxide cloud into the stratosphere to an altitude of more than 20 miles. The climactic Pinatubo cloud was the largest sulfur dioxide cloud ever observed in the stratosphere since the beginning of such observations by satellites in 1978. It caused what is believed to be the largest aerosol disturbance of the stratosphere this century, although smaller than the estimated disturbances from the eruptions of Tambora in 1815 and Krakatau in 1883. Sulfate aerosol formed in the stratosphere from sulfur dioxide in the Pinatubo cloud increased the reflection of radiation from the Sun back into space. Consequently, the Earth’s surface cooled in the three years following the eruption, by as much as 1.3 degrees ( Fahrenheit scale) at the height of the effect. The sulfate aerosols also accelerated chemical reactions that, together with increased stratospheric chlorine levels from man-made chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) pollution, destroyed ozone and led to the lowest ozone levels ever recorded to date in the stratosphere.

Scientists now know that the “smoke” from volcanoes, once attributed by poets to be from Vulcan’s forge, is actually volcanic gas, and an important agent of global change.
……..

Large, explosive volcanic eruptions inject water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), hydrogen chloride (HCl), hydrogen fluoride (HF) and ash (pulverized rock and pumice) into the stratosphere to heights of 10-20 miles above the Earth’s surface. The most significant impacts from these injections come from the conversion of sulfur dioxide to sulfuric acid (H2SO4), which condenses rapidly in the stratosphere to form fine sulfate aerosols. The aerosols increase the reflection of radiation from the Sun back into space and thus cool the Earth’s lower atmosphere or troposphere; however, they also absorb heat radiated up from the Earth, thereby warming the stratosphere. Several eruptions during the past century have caused a decline in the average temperature at the Earth’s surface of up to half a degree (Fahrenheit scale) for periods of one to three years. The sulfate aerosols also promote complex chemical reactions on their surfaces that alter chlorine and nitrogen chemical species in the stratosphere. This effect, together with increased stratospheric chlorine levels from chlorofluorocarbon pollution, generates chlorine monoxide (ClO), which destroys ozone (O3). As the aerosols grow and coagulate, they settle down into the upper troposphere where they serve as nuclei for cirrus clouds and further modify the Earth’s radiation balance. Most of the hydrogen chloride (HCl) and hydrogen fluoride (HF) are dissolved in water droplets in the eruption cloud and quickly fall to the ground as acid rain. The injected ash also falls rapidly from the stratosphere; most of it is removed within several days to a few weeks. Finally, explosive volcanic eruptions release the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide and thus provide a deep source of carbon for biogeochemical cycles. (figure modified from Richard Turco in American Geophysical Union Special Report: Volcanism and Climate Change, May 1992).

end quote

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_eruption_of_Mount_St._Helens

quote

An eruption column rose 80,000 feet (24,400 m) into the atmosphere and deposited ash in 11 U.S. states.[2] At the same time, snow, ice, and several entire glaciers on the volcano melted, forming a series of large lahars (volcanic mudslides) that reached as far as the Columbia River, nearly fifty miles (eighty kilometers) to the south. Less severe outbursts continued into the next day only to be followed by other large but not as destructive eruptions later in 1980.
……………

During the nine hours of vigorous eruptive activity, about 540 million tons of ash fell over an area of more than 22,000 square miles (60,000 km?)
………….
Energy release: 24 megatons thermal energy (7 by blast, rest through release of heat)

end quote

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Tambora

quote

In 1812, Mount Tambora became highly active, with its eruptive peak in the catastrophic explosive event of April 1815.[14] The magnitude was seven on the Volcanic Explosivity Index (VEI) scale, with a total tephra ejecta volume of 1.6 ? 1011 cubic metres (160 cubic kilometers or 38 cubic miles).[14] It was an explosive central vent eruption with pyroclastic flows and a caldera collapse, causing tsunamis and extensive land and property damage. It created a long-term effect on global climate. This activity ceased on 15 July 1815
…………………

All vegetation on the island was destroyed. Uprooted trees, mixed with pumice ash, washed into the sea and formed rafts of up to 5 kilometres (3.1 mi) across.[2] One pumice raft was found in the Indian Ocean, near Calcutta on 1 and 3 October 1815.[4] Clouds of thick ash still covered the summit on 23 April. Explosions ceased on 15 July, although smoke emissions were still observed as late as 23 August. Flames and rumbling aftershocks were reported in August 1819, four years after the event.

A moderate-sized tsunami struck the shores of various islands in the Indonesian archipelago on 10 April, with a height of up to 4 metres (13 ft) in Sanggar at around 10 p.m.[2] A tsunami of 1?2 m (3.3?6.6 ft) in height was reported in Besuki, East Java, before midnight, and one of 2 metres (6.6 ft) in height in the Molucca Islands. The total death-toll has been estimated at around 4,600 [20].

The eruption column reached the stratosphere, an altitude of more than 43 km (140,000 ft).[4] The coarser ash particles fell 1 to 2 weeks after the eruptions, but the finer ash particles stayed in the atmosphere from a few months up to a few years at an altitude of 10?30 km (33,000?98,000 ft).[2] Longitudinal winds spread these fine particles around the globe, creating optical phenomena. Prolonged and brilliantly colored sunsets and twilights were frequently seen in London, England between 28 June and 2 July 1815 and 3 September and 7 October 1815.[2] The glow of the twilight sky typically appeared orange or red near the horizon and purple or pink above.
……………

The 1815 eruption released sulfur into the stratosphere, causing a global climate anomaly. Different methods have estimated the ejected sulfur mass during the eruption: the petrological method; an optical depth measurement based on anatomical observations; and the polar ice core sulfate concentration method, using cores from Greenland and Antarctica. The figures vary depending on the method, ranging from 10 Tg S to 120 Tg S.[4]

In the spring and summer of 1816, a persistent dry fog was observed in the northeastern U.S. The fog reddened and dimmed the sunlight, such that sunspots were visible to the naked eye. Neither wind nor rainfall dispersed the “fog”. It was identified as a stratospheric sulfate aerosol veil.[4] In summer 1816, countries in the Northern Hemisphere suffered extreme weather conditions, dubbed the Year Without a Summer.

end quote

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer

quote

As a result of the series of volcanic eruptions, crops in the above cited areas had been poor for several years; the final blow came in 1815 with the eruption of Tambora. In the United States, many historians cite the “Year Without a Summer” as a primary motivation for the western movement and rapid settlement of what is now western and central New York and the American Midwest. Many New Englanders were wiped out by the year, and tens of thousands struck out for the richer soil and better growing conditions of the Upper Midwest (then the Northwest Territory).

Europe, still recuperating from the Napoleonic Wars, suffered from food shortages. Food riots broke out in the United Kingdom and France and grain warehouses were looted. The violence was worst in landlocked Switzerland, where famine caused the government to declare a national emergency. Huge storms, abnormal rainfall with floodings of the major rivers of Europe (including the Rhine) are attributed to the event, as was the frost setting in during August 1816. A major typhus epidemic occurred in Ireland between 1816-19, precipitated by the famine caused by “The Year Without a Summer”. It is estimated that 100,000 Irish perished during this period. A BBC documentary using figures compiled in Switzerland estimated that fatality rates in 1816 were twice that of average years, giving an approximate European fatality total of 200,000 deaths.

The eruption of Tambora also caused Hungary to experience brown snow. Italy experienced something similar, with red snow falling throughout the year. The cause of this is believed to have been volcanic ash in the atmosphere.

end quote
………….

In Summary

Major volcanic eruptions lower have such an effect on the climate that they lower the global temperature within months; and real big ones can cause world wide famine. They also throw mega tonnes of ash and crap into the atmosphere, along with a number of gases that cause significant chemical reactions in the atmosphere. As well as throwing mega tonnes of earth and rock around the nearby area, usually destroying everything within many miles. Put out huge levels of heat to affect the climate as well. And all this takes many months, usually years for it all to settle down again.

Around the world there are volcanic eruptions of varying sizes each year, and many cases of gas leakage, of a number of gases.

Unless we go about setting of a huge pile of nuclear explosions, humans will be hard pushed to have that sort of effect. And nothing humans do on a daily basis has that sort of effect.

Volcanoes have a much larger effect on the climate and overall environment than humans each year. Hell, we still haven’t reached what the average global temperatures that existed prior to the 1815 Tambora eruption, despite all this (supposed) human caused global warming.

Anyway, when the biggest volcano in the world decides to clear its throat next, we won’t have much to worry about as the scientists are split as to the results – some say it will just destroy North America, while others say it will destroy civilisation as we know it, due to the ash cloud and following famine. It’s called the Yellowstone caldera, and it’s in Wyoming.

………….

As I’ve always said, we should seek ways to eliminate pollution and reduce what effect we do have on the environment, but this BS making humans the bunny for everything that’s changing is rubbish.

Do you READ your own posts?

In reply to One last try

This is a thread about Global Warming and all you’ve done is cut-and-paste thirty-two column-feet about the COOLING affect of volcanic aerosols!

To quote from YOUR quote:

“Scientists tracking the effects of the major 1991 eruption of the Philippines? Mt. Pinatubo found that the overall effect of the blast was to [b]cool[/b] the surface of the Earth globally by some 0.5 degrees Celsius a year later, even though [b]rising human greenhouse gas emissions[/b] and an El Nino event (…) caused some [b]surface warming[/b] during the 1991-1993 study period.”

To quote from your post:

“And all this takes many months, usually years for it all to settle down again.”

So, pretty transient effects even from cataclysmic “once in a thousand years” blasts.

Volcanoes DO NOT put out “out huge levels of heat to affect the climate as well”. As you, yourself posted St Helens put 24 megatonnes – I assume the equivalent of a 24 megatonne TNT blast – of combined heat and blast. That’s around 1×10^17 Joules in total released over a few hours, admittedly with the first big bang only taking seconds. The Solar Constant is 1.3 kilowatt/m2 which means that the solar energy absorbed by the Earth is around 1.22×10^17 Joules per second. Every second.

And (yawn), the Yellowstone Caldera. If it goes pop in my lifetime then, yes, you can say “I told you so”. If it doesn’t…

That thing

In reply to One last try

That caldera, has been rumbling with magnitude twos and threes for weeks, now.

Don’t you be speaking that way about something that can throw lightning bolts even your way.

From where I am, I will be cursing you in death from under a mile of ash.

It’s not MY fault if it blows!

In reply to One last try

I’m sorry but the Yellowstone Caldera is nothing to do with me. OK, so you could possibly hold me partly responsible for Mt St. Helens but I haven’t been NEAR Yellowstone.

Honest…

neil, the thread is on Climate Change and you jumped up

In reply to One last try

and down about volcanoes not having as much affect as humans. Well, they clearly have a bigger effect than humans do, and a quicker one; which is what that material points out. But, like a lot of the ‘Humans Caused all the Climate Change’ evangelists, you seem to have ignored what doesn’t suit the point you’re trying to make.

St Helens put out 24 megatons of THERMAL energy, as well as 540 million tons of ash, and those are just two of the many materials it put out. How that relates to joules, I don’t know; the web page stats simply say Lateral Eruption – Energy Released – 24 megatons of thermal energy. Also, the pyroclastic flow covered 6 square miles with lava, up to 30 feet deep in places, that had a temperature of 1,300 degrees F, and that’s additional to the heat put out by the lateral eruption. That’s a huge amount of heat, however you try to manipulate it.

And yes, I read what I posted, I also read the rest of the web pages I listed. I did forget to include in the summary that many volcanic eruptions create devastating tsunamis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsunami

quote

Due to the immense volumes of water and energy involved, tsunamis can devastate coastal regions. Casualties can be high because the waves move faster than humans can run.

Earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and other underwater explosions (detonations of nuclear devices at sea), landslides and other mass movements, bolide impacts, and other disturbances above or below water all have the potential to generate a tsunami.

end quote

It would take a couple of the biggest nuclear bombs together to do the equivalent damage of an eruption like St Helens.

Ernest “. How that relates to joules, I don’t know”

In reply to One last try

THEN GO AND BLOODY FIND OUT.

“24 Megatons” is pretty much meaningless unless you can examine it in context.

That’s my problem with you, your superficiality. You cut and paste from Wiki without having the slightest idea about the significance or otherwise of what you have posted.

As for “jumping up and down”, yes. You were posting to me about the effects of volcanoes. I was posting to Santee and I don’t have to keep it relevant to the on-line conversation between you and me but I do have to keep it relevant to my conversation with Santee. And I did.

I don’t say that volcanoes don’t have effects but they are pretty soon over in the great scheme of things. Only the largest eruptions, such as the Lake Toba blowout, have a significant impact on entire ecosystems. They don’t happen very often, we can’t prepare for them and there is nothing we can do to stop them if they do happen so they are IRRELEVANT.

neil, two points on this sub-thread

In reply to One last try

1. The post order up to my last response was

Max – me – Oz – me – Oz – me – you – me – you

Now, at that point I did some quick research and copied a lot of stuff into my reply to your post in response to mine. I responded to that post, and not the exchange you had with Santee while I was preparing my response. So it’s clear that Santee came into the situation AFTER, your post jumping up and down about the gases.

Your post I was responding to said:

quote

Do you READ your own posts?
This is a thread about Global Warming and all you’ve done is cut-and-paste thirty-two column-feet about the COOLING affect of volcanic aerosols!

end quote

It was your post titled ‘One Last Try’ where the CO2 and gases was brought into, my post prior to that was about the overall effect, not just the gases. You asked for some references, so I did a quick search and dug some out for you. And not all of what was in the post was about cooling either.

2. As to what a megaton of thermal energy is:

I don’t care what it is in joules, I didn’t do the stats, and I didn’t ask for information on the stats. I simply found the information and provided it. It’s clear they mean a lot of heat, and if you wish to know the exact detail, I suggest you go to the web page I quoted from, read it all, and follow up the references and other links on it – of which there are quite a few.

3. as to the Yellowstone Caldera

I don’t think you are responsible, I don’t expect it to go soon, but you never can tell. The best experts admit they’d only be guessing if they gave a figure, but they also say they don’t expect it to be soon either. When it goes, it goes and there’s damn all anyone can do about it at this time. Who knows, in a another fifty, or a hundred, years they may develop the technology to stop it blowing it’s top.

………….

Overall, I don’t expect you to change you position on the Climate Change situation, I don’t expect to change mine either. But, if people make posts presenting as fact that all climate change, or the majority of climate change is caused by humans, then I’ll post saying it’s BS as the evidence available, when it’s ALL examined, says just that.

Yet

In reply to 200 years is hogwash, but it’s the hog the whole Climat Change

6 billion men tends to add up.

Yes, and so do a few hundred billion birds and rats. – nt

In reply to Yet

..

Yup, them other animals sure

In reply to Yet

build and consume and litter nearly on the scale that we do.

Biomass

In reply to Yet

I think it’s called.

Biomass and the Gulf Dead Zone

In reply to Yet

We may be contributing to the biomass problem through things like the Gulf of Mexico Dead Zone. Fertilizer runoff, excess erosion, concentrated animal wastes and human sewage sent into the Mississippi River Basin promote algae blooms that create massive fish kills. That, in turn, increases the amount of climate changing crud that goes into the atmosphere.

While algae blooms do happen naturally, we seem to be doing a ‘better’ job than nature in this area. It was predicted in 2000 that the number of dead zones around the world would double. Does anyone know whether that prediction came true?

ernest

In reply to Yet

ao you agree we a a contributing factor to the problem. We cannot control other contributing factors, but we CAN control US as a contributing factor.

But you feel that our contribution is natural and won’t have any significant effect or change in the grand scheme of things. Hoever we are a contributing factor, but we are not a contributing factor.

Get real.

Oz, I’ve always said every living thing is a contributing factor

In reply to Yet

and a lot of non living things are contributing factors. The most significant factors are the non living things like the sun, volcanoes etc. What i contest is the claim that humans are the major factor and can have anything but an extremely minor effect by what they do short of a nuclear war.

The other thing I complain about is the BS being used by some con artists the scam money while they put all the blame on others.

According to all of your previous comments

In reply to Yet

Yuo simply dismiss mankind’s impact as irrelevant and worthless.

It seems that you now finding that your comments were rash, again, and you are sidling into more common ground, as usual.

You often come up with absolutely ridiculous comments, and then after seeing mass dissention and corrections to your false claims, you realize your mistake and work to neutralize your initial comments as if people were mistaken all along.

Old hat, not into watching you wriggle again.

Its the other way around

In reply to 200 years is hogwash, but it’s the hog the whole Climat Change

When you get your facts straight, try again.

Then again, based on your ridiculous analogy and conclusion, what is one more drop when the glass is already full?

you can’t blame the drop from the leaf for what the river did – nt

In reply to Its the other way around

.

“False”

In reply to Heads you win, tails I lose – all based on a false premise

Is not a word you can use here.

Makes for good press, though.

The absolute height of arrogance

In reply to Heads you win, tails I lose – all based on a false premise

Years ago, a magazine (I think it was Scientific American but I’m not sure) published an article with a visual comparison of CO2 producers: Volcanos was a 1″ square, all the trees and plants in the world was a square around 1/8″ and all humans was just a dot.

Since the entire population of the planet could fit inside Texas, it’s ludicrous to think we could have such an impact on the whole planet.

Maybe

In reply to The absolute height of arrogance

Maybe, not.

But, as they say, given the seriousness of the allegations, don’t flat-out ignore it.

It’s hard to watch sometimes

In reply to Maybe

People will jump on board and send tens of thousands of American husbands and wives to die in a war becaus ethey are told that they are facing imminent doom from ‘supposed’ WMD’s.

When science all over the world focuses on a naturally ocurring fact that is being increased by our emissions, they shrug it off. “NO WAY, I am riding a bike or eating locally grown foods!” But that same person will gladly wish their spouse well and watch them go to a foreign war on a whim ?!

Certainly shows a clever and well considered thought pattern.

Uh, ….OK

In reply to It’s hard to watch sometimes

I’m going to ignore the non-relevant and just focus on the fact that you completely ignored the science I mentioned.

The only scientists who still promote MMGW are either govt paid or have a vested, self-interest in the results.

in the Us perhaps?

In reply to Uh, ….OK

That certainly isn’t the case here.

Check the Suzuki Foundation ,Canada’s most active conservationist society, no government padding there in fact he personally backed out to stop the two being even remotely connected because he did get funding to explore other geo fields.

As for Man Made global warming, get over it, nobody believes man actually MADE global warming. Those facts are decades old and a result of a lacking scientific focus id the US…which is not an anti US rant, it is a proven fact due to strong religious faith taking precedence in American culture.

Well that’s

In reply to The absolute height of arrogance

About as ‘simplistic’ as one could be.

You only referenced one emission/factor, one that is naturally expelled by a trillion+ different sources.

Your analogy also ignores CO2 naturally expelled through the ocean, Google it if you don’t get info on TV. And carbon Monoxide, not dioxide, that does more harn to us daily as we live and sleep, which would also be reduced with a little awareness from people.

What I find ludicous is that people dismiss being envinronmentally aware period, merely because they don’t buy the climate change facts. In turn they are ignoring the immediate impacts on their own health.

NOTHING has been debunked

In reply to Heads you win, tails I lose – all based on a false premise

Global Warming refers to the entire planet. I think that the give away is the “Global” bit but I might be overestimating my readership here.

Climate Change refers to the local EFFECT of that global change. The concept was introduced in an attempt to stop those who don’t want to do anything about GW to justify their inaction by saying “Hey! it was warmer yesterday.”

Just thought I’d clear that one up for you.

🙂

Sssshhh

In reply to NOTHING has been debunked

Neil, now that’s no fair.

As far as global awareness here, your out of luck.

All in all, a pretty clever bunch but sometimes it takes even the clever people two years to realize that you can use an AM radio in the afternoon.

Sorry neilb, they change from the title Global Warming to

In reply to NOTHING has been debunked

Climate Change as the last set of long term records show that the ‘deadly and dangerous rising global temperatures’ they were scaring people with have dropped in the last ten years and are now lower than when they hit the panic button. Thus, Global Warming, which ISN”T happening any more, is now Climate Change. It seems all those human cause factors that caused the globe to warm up are now causing it to cool down. Hmmm, no wonder the top world climatologists disagree with these people and their Human Cause Climate Change religion.

Yes, humans contribute to the climate and environmental factors, always have, just as the birds and the ants, and the monkeys do. But not enough to have significant effect. That will, of course, change should a nuclear war happen and we get a nuclear winter, but it’s got to be about that bad for us to beat out the volcanoes or the oceans or the sun – which are the top three climate change makers.

Hell, the English coast is now some miles inland of where it was when Big Julie landed there about two thousand years ago, the ocean has withdrawn that much, due to increased polar cap ice.

Well now, Ernest

In reply to Sorry neilb, they change from the title Global Warming to

You’ve posted stuff that is so easily verifiable and yet you choose to post no links.

We do agree on one part of what you said and that is the climate-maker is the Sun. It is the only real source of energy for climate and weather. What is is, now we have satellites, is extremely measurable. The oceans – size and position – modify the effect of the Sun’s energy.

You demonstrate a willful ignorance that matches the best American Conservative. Volcanoes, even including catastrophic eruptions such as Krakatoa and Pinatubo, have relatively little effect and ALL of that is cooling and ALL of that short-lived. The amount of CO2 put out by all the volcanoes that erupted last year is a fraction of that produced by human activity.

As to your contention that the Earth isn’t warming – NASA have released figures showing the decade that has just ended was the warmest on record.

The English coast is, like any other sea coast, mutable by changes in currents, wind patterns and the lifting or sinking of the land. The sea level hasn’t changed to the extent that you’re implying. Quote your sources, please.

I’m not sure why I bother to post

Mainly because all the links I’ve posted in the past is the

In reply to Well now, Ernest

same stuff I’m refering to here and I lost all that info in a hard drive crash several months ago. It can all be easily checked via a search on Google and wiki, meaning you can get a lot more information as you look.

Year without a summer – mount Tambora

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer

and another on longer term temperatures

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years

and a few more links found in a quick google search

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

look at the first graph on the link above, interesting temperatures.

http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

on solar responsibility, below

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V7/N4/EDIT.php

Sargasso Sea dO18

January 2008 – 4 sources say "globally cooler" in the past 12 months

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/03/16/the-coming-global-cooling/

About the English coast,

quote

Day 3: Start the day with an invigorating walk around: Richborough Roman Fort: Explore the site of the first Roman landing in Britain at a site now over two miles from the sea!

end quote

from;

http://elmfieldfarmcottages.wordpress.com/category/recommended-places/page/2/

This isn’t where I first read about the coastal change, but I can’t find the news article, which I think was originally a BBC one.

Or, you can look up the old very long threads on the global warming cult and follow the numerous links in them.

Ernest

In reply to Mainly because all the links I’ve posted in the past is the

Reading teh sources of your information, it shines a great light on how you come up with these absurd ideas all the time.

It appears that you’ll believe what you want to believe, without questioning your sources. As long as they comply with your personal beliefs they are valid.

But when you actually look at yoru sources, they are incredible in too many ways.

And the moon

In reply to Well now, Ernest

As the moon’s distance from Earth changes gravitational pull, which creates our ocean tides. Then, especially considering your comments, the moon has a very significant effect on the overall balance of life and change on Earth as well.

Personally

In reply to Sorry neilb, they change from the title Global Warming to

I think we’d be better off having a global thermonuclear war right now.

At least then it couldn’t be debunked that radiation kills without bias.

Change is the issue

In reply to Sorry neilb, they change from the title Global Warming to

They are results of the same effects focused on at different points in time. IN case you are unaware, it is a fact that the Earth has warmed and cooled over many billions of years, so cooling becomes warming, and so on.

In the 1970s there was increasing awareness that estimates of global temperatures showed cooling since 1945.

Of those scientific papers considering climate trends over the 21st century, only 10% inclined towards future cooling, while most papers predicted future warming. Such theories are based on two entirely different sets of data focused on different objectives but relate to the same phenomena.

So once again we see how taking a very small sample of fact and blowing it out as news, has resulted in people’s ignirance and dismissal of science.

As for polar ice caps, Canada is an excellent example of how the Arctic is changing. Glaciers are melting rapidly, sea levels are rising and sea temperatures are changing. Even just 1 or two degrees shift off of the natural warming cycle of the ocean
is attributed to tsunami’s and floods.

In my lifetime, the rivers in BC have gone from being overly flooded from the snow melt to unable to maintain the salmon spawning cycle. From a base perspective that would illustrate both cooling and warming cycles, however one has created the other and both can be attributed to the same factors of climate change.

There is nothing so constant in life as change –

In reply to Change is the issue

the big issue with the current debate is the amount of effect humans have had, and will have, with their daily activities, and if all the BS is worth the money they want to throw at it in the hopes it will go away.

Money

In reply to There is nothing so constant in life as change –

take the one tonne challenge, it costs nothing and reduces personal emissions up to a tonne per year. That’s significaant when widespread and best of all, it’s free and you get healthier in the process.

But pshaw! Who needs that hogwash? Health, personal responsibilty, won’t make any difference. Sorry, heard the broken record too many times to have patience with the likes of you.

There is no hope that, in your lifetime or several others, you will ever gather more relevant or acuurate information than David Suzuki.
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/default.asp

Give up, NeilB

In reply to NOTHING has been debunked

Elementary school science teaches us basic things which apply to global warming to show it’s plausibility and that there is no debunking of it:

A) When carbon dioxide is not consumed, it builds up in the atmosphere.

B) CO2 levels in ice core samples show that within the past 120 years (since the industrial age began) that CO2 levels have risen than during any period in the previous 400k year period.

(http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/contents.htm)

C) If the percentage of land mass with active vegitation on the planet (which consumes the CO2) is decreasing, therefore less CO2 is converted to O2.

D) Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.74?C (plus or minus 0.18?C) since the late-19th century, and the linear trend for the past 50 years of 0.13?C (plus or minus 0.03?C) per decade is nearly twice that for the past 100 years. The warming has not been globally uniform. Some areas (including parts of the southeastern U.S. and parts of the North Atlantic) have, in fact, cooled slightly over the last century. The recent warmth has been greatest over North America and Eurasia between 40 and 70?N. Lastly, seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001 and the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1995.

(http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#q3)

It’s pretty rudimentary and easy to see that the data shown to be reailty leads to global warming being a fact.

Just because guys like Maxwell can’t understand that global warming causes climate change, i.e.- more dramatic pattern shifts, climactic events, etc., I refuse to argue the point any longer.

Especially since he and others like him can give no plausible evidence to conclusively contradict the scientific facts that exist through scientific study and measurement.

I wish you luck, though. You are aspiring to do what I have given up on: educating those who are unwilling to learn.

Just because guys like Maxwell can’t understand

In reply to Give up, NeilB

Unlike you, jck, I don’t try to misrepresent my expertise on the issue by citing, what you call, [i]Elementary school science[/i]. There’s nothing elementary about the argument, and to suggest as much is the epitome of ignorance. In fact, most of the cited [i]science[/i] is so far above the ability of most people to comprehend or understand that they simply have to decide on whom to believe.

You’re a lefty Democrat and you espouse their collectivist agenda. It stands to reason that their big government control and collectivist [i]solutions[/i] to [i]climate change[/i] would appeal to you.

Moreover, it’s not a scientific issue. It’s a political issue.

No, jck, I don’t believe you; I don’t believe Neil; I don’t believe the IPCC; I don’t believe the UN; I don’t believe the Democrats; I don’t believe Al Gore; and I don’t believe the NASA scientist, James Hansen, who’s made a career out of making alarmist predictions, none of which have come true. You and Neil are in bed with all those people, and none of them have ANY credibility as far as I’m concerned. And as more time goes by, the less credibility they have.

I believe the following:

[i]”Global warming is a hoax.”[/i]

– Bill Gray, Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University; M.S. in meteorology from the University of Chicago, Ph.D. in geophysical sciences.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003040068_warming05.html

[i]”…..evidence from my group’s government-funded research that suggests global warming is mostly natural, and that the climate system is quite insensitive to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions and aerosol pollution.”[/i]

-Dr. Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D. in meteorology from the University of Wisconsin-Madison; Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville; Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center.

Global Warming

[i]”First, nonscientists generally do not want to bother with understanding the science. Claims of consensus relieve policy types, environmental advocates, and politicians of any need to do so. Such claims also serve to intimidate the public and even scientists – especially those outside the area of climate dynamics.

Secondly, given that the question of human attribution largely cannot be resolved, its use in promoting visions of disaster constitutes nothing so much as a bait-and-switch scam. That is an inauspicious beginning to what Mr. Gore claims is not a political issue but a “moral” crusade.

Lastly, there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition. An earlier attempt at this was accompanied by tragedy. Perhaps Marx was right. This time around we may have farce – if we’re lucky.[/i]

-Richard S. Lindzen,Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.

http://globalwarminghoax.wordpress.com/2006/10/26/richard-lindzen-no-global-warming/

[i]”Yet I am totally convinced there is no scientific basis for any of it…. Global Warming: It is a hoax. It is bad science. It is high-jacking public policy. It is the greatest scam in history.”[/i]

-John Coleman, founder of the weather channel.

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/38574742.html

I could go on…….

I won’t debate you either, jck, because you’re nothing but a lefty Democrat collectivist in search of justification for your desired end conclusion. But I’d give 1000-1 odds on any of those guys in a debate against you and your [i]Elementary school science[/i].

Okay, jck, you may now return to your Democratic Party talking points.

P.S. Did you know that James Hansen has declined to participate in numerous public debates with Bill Gray on the issue of man-made global warming and climate change?

P.P.S. Speaking of [i]Elementary school science[/i], it’s absolutely shameful that SO MANY elementary schools have – and still are – showing Al Gore’s propaganda [i]An Inconvenient Truth[/i] in the classrooms and presenting it as scientific fact. There’s your [i]Elementary school science[/i], jck, as it’s being presented today.

Now there I agree with you

In reply to Just because guys like Maxwell can’t understand

It is a political issue.

So given that if it’s valid for you to quote ‘scientists’ who bolster your political opinion, why is it wrong for those who hold a diffrent one to quote ‘scientists’ who bolster theirs?

Personally I’ll attack your politics, the ‘scientists’ who support my position are talking out of their arse as much as the ones who do yours.

No control, no repeatable results, no evidence the model matches the actuality, not science, none of it. Abstract models that correlate to nothing and carefully filtered statistics, is all it is.

Might as well get a definitive answer off an astrologer, or by having your bumps felt.

You ask . . . . .

In reply to Now there I agree with you

[i]”…..why is it wrong for those who hold a different one to quote ‘scientists’ who bolster theirs[/i]”

It’s not wrong in the scientific realm, because that’s what science is all about. But it is wrong in the political realm because it proves there is no consensus, as is so often claimed, and that no conclusion and/or subsequent solution should be reached until there is a REAL consensus.

Would you support spending public dollars – AND denying individual liberty – on mining green cheese from the moon if half (or more) of the scientists question the very existance of green cheese on the moon?

I’d support any industry on the moon

In reply to You ask . . . . .

Offer me a chance to go up and there and make green cheese, I’d take it.

Not as facetious as it sounds that. A ‘low cost’ means of getting in and out of the gravity well, jobs, spin off tech, support..

Similar with combating “global warming”. there’s money, jobs, wealth and power in it. No less valid in effect than what we are doing now. The real change would be who’s got the power and the wealth. That’s the political/ecomomic fight.

I’m a socialist, I don’t believe that individual liberty has innate primacy over communal, never have, never will.

I don’t argue that we should break away from the consumerist approach because the weather is bad, I argue it because it’s Malthusian, and I’m long term sort of bloke.

If you I don’t believe that individual liberty . . . . .

In reply to I’d support any industry on the moon

….. has innate primacy over communal, then you must believe that individual liberty and freedom is bestowed upon people by other people, not something inherently gained (or bestowed by one’s Creator).

Why would you want to presuppose – and allow – that other people have more power over you than you have over yourself? And by what power do you (or anyone) subjugate others to that fate? If a person doesn’t own himself or herself, who does? And if a person does own himself or herself, then individual liberty trumps communal.

At least you admit to your socialist leanings and call it for what it is – unlike the so-called [i]progressives[/i] in the United States.

No if about it.

In reply to I’d support any industry on the moon

As a personal philosophy I have and do sacrifice many expressions of freedom, to the benefit of my family, my community , my society, my nation, even my humanity.

What do you call a common ethic, morality, law, civilisation but a constraint on individual freedom?

What is an infringement of your or my freedom, who defines it us, you, me, them?

Given it’s you or I who feels our rights are being infringed by the other, whether that’s more disposable income to spend on petrol, or less to not have to rely on personal transport.

Which of our individuals freedoms doesn’t infringe on the the other’s?

Which one of us has more of a right than the other. Either collapses the argument, neither doesn’t address it.

So you make me pay for roads to run your car on, and I make you pay for rail, so I can get about with out a car.

One infringement justifies the other.

In a community of two, it’s a simple proposition.

We both pay for each other’s freedoms.

Or one of us isn’t free…

Tony.

In reply to I’d support any industry on the moon

Nice to see you. B-)

On no, here we go again!

In reply to You ask . . . . .

I didn’t think you would be able to pull up that fricking individual liberty crap in this thread but somehow you found it.

Your last card in any thread has always been that it’s a matter of individual liberty. Then you pull out the fife and bang your drum and tell great tales of America’s, once mighty, founders and blah, blah….blech!

Get over it, we are living in the 21st century, not the 18th. Did you ever think that, just like Nostradamus and the Mayans, they really didn’t have a frickin’ clue where the world would be in 200 years and couldn’t possibly set out a reasonable guideline for the country’s future? Christ, they barely knew where they were and who they faced, they only just realized the world wasn’t flat, they were one gene ahead of calling guns ‘fire-sticks’, how the hell would they know about life and global cooperation in the 21st century?

And you wonder why I pull out the Sam the American Eagle vids?

You call it crap, but I call it . . . . .

In reply to On no, here we go again!

….. the basis for everything I believe – call it a moral compass that guides me through life’s issues. Assuming personal responsibility is diminished in ANY collectivist system. Why should anyone be denied the right to assume personal responsibility? Accepting personal responsibility is the side-effect of individual liberty. Moreover, I truly believe that a societal structure that places more emphasis on personal responsibility will be better – much better – than one with an emphasis on collectivism.

http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=325646&messageID=3242996&tag=content;leftCol

You mock it and make fun of it, and that’s okay. It only shows, however, that you’re less tolerant of others with a different set of ideals. But the bottom line remains the same: those who rest on the principle of individual liberty are MORE tolerant of others, and we’re MORE willing to let others live their lives as they wish – and we have a clear and concise boundary; one’s individual liberty is limited to the extent it infringes on that of another.

Mock away, Oz, and show your intolerance of those who believe differently than you. It’s what you seemingly do best.

P.S. And please spare me the [i]selfish[/i] argument. You, of all people, really do know that I spend an enormous amount of personal time and money for the service and benefit of others. I volunteer it; collectivists, however, want to force it; but the former is a much better system.

Wrong, of course I accept personal responsibility

In reply to On no, here we go again!

I simply don’t hang on to outdated dogma as my basis for determining personal reposibility.

If people were more responsible and didn’t simply dimiss facts based on the media’s questionable criteria, the problem would not have as much focus. As people refuse to accept any responsibility, as your initial post also displays, then other measures need to be taken.

Because pf what you or those who feel they live in the only free land feel, inaction has resulyed in a lack of progress.
Thus global government agreement wants to enforce such change on a multinational level.

If people just woke up and took personal reponsibility into their own hands, everyone, including industry, would be making effective changes.

However they are not.

On Oz’s outdated dogma

In reply to On no, here we go again!

Times and industries may change, but human nature will not; and the principles of individual liberty are based on the latter. There will always be people who are more ambitious than others; there will always be people envious of others; there will always be people who want to do the least and get more; etc.

People will always have a desire to live free.

The concept of individual liberty is anything but outdated dogma.

Edited for the following addition:

I can’t recall a single instance in all of history in which people rose up and took to arms for the case of larger and more intrusive government, for more government control over the population, and for less liberty for the individual citizen.

It’s always been the opposite.

Outdated dogma? I don’t think so.

Nice try anyway

In reply to On no, here we go again!

You can try and twist my words, and then try to imply my core values incorrectly, however we both know you fail at convincing me of what you THINK I stand for.

I don’t stand for more government simply because you take the personal liberties issue as a defense for anything you don’t personally understand or agree with.

Such concept offers the simplicity of a child’s comprehansion and irrational thought pattern.

If I support something that you feel is a waste of American tax dollars or your personal liberties, you then instantly raise the argument that I don’t understand freedom and support big govrenment control of everyone’s lives and income.

Get a real life.

You are so black and white it is outdated and boring, you just drone on an on with no concept of mankind’s ever growing understanding of the world and need for global unification.

Even since you were a child, the world and the mindset, that people of any nation have to accept, has changed so much.

Without minds that understand that you must give a little in order to move ahead, we would still be living the blind life of the 50’s. Where women wore heels and pearls do make dinner and serve the family.

Because some people know that a false reality is not reality, we have progressed as a species.

You have to understand that shades of grey have and always will exist, behind any so callec reo values and you don’t have to give up such core values in order to accept the need for an ever changing society. Expecting people to be mroe resourceful is not removing people’s liberties. Expecting business to do the same is also not removing anyone’s personal liberties.

Your government will always rip you off, fact of life. Taking people’s tax dollars and FORCING them to support a war they don’t actually support is not removing personal liberties in your narrow mind. It is something you value and support so YOUR liberties are not infringed on, which is just fine by you.

Your government, while you feel is working in your favour, is in turn removing other people’s liberties, which you gladly accept when it is in your favour. You don’t actually have these core values you soeak of so often, you have personal, and rather selfish values despite your naturally giving personality.

A personality which gives in order to feel personally jutified; self gratification without a real care for anyone else or what others think as long as you look and feel good.

In your steadfast ways, you are in turn infringing on other people’s rights.

You simply don’t see it because it is not black and white, as you feel your life should be.

Some things ARE black and white

In reply to On no, here we go again!

Is it right or wrong to enslave people? Is it black and white, as I suggest, or are there shades of gray?

Is it right or wrong to rape people? Is it black and white, as I suggest, or are there shades of gray?

Is it right or wrong to rob people of their personal property?

Physically or financially? Is there a difference? People are being financially raped and enslaved.

Some things ARE black and white, Oz. The only question is this: do you have the courage to take a stand, one way or the other, or do you waver in some lame attempt to appease both sides?

Your shades of gray are obscuring your sense of right and wrong. And in some cases, there is no shade of gray in-between.

Again, a display of you lack of separation

In reply to On no, here we go again!

I don’t have someone chained up in my basement, however I don’t feel paying taxes enslaves me. I can leave any time I want.

Nobody steals my money, I pay taxes are part of accepting Canada’s government and laws, again that is by choice, I can always leave.

You seem to have this simplistic view on life that cannot determine between a fender bender and a fatal accident, or at leat your analogies constantly lean that way.

You voted for a government, by definition a government is entrusted with the citizens tax dollars to spend that collective money as the majority of their voters deemed most suitable. The only enslavement and robbery is due to your being let down by fellow citizens who didn’t elect your choice of government, thus you feel enslaved and robbed by the same democracy that you feel makes the USA the best nation on Earth.

Nobody went to the UK and put my family on a ship, brought me here and forced me to work.
Nobody dug into my wallet and helped themselves, I made a choice to be here and accept the bill of rights and government of this free nation.

If you feel that is accepting being enslaved, raped and robbed, then you really need to start learning how to differentiate between such crimes on humanity and reality.

It would be interesting to compare. . . . .

In reply to On no, here we go again!

….. TOTAL taxation in the United Stated versus Canada. I’d bet a dollar to dirt that the TOTAL taxation in the USA is higher – much higher – than that in Canada. And not just the percentage of income taxed, but everything, regardless of what it’s called or how it’s collected.

You try to paint me as a radical anti-tax zealot, but nothing could be farther from the truth. I know that taxes are necessary to support the role and functions of government; but where we disagree is in defining the extent of that role and those functions.

P.S. And at what threshold, do you think, is too much?

That;s where you continually miss the boat

In reply to On no, here we go again!

You feel your taxes should be spent on those issues of which you approve. The fact that others approve of spending on climate issues, and you don’t is where you are disconnected. YOu feel it is unjust, as you don’t support such finding, yet you support military funding in an unjustified, foreign war. Other Americans feel the opposite, spending on climate control is okay, spending on war is not.

THe difference is only due to political preference. The government is elected and entrusted with tax dollars, those who are the majority vote, usually support that government’s spending choices, while those who voted for the losing party will not.

So when bush spent your money on Iraq you were behind that, you entrusted that gopvernment to spend as you deemed suitable and acceptable. Others just had to deal with it and live on.

Now the tables have turned, you had a vote and it didn’t win. Thus OTHERS, the majority voters, are happy and YOU are now all upset that the government is spending how YOU feel they should.

Democracy, freedom, it either works for you or against you. Either way it goes, someone is left feeling shorted. This time around, it’s you.

Hmmm….

In reply to On no, here we go again!

[i]Nobody steals my money, I pay taxes are part of accepting Canada’s government and laws, again that is by choice, I can always leave.[/i]

From whence comes this “choice”? Did someone give it to you?

Yes ths choice is mine

In reply to On no, here we go again!

Canada accepts me residing here, they haven’t forced me to, that was my ‘choice’.

If I didn’t agree with Canada’s taxation laws, I actually have two CHOICES. I can become a citizen and vote for my preference, or I can leave. I am not bound to this country’s taxation or laws unless I DECIDE to live here.

As far as paying taxes period,any decmocratic country allows you to elect the government of people’s favour. Government, by definition, includes taxation and the allocation taxes.

All governments tax their citizens, sorry to disappoint your no taxation objectives, as it supports the infrastructure required to function in the world and protects the people within the nation.

HOW those taxes are allocated is challenged at every election; that is when you get to have your say, not now.

Should your preferred government not be elected, you can either stfu and deal with it, as most people do until they are able to vote again, or move somewhere else where their laws coincide with your more idyllic tax allocation desires.

Evaluation of experts

In reply to Just because guys like Maxwell can’t understand

You might want to take a closer look at your list of experts.

Bill Gray would have some credentials in the field, so he would be a good choice.

Dr. Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D. looks like a good choice at first glance. But the fact that he also believes in intelligent design takes away from his credibility.

Richard S. Lindzen seems to be an excellent choice as an atmospheric physicist at MIT. He would be the one on your list that I’d trust to critique climate change computer models. His biggest weakness is his belief that lung cancer is only weakly linked to smoking. (Of course, not all lung cancers are caused by smoking, which might be his approach. More information is required.)

John Coleman, alas, is a bad choice if you are looking for climate change experts. While he is the founder of the Weather Channel, it appears that his college training was in journalism and his professional background is that of a news weathercaster. Being a weathercaster might give you an edge over the average layman when it comes to climate change, but it does not make you an expert in the topic. If anything, it makes it more probable that he could do the same media grandstanding that he accuses Gore and others of doing.

Can you provide a few more expert references?

I’ll tell you what I’ll do

In reply to Evaluation of experts

You provide the names of four [i]experts[/i] who make the global warming claim, and then we’ll evaluate all eight together. Let’s tear into all of them and find reasons to discredit them all. It’s a typical ploy to discredit the person if their argument can’t be refuted (employed by both sides of an argument, to be sure, but a tactic used much more by the left – especially with the mm gw/cc claim).

Nonetheless, ALL of the [i]experts[/i] on my list are exponentially more qualified than any of the politicians advancing the claim – especially Al Gore, the poster boy of global warming; and 99.99 percent of the people advancing the mm gw/cc notion are politicians, political activists, political pundits, or partisan voters – none of whom have one iota of qualifications.

We rarely – if ever – hear from of any [i]real[/i] experts. And when we do hear from them, they refuse to publicly debate the issue with other [i]experts[/i] who disagree. That, in itself, makes for bad science, considering the fact that peer reviews are a big part of science. Here’s my theory and conclusion, says Scientist-A, who willingly offers it to Scientist-B to shoot holes in it. What are they afraid of? Why do you think James Hansen won’t publicly debate Bill Grey? Because his so-called facts, figures, predictions, and conclusions will be torn to bits and he’ll look like a total fool.

But if you want to set some rules for disqualification, how about if we discredit ANYONE who stands to gain financially by advancing and/or studying and/or implementing so-called solutions for the notion of mm gw/cc? Scientist John Doe, for example, stands to lose a million dollars a year in government grants for his department if the notion of mm gw/cc was debunked. I’d wager that that might eliminate almost all of them.

By the way, the reasons you’d discount Lindzen and Spencer are common arguments found on any number of leftist pro global warming Web sites. I’ve heard them before, many times over. Neil gave me the same reasons. But I’ve never seen anyone refute their facts and figures. And yes, Coleman is a weatherman, but he sure knows a lot more about it than you, me, Neil, jck, any politician, etc. And if you want to eliminate Spencer for the reason you cite, let’s eliminate ANYONE who believes in God – scientist or otherwise.

Side note: How many IT [i]experts[/i] do we see around here who have neither a degree or any certifications related to IT, but yet they’re very sharp and knowledgeable people?

Experts and spokespeople

In reply to I’ll tell you what I’ll do

I suspect that we could both find climate experts that have extremely solid credentials and could withstand reasonable scrutiny. I personally dislike the ‘discredit the person ploy’, be it in climate change, politics, or other topics. I would love to see actual statistics on which sides use the ploy in climate change discussions as well as in political races.

I’d agree that three of your four choices are exponentially more qualified than the politicians and other non-climate experts, and I won’t play math games with fractional exponents. But then we are comparing experts versus spokespeople. At the same time, using your IT example of non-degreed, non-certed experts, I’d say that there are some spokespeople who are at least as knowledgeable as the news weathercaster. That would throw off your rhetorical 99.99 percent number.

As far as ‘debating’ climate change publicly, I’d be all for it as long as we’re dealing with peer review facts. Too often public ‘debates’ devolve into less than civil arguments which can include name calling, unsubstantiated ‘facts’, misremembered ‘facts’ and the ‘discredit the person ploy.’ Ideally all sides should be able to present their facts, with references as to the studies that support them. They should then be able to critique the other side’s facts, providing references that support their critique. The critiques could then be critiqued until all sides are satisfied that they have presented what needs to be said.

This would be good science but lousy theater. It might work best if the public ‘debate’ was done on a web page and a panel of ‘neutral’ experts discussed the strengths and weakness of the ‘web’ of evidence that was presented.

As far as disqualifying experts that have financial ties to advancing ‘mm gc/cc’, would that also apply to experts and non-experts that would lose millions if ‘mm gc/cc’ were proven to be true? The ‘science’ of the tobacco companies in regards to the hazards of smoking comes to mind.

Even with the disqualifications on both sides of the fence, I still suspect that we could find scientists who are ethical enough to desire accurate results.

As far as Lindzen and Spencer are concerned, I did a quick check of their credentials and found those ‘oddities’ mentioned. Not all of the mentions were on ‘leftist’ sites. And when it comes to Spencer’s ‘intelligent design’ beliefs, you don’t necessarily have to reject God if you believe in the theory of evolution. The Catholic church doesn’t appear to have problems with the theory of evolution. And who are we to say that God didn’t create evolution as a feedback mechanism for life?

A couple of points to mull over

In reply to I’ll tell you what I’ll do

Despite my – well known – belief in the irrationality of religious belief, I wouldn’t discount any scientist who was a believer. I would, however, tend to look sceptically at a cooking recipe from a scientist who was a proponent of Intelligent Design. Anyone who can perform THAT level of delusional mental gymnastics is capable of being duplicitous about anything.

Now, I’m with Geek above. Unfortunately, the idea of “Public Debate” in the political arena has crossed the Pond and we now have “Presidential-Style” debates between our party leaders to look forward to. This, despite the fact that we don’t have a President. Why should we want to compare the debating skills of our politicians and why, much more so, would we want to compare the [b]debating skills[/b] of our research scientists? It’s their ability as a scientist that is important.

I believe in Man’s contribution to climate change because I’ve read enough research papers and digests of same to convince me. Me. I’ve done it myself. It’s important enough to me so I’ve taken the time to do it.

I’m also invoking Godwin’s Law on you. You KNOW that you are not allowed to mention Al Gore in an argument on Climate Change.

I know you started it but GET OFF THIS THREAD!

😀

Al Gore is destined to become. . . . .

In reply to A couple of points to mull over

…. the first global warming / climate change billionaire.

If there is one person most responsible for politicizing the issue in the United States – and possibly around the globe – it’s Al Gore.

Al Gore won an Oscar and a Nobel Peace Prize for spreading lies and mistruths in what is no more than a quest for power and money.

Al Gore is the horse pulling the bandwagon, although many horses have been added since the early days of global warming hysteria.

If you truly believe that which you say about man’s contribution to changes in climate patterns – and I have no doubt that you do – then you and your side, so to speak, needs to lead the charge in discrediting the likes of Al Gore; and instead of wanting to hold [i]global warming deniers[/i] accountable for [i]crimes against humanity[/i], you need to hold Al Gore – and his ilk – accountable for his (their) REAL crimes.

Until that happens, like it or not, you’re not only in bed with the guy, but you’re smooching up to him and adding fuel to his cause (and dollars to his bank account).

If you truly believe that which you say about man’s contribution to changes in climate patterns – and I have no doubt that you do – then you and your side, so to speak, needs to lead the charge in implementing change or making plans to adapt WITHOUT infringing on the basic human rights of people to live free, without the intrusion of government, and without the solutions ALWAYS being socialist in nature.

Until that happens, your cause will always be a political agenda – a socialist political agenda – in search of justification.

On Dr. Roy Spencer

In reply to A couple of points to mull over

Here’s a link to his Web site where he’s posted many articles on the issue. I’d be interested to see exactly what you disagree with – scientifically speaking, of course.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

Here’s another link to a paper Dr. Spencer wrote which, I presume, branded him an Intelligent Design whacko – thereby discrediting ANYTHING he’s said. Again, I’d be interested to see how you feel about the paper in its entirety and full context, and how you can reconcile the apparent contradiction in what you said: [i]”I wouldn’t discount any scientist who was a believer. I would, however, tend to look skeptically at a cooking recipe from a scientist who was a proponent of Intelligent Design.”[/i]

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=080805I

Someone who is a believer IS a proponent of Intelligent Design. After all (if I’m not mistaken), the whole [i]Intelligent Design[/i] notion was started in what was not much more than an end-around attempt to teach something other than pure evolution in schools. It’s not some radical spin-off group who believes some intelligent designer suddenly snapped his/her/its fingers (or whatever digits he/she/it might have) and bingo-bango-presto the earth was created.

Not to digress into an Intelligent Design discussion, but to not [i]discount any scientist who was a believer[/i] and to [i] look skeptically at a cooking recipe from a scientist who was a proponent of Intelligent Design[/i] seems like a contradiction, at least of sorts.

P.S. I didn’t see any cooking recipes on Dr. Spencer’s Web site. I’m always interested in new ones, so if you have any of Dr. Spencer’s cooking recipes, could you share one of them with me?

Edited because: oops, I forgot to post the links.

OK, but there is quite a lot

In reply to A couple of points to mull over

so it may take a little time. I’ve skimmed through the first couple of screen-feet and it’s an explanation as to why it’s so damn cold this January gone in this age of GW. We had our weather forecasters answer it in much the same way “it’s warmer somewhere else”.

It’s not a question I bothered to ask as the answer is so simple – the difference between weather and climate.

Hopefully there will be something I can agree with or disagree with. 🙂

My problem with Spencer does indeed come from his ID. “I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism.” Sorry, I disagree SO strongly that I HAVE to view his writing on other subjects coloured by his views on ID.

I will now examine Spencer’s writings on climate at your request. His writings on evolution are so far off the mark and just so lacking in logic that I’ve been inhibited from bothering to date. In this I speak as a biological scientist where I’ve reason to believe I might know enough to make a definitive judgement.

Like all those opposed to any form of Darwinian evolution, he misses his target. While he trumpets on about “evolution has not been observed”, referring to the generation of new species, he misses the real point that must be answered and that is “given what HAS been observed, how could speciation NOT happen?”.

Because I can’t resist a chance to rubbish ID…

Neil 🙂

As I said, I wouldn’t follow a recipe from Spencer’s site because, surely, I’d need to take it with a pinch of salt.

Spencer data

In reply to A couple of points to mull over

I had already visited the Roy Spencer site and am impressed with his knowledge and presentation of the climate/weather data. It would be a much better site if he had a blog for political opinions that was separate from the hard science part of the blog. It demeans the science when you mix the two.

Note that this should apply to science/opinion blogs on the left, right AND the spectrum in the middle.

The link to the Intelligent Design article is a VERY good one. It needs to be quoted by all parties when they mention ID as a possible weakness. For that matter, Spencer should include it on his website as a way of diffusing criticism. It would show that he appears to be a conservative in the ID field.

When you get down to it, ALL science is ‘faith’ based in a sense. Newton’s Theory of Gravity is still a ‘faith’ based theory, but one with a lot of empirical data supporting it. It ended up being tweaked by some of Einstein’s theories, but that’s science.

Still, Spencer’s arguments against what he calls ‘true evolution’ have some weak points. I commend him for having spent two years studying evolution versus ID as a PhD scientist, but that was, back calculating from the article, almost twenty five years ago. Since that time, there has been a lot of research in genetics and archaeology that weakens his case. Has he been keeping up with all sides of the ID discussion?

One of the sticking points for me is the following quote from the article:

“While natural selection can indeed preserve the stronger and more resilient members of a gene pool, intelligent design maintains that it cannot explain entirely new kinds of life — and that is what evolution is.” (Spencer, “Faith-Based Evolution”, TCS Daily, 08 Aug, 2005.)

That strikes me as redefining ‘evolution’ so that Intelligent Design becomes a core part of it. It also ignores the possibility that small changes caused by natural selection, combined with the separation of populations and the occasional mutation, can create different species. Over a long period of time these species become other species until they have differentiated enough to become ‘new’ life forms.

This process can happen a lot faster when life is under stress and slight differences can mean the difference between survival and extinction.

Are there any other articles on Spencer’s ID beliefs?

Geek: My problem with ID

In reply to A couple of points to mull over

comes from the following snip from your post:

“It also ignores the possibility that small changes caused by natural selection, combined with the separation of populations and the occasional mutation, can create different species. Over a long period of time these species become other species until they have differentiated enough to become ‘new’ life forms.”

What is really difficult is to devise a theory where that DOESN’T happen. Microevolution – which the ID’ers accept happens – and Macroevolotion – which they don’t – are really no different.

🙂

But you do seem to confuse your facts, conveniently

In reply to Just because guys like Maxwell can’t understand

Your piping on about once it was cooling and then it was warming and now it’s climate change simply demonstrates an ignorance of the subject matter.

Global cooling was a rapidly dismissed and unproven THEORY spewed by a hack many years ago. Even though it was quickly dismissed, the press went on to hype it up and rag it out, not science.

They then furthered their studies and proved that the Earth was actually warming at an increasing rate, greater than the natural warming and cooling seen ever before.
They speculated on reasons and eventually came up with conclusive evidence of the causes, measuring our own emissions wih natural emissions, they then proved that we have a significant impact on this natural cycle.

Global warming by definition means a change in climate, thus climate change.

So all of your nonsense and inaacurate comparrison, simply illustrates a man with an agenda. An unproven, unqualified and misunderstood or cleverly reworded agenda.

Not common sense, logic and fact.

obviously

In reply to Just because guys like Maxwell can’t understand

None of those sources you quoted has read this site:

http://www.ucar.edu/learn/1_3_1.htm

A nice little tutorial for you all to learn how the greenhouse effect works.

You and all those folks could learn about what is called “The Greenhouse Effect”, which is the basis of what traps heat within the atmosphere and how it works.

And btw, “The Greenhouse Effect” is accepted, standard, proven basic science. Not hypothesis or theory.

You and John Coleman and Bill Gray should all go learn that first so you can get up to speed how it works and what is fact.

Now, let’s go to your quotes:

[b]”Yet I am totally convinced there is no scientific basis for any of it…. Global Warming: It is a hoax. It is bad science. It is high-jacking public policy. It is the greatest scam in history.”

-John Coleman, founder of the weather channel.[/b]

John Coleman is a celebrated meteorologist, and not an expert on global warming or its causes.

I like him as a weatherman, and I watch the Weather Channel a lot. But, I would not use him as a knowledgeable source of what is a “hoax” in regards to global warming.

[b]
“Global warming is a hoax.”

– Bill Gray, Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University; M.S. in meteorology from the University of Chicago, Ph.D. in geophysical sciences.[/b]

Bill Gray is another fine meteorologist. His specialty is tropical forecast modelling and hypothesis. Not global warming.

A well respected man in his field, but his knowledge and study are in a field that is only a small subset of the indicators of global warming…not what causes them.

Now why would I refute those two?

Every study of global climate differentiation in the past 10,000s of years since the last 7 major ice age shows 3 things:

– CO2 levels are an abnormal deviation above (450 ppm) within the past 100-150 years than anything previously recorded in the last 650k years (380 ppm) and with no abnormal natural incidences to account for their abnormal deviation (vulcanism, etc).

– In that past 100-150 years, the normal deviation of temperature change has exceeded the known deviation for global average temperature within the past 650k year record of isotopic temperature extraction for any other 100-150 year period.

– The deviation of other greenhouse gases has not been far outside of the normal deviation to the extent CO2 has.

Besides that, neither John Coleman nor Bill Gray have shown anyt contrary proof or data to the scientific proof that CO2 is a heat trapping greenhouse gas.

Or have they? Where is their proof to contradict the rest of the scientific community?

Now as for schools showing [i]An Inconvenient Truth[/i]:

I have no say-so in what any school shows. I’m not a school administrator, school-age child’s parent, etc.

As well, I might homeschool my children when I have a family. Simply because I get sick of the rhetoric from both sides that teaches children to accept what is mostly accepted within regional ethic rather than presenting fact and letting them learn to derive the facts from true information and dismiss what is unrepresented or untrue.

I am sick of both sides bickering. And, I’m certainly sick of people saying increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere don’t cause increased trapped heat.

That is just stupidity.

You talk a lot of smack about the untruth of Global Warming, Max.

However, your quotes from Coleman and Gray might have well as come from Al Roker and Jim Cantore.

In regards to your quote from Dr. Spencer:

You should go read his entire discussion. He never says he can refute the claims. Only that he has a hypothesis, and that there is no conclusive proof that cloud cover does or does not increase artificially global warming averages.

i.e.- he’s in the process of studying it just like everyone else.

Hence, he has [b]no contradictory proof[/b].

BTW, Dr. Roy W. Spencer also is a proponent of intelligent design, and rejects evolution as the mechanism for the origin of species.

Even though we have carbon-dated fossil records to show that species evolved.

Realistic, is he?

I think not.

As for Richard Lindzen:

The one fully qualified person you quoted to discuss global warming.

Lindzen worked on that IPCC panel that reported on Global Warming. He states that the facts of the document were true (the ones that you don’t believe?), but that the summaries were amended due to political/policymaker influences.

Lindzen also has stated that the global average temperature has increased 0.6C in the last century. He admits it is occurring. He just doesn’t think it’s because of CO2.

However, another global warming expert:

[i] James E. Hansen, a climate scientist at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies estimated a climate sensitivity of 3?4 degrees Celsius. Hansen based this estimate on evidence from ice cores. According to Hansen: “Dick’s idea that climate sensitivity is low is simply wrong, […] The history of the earth proves him wrong.”[/i]

Hansen quotes scientific study of the evidence from the study of known data, not subjective opinion as Lindzen proposes.

Anyways, enough diatribe.

You keep believing in the hypothetical information given you.

I’ll keep attuned to what international panels of experts (most with 20-40 years of study in the field) say on the topic in relation to scientific research and analysis.

Anyways…blah blah blah on.

There’s no fun news to print then though

In reply to obviously

Facts and qualifications are for boring people. Guess work and hypothesis is for the real newsies.

True

In reply to There’s no fun news to print then though

Just like most of the people who try to discredit Global Warming with conjecture and estimation, they also try to blame Obama for legislation he has no part in writing.

Obama can tell his party all he wants to take a direction, but they are like a bunch of unruly, rebellious kids. They will only do, in the end, what he wants.

Same for the politics involved in climate change and global warming. The reports have facts. If all you are gonna do is base your conventions on a summary rather than the data, you might as well have never even considered it and just based it on the temperature outside your house on an arbitrary day.

.Edit needed there, jck

In reply to True

“They will only do, in the end, what he wants.”

I think you meant to say,
“They will only do, in the end, what THEY want.”

Your point is still clear though.

yeah

In reply to True

Hard to write things when you’re also thinking about how to patch a dataset because an end-user ran a process before they were supposed to.

Ugh. Okay. I gotta go again. More SQL scripts to write. Yay? lol

No worries

In reply to True

I make those mistakes when I am so focused on the post my tongue is stuck out.

Good god.

In reply to NOTHING has been debunked

They’ve debunked nothing? My world-view is tanked.

etu

Why even bother neil?

In reply to NOTHING has been debunked

As important as it is to most of the world, Americans have other important issues to face. Such as keeping their health care to those that can afford it, fighting wars in other nations and a fear of cowtowing to anyone else’s ideas and concepts unless they can prove it was their own and thus should rightly enforce it globally. It’s a typical grade school mentality resulting from a lack of awareness.

Nothing new.

Interesting Debate

In reply to Heads you win, tails I lose – all based on a false premise

Keep it up y’all, it’s quite educational. 😀

I’ve grown up listening to Earth Day presentations and “We must save the Earth” propaganda. Some I agree with, such as recycling and replanting. Climate change? Of course we have an effect, everything on the Earth will affect the environment around it. Is it enough to be panicked about? Nah.

It is understandable and logical to deal with local smog and pollution, but to say the icebergs in Antarctica are our concern because of what we do? That seems like we’re stretching ourselves a bit out there too far.

This is s great answer and deserves. . . . . .

In reply to Interesting Debate

.

Recycling

In reply to Interesting Debate

That’s about the only SWINDLE I see in the awareness focus.

Yes, there are some worthy recylceables, such as paper products, which are easily and cost effectively recycled as new products.

Plastics? It causes more emissions, costs three times the money to recucle.

There was a Penn & Teller Bulls*t episode on recycling.

They actually convinced a whole block of people to recycle using 12 (yes TWELVE) different types of recycling bins by convincing them how neccessary it was. Some people buy into anything they think may help.

But for the most part, those same people don’t shop or consider recycling when making purchases to begin with. We just need to be wiser in the use ofd our resources.

If we don’t over create it due to our own gluttony to begin with, then there’s less to waste.

Such as that stupid, bottled water trend.

Talking of bottled water trend, the clip above shows a guy all for recylcing, standing 20′ from his own home and drinking bottled water! I suppose he doesn’t have a glass or a tap in his house.

The one woman cracks me up, when asked how she felt about using 8 different bins for different products, including sanitary napkins, soiled toilet paper etc. Her comments are that she thinks it’s a great idea and that it has always bothered her to think that someone else has to sort it all out. 😀

Man there are some really ‘kin stupid people on this planet, we should just drown them all like too many puppies on a farm.

Let’s be more resourceful and reduce our emissions, but its the radicals that take it to extremes, in both directions that result in nothing really being done as they make themselves look so extreme nobody believes it anymore.

It’s exactly the same as politics. Two extremes cancelling out the reality of an issue.

Those are some great points

In reply to Recycling

Some recycling makes sense, but other times it’s a waste of time and money – and energy.

Of course

In reply to Those are some great points

Just like anything that becomes political, there are extremists on both sides and it clouds middle, reasonable ground to the point of inaction.

A lot like your lopsided GW focus, one nut on the right said this and on nut on the left said that, so therefore it’s all a bunch of garbage.

Manufacturing moves about

In reply to Recycling

but essentially our economies are based on mass production. Obviously effective mass production means you’ll saturate the market, so the two accepted ways of keeping the economy going are to make things that don’t last and to convince us to buy more of them, in case they break.

Attack consumerism though and you’ll be labelled as a damn commie real quick.

If we stay planet bound, and don’t end up being chased by someone who looks like Dennis Hopper. One day there will be no such thing as waste…

It’s practice, and a growing market.

UK has just introduced legislation that all shops that sell more than next to no dry cell batteries a week, must provide a collection bin for dead ones. Considering the toxic crap in them, recycling isn’t the only benefit, though I suspect we’ll actually expend more energy and generate more pollution at the moment transporting them for procesing than we will anything else…

I think that’s a good idea

In reply to Manufacturing moves about

[i]….shops that sell more than next to no dry cell batteries a week, must provide a collection bin for dead ones.”[/i]

I think that’s a great idea. I’d save my dead batteries to deposit into such a collection bin.

You do make a good point, however; “[i]though I suspect we’ll actually expend more energy and generate more pollution at the moment transporting them for procesing than we will anything else… [/i]”

There’s always balance and trade-off

It’s really hard to work out net gain with these things

In reply to I think that’s a good idea

At the moment people get paid for mining, and processing the raw materials, transporting them processing them, manufacturing the product, transporting that, selling it, managing that entire effort.

Dead batteries get disposed of in landfills, leaking toxic crap back into the food chain, there’s a bit of money in that not a lot.

So legislating this way, the increase to the retail is basically one bin. Someones got to make them, sell them, deliver them, manage that. Someones going to collect them, recycle them for re-uable material and sell that.

So it makes green sense to a limited extent and economically given recycled material is competitive, against the current sources.

It’s an approach both sides can live with.

Regulating that all batteries must be rechargeable, banning battery powered items, or enforcing some sort of standard on longevity, would be much more effective in terms of the real problem and about as popular as loony cheese.

If we can do something and not make things worse I’m all for it. I like trees, but not enough to hug them. I like money but not enough to be a slave to it.

Battery recycling

In reply to I think that’s a good idea

As far as automotive batteries, Canadian provinces either charge a recycling fee or impose an environmental levy on all such batteries, have done for a couple of years now. They also have to implement a proper recycling program, some won’t even let cash and carry consuers but a battery. Just an in vehicle swap. Unless of course for a boat, motorhome etc.

WIth more common dry cell batteries (AAA, AA, C cells etc) Radio Shack (now Circuit city) has that such a recycling program as long as I remember. I remember having a batter club card as a 10 year old, once a month I could go to RS and give them the 9-volt from my Electronic Quarterback game and get a new one.

Canadian Tire and most other garages offer free oil recycling services. You just drop off your old oil jugs, even after hours in most places they offer a cart to leave oil on, and they recycle it. Many gas stations allow for bulk oil dumping etc now too.

THESE are some of teh mroe simple tasks that people need to take upon themselevs that will help us reserve our resources and become more aware of the other products we waste. I was just wondering yesterday about some stuff I had to take to teh dump and started thinking SOME of these things I don’t really want to dump, like a couple of really old matress and box sping sets, today I did my homework and found out that several local furniture retail outlets will actually pick it them for free and send them for recycling, saving me time, energy and dumping fees.

It;s just a matter of becoming more resourceful on a global scale and wasting less. Do we really need to buy everything in COSTCO size portions, that has been shipped from the other side of the world, just to save a dollar when we wind up wasting more?

The real question

In reply to Heads you win, tails I lose – all based on a false premise

The real question is not whether climate change is happening, it’s whether we can adapt to it successfully. If oceans rise or fall, if plant species fail or become invasive, if ozone is depleted and UV rays become stronger, can our societies still thrive?

The bigger question is,

In reply to The real question

can everything below us on the food chain? Upon which we fully depend for our existence.
In strictly physical terms, that is.

I’d hoped you’d be more concerned with out of control

In reply to Heads you win, tails I lose – all based on a false premise

spending max

http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20100209/cm_uc_crpbux/op_3312888

a mirror of what is happening in the US,
or will if we increase spending to match

I’m going

In reply to I’d hoped you’d be more concerned with out of control

pessimistic on this one. We’re there.

I am concerned with out of control spending

In reply to I’d hoped you’d be more concerned with out of control

And also how the whole global warming and/or climate change lie will lead to even MORE out of control spending. ([i]Investing[/i] in alternative energy sources equals more out of control spending.)

In the short run

In reply to I am concerned with out of control spending

by short sighted people. Is it now politically correct to only think in terms of the short term. That strikes me as they may have given up on there being a future due to their own immediate greed/satisfaction.

To clarify

In reply to In the short run

When I said, [i]Investing in alternative energy sources equals more out of control spending,[/i] I meant government investing – which is really nothing more than government spending. Governments spend; companies invest.

If ANY alternative energy source was feasible and viable, then tons of private investment dollars would flood that market.

Moreover, I believe it’s the left who’s short-sighted, because it’s the left’s social programs that have built up the massive debt that will be passed onto future generations. It’s the short-term greed and self-satisfaction of you folks (leftists, progressives, collectivists, Democrats, socialists, etc.) who are compromising the long-term future of this country.

I asked my son a question not too long ago. I asked him what he would think if, upon my death, all of my personal debt was passed onto him, a debt for which he would be responsible – a $50,000 Visa bill, for example. He said, that would really suck, that it would just not be right. If it’s wrong on an individual basis, I went on to ask, do you also think it’s wrong on a national basis? Well guess what? Both are wrong.

Like I said – and it’s worth repeating – I believe it’s the left who’s short-sighted, because it’s the left’s social programs that have built up the massive debt that will be passed onto future generations. It’s the short-term greed and self-satisfaction of you folks (leftists, progressives, collectivists , Democrats, socialists, etc.) who are compromising the long-term future of this country.

global warming and/or climate change lie

In reply to I am concerned with out of control spending

Global warming is climate change.

If you think it’s a lie, you really have no place offering an opinion until you gain an education not supplied directly by the GOP, but I suppose any money THEY spend is okay by you.

You propose to be so open minded and all seeing, however you simply refuse to accept any facts supported elsewhere unless they are also supported by your personal political and constitutional preferences.

And you don’t like it when I say you are hypocritical? Try making some sense, once in a while anyway.

By the way. . . . . .

In reply to global warming and/or climate change lie

….. thanks for chiming in.

Oz attacking Maxwell’s character has been a TR staple for a long time. I’m sure we entertain many folks.

You don’t hold back, and I have a skin of steel.

Do the rest of us

In reply to By the way. . . . . .

Get to malign your soul?

malign away

In reply to Do the rest of us

It has no bearing on who I really am or the destiny of my soul.

The politics of personal destruction is alive and well around the TR water cooler.

(P.S. I think I was within 20 miles. Yes, I did think about it, but time was a factor.)

And yet

In reply to By the way. . . . . .

You are so resevred and passive, sorry to be such an ogre to your open minded and consultative posts.

facts supported elsewhere?

In reply to global warming and/or climate change lie

What “facts”?

How about the indications that three of the last four warm-ups in the last half million years were warmer than this one, and with LESS CO2?

There is no proof that CO2, man made or not, is a significant contributor to climate change. In fact, there is MORE evidence to suggest that it is the warming which allows CO2 levels to rise. All the data shows that the temperature started rising BEFORE the CO2 levels did.

Some things just make sense. Warmer climates lead to more (and more active) animal life, which results in more CO2.

Chicken and egg?

In reply to facts supported elsewhere?

Nope, not gonna work, but nice try.

Warmer climates also kill more animals, thus your thinly velied BS/theory doesn’t hold water.

First, try to gain a basic understanding of what you are talking about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core

Then a more comprehesive understanding:
http://www.esf.org/activities/research-networking-programmes/life-earth-and-environmental-sciences-lesc/completed-esf-research-networking-programmes-in-life-earth-and-environmental-sciences/european-project-for-ice-coring-in-antarctica-epica-page-1.html

Sorry, you’ll have to read about European Science as it simply doesn’t exist or recieve sufficient funding in the US.

Then perhaps you’ll begin to understand the big picture, though not bloody likely.

You also accept that CO2 levels and climate change are related. So whether the ocean creates more CO2, volcanoes (had to include Ernest here too), or plants and animals. CO2 levels are directly re;ated to climate change, fact.
This increasing CO2 levels, as just one part of many other contributing factors from hyman emissions, we are in turn reducing out contribution in speeding up a nartural process.

I am pretty sure my friend’s 7 year old daughter can grasp it, hopefully you can get a bit of help and grasp it also, however that is doubtful.

The answer is obvious:

In reply to Chicken and egg?

The egg came first.

Just like a horse plus a donkey produces a mule, [i]something[/i] plus [i]something else[/i] produced the first chicken egg.

It had to happen twice (or more), however, so that the male rooster and female hen were both produced.

What happened next was probably something like this: the two [i]somethings[/i] that produced both the chicken rooster and chicken hen set them up on a blind date so they could make beautiful chicks together.

What happened after that was the establishment of both the standard breakfast, bacon and eggs, and the standard dinner, fried chicken and mashed potatoes.

The side dishes are different stories entirely. I would go into it, but I don’t want to detract from the main thread.

Nice :D

In reply to The answer is obvious:

So life didn’t evolve from single celled organisms eventually adapting to the changing surrounings and a need to protect its young.

God simply made two animals that fornicated and created a chicken egg.

Why didn’t he just make a chicken then?

Birds have been proven some of the earliest evolved life forms on Earth as sea born creatures evolved into mammals and then continued to evolve in order to feed and protect their young by nesting off the ground and developing a hard shell for their offspring to begin life in.

Yet a badger and a pterodactyl get together after a night at the bar and viola, chicken man! Much mroe realistic.

I often wonder where you come up with such utter rubbish.

. . . . . the two animals that . . . . .

In reply to The answer is obvious:

[i]……fornicated and created a chicken egg.[/i]

We could have fun with that one, couldn’t we?

Maybe a turkey and a pheasant.

But what laid the first turkey egg? And pheasant egg?

And all those migrating Canadian Geese who keep pooping all over the place in the park across from my house have to be in the equation somewhere. (They seem to be appearing in unusually high numbers this winter. It must be that blasted global warming!)

P.S. There are times when that park is occupied by hundreds (yes, hundreds) of those geese, and I get a kick out of seeing them all take-off and fly away after I let my dog chase them away. And he has fun chasing them. They do, however, fertilize the golf courses around here.)

P.P.S. Did you know that ALL dog breeds are direct descendants of the wolf? (Even those little fuzzy and cuddly ones!)

Two animals, as in cross bred

In reply to The answer is obvious:

Well considering the “animal” could have at one time been a single celled organism, that became ameoba, that became…yuo get teh picture. So then fish adapted to land, then grow wings to reach food, then TWO winged creatures EVOLVED and becamse what we know as chickens today.

Each time, their eggs also changed as they did, at one time it was primitave chicken a, then it evolved to primative chicken B, then C etc. Each time, it is a chicken, laying a chicken.

It’s just like how Chinese people have Chinese babies, African American people have African American Babies etc.

They are all humans, they have simply evolved differently to adapt to their environment.

It’s certainly not a result of a really black person having sex with a white person and creating a brown person.

Man, you guys REALLY need some science in your educational system!

The whole chicken and egg ‘brain teaser’ only stands up if you believe in creationism.

You said. . . . .

In reply to The answer is obvious:

[i]…..” Man, you guys REALLY need some science in your educational system! The whole chicken and egg ‘brain teaser’ only stands up if you believe in creationism. [/i]”

I’m shaking my head in disbelief that you could segue to what you said from what I said.

you are assuming

In reply to The answer is obvious:

the first rooster and hen came from an “egg”.

Perhaps they were not ovoviviparous?

Creationism

In reply to The answer is obvious:

If you don’t see the chicken and egg problem as being directly related to a disagreement between creationism and evolution, then it simply further instills my point about a lack of scientific education.

Admission: There has been no global warming since 1995

In reply to Heads you win, tails I lose – all based on a false premise

[i][b]Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995[/b]

The academic at the centre of the “Climategate” affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble “keeping track” of the information.

Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers. [/i] (Lost the relevant papers? Yea, right! Nice excuse for never had in the first place.)[i]

Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is “not as good as it should be”.

The data is crucial to the famous “hockey stick graph” used by climate change advocates to support the theory.[/i] (Which was discredited years ago.)[i]

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – [b]suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon[/b]………..[/i]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

I’ve never had to make such a u-turn. For years, I’ve been leading the charge claiming that the whole thing was bad science, bogus claims, lies and misrepresentations, a political agenda in search of justification, etc.

I’ve always said that the truth will eventually come out. And now it’s starting to.

The numbers of people riding on the respective bandwagons will be changing rapidly. But I maintain my position in the driver’s seat of mine.

The die-hards will continue to cling, but they’re sure to fall.

There is no admission, nor proof of anything. What complete garbage!

In reply to Admission: There has been no global warming since 1995

[i][b]Colleagues say[/b] that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that [b]he may[/b] have actually lost the relevant papers.[/i]

So when hounded by the media as to why he didn’t readily provide the papers, people who know him guessed that he may have misplaced them. It admits or proves nothing of fact, just that the media creates what it wants to portray.

Ex.
Joe truth spinner: “So why hasn’t he provided them? He said he’s lost them.”

Coworker: “Yeah, he’s pretty disorganized, he may have misplaced them, I suppose”

[i]Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is “not as good as it should be”.[/i]

This illustrates that those were the actual words of his colleagues, repeated to him as a question, just as I quoted in example above.

Certainly you understand reporting better than that.

[i]”Professor Jones also conceded the [b]possibility[/b]”[/i]

He’s a scientist, scientist by core nature are always open to possibility, he didn’t say he agreed or disagreed.

[i]”suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.”[/i]

It most certainly isn’t, and pretty much anyone will agree with that, so far nothing is proven or disproven in any way, shape or form.

Just nice little bits and bytes manipulated to create a sensational news article as always; great fodder for people, such as yourself, who gobble up anything that supports their preconceived notions.

[i]”that for the past 15 years there has been no “statistically significant” warming.”[/i] But he does agree the Earth is warming and that a 15 year sample is irrelevant. (later on anyway, after the reporter corrects himself)

‘Statistically significant’, were his words. Which would mean we not going to die tomorrow. The inevitability of “statistically significant” change is exactly what reduction of emissions is hoped to prolong.

Though warming has occurred, as proven in the loss of polar ice caps and reduction in ice floes in North Eastern Canada, endangering the polar bear. No hockey stick graph needed for that, its visual and easily measured and accurately recorded.

Ice doesn’t melt and reduce it’s presence unless it is warmed. Perhaps, you can research [b]’hot vs cold'[/b] to better understand such an intricate concept.

[i]”The admissions will be seized on by sceptics[/i] Yup they at least got that right, funny how they knew what they were creating before even printing it, sounds like a pretty clear objective to me. You bit that hook pretty quickly!

The accusations about his reasons for stepping down were due to skeptics CLAIMS that show SOME scientists were manipulating data.

Therefore, in your wee mind, ALL scientists manipulated data in their favour, ignoring that scientists SEEK to be proven wrong in their conclusions, that’s the basis for scientific discovery.

Your astute sense also assumes that nobody from the anti-global-warming camp has manipulated data to support their argument…ahem, as we see over and over again in this joke of an article.

[i][b]accused[/b] of scientific fraud for [b]allegedly deliberately[/b](LOL) suppressing information and refusing to [b]share vital data with critics.[/b][/i]

Allegedly, deliberatley suppressing. “We [i]think[/i] you did something on purpose!”

Vital DATA, is not proven fact until it is analyzed. I wouldn’t share such data with skeptics either, if that data is found to be flawed, even by Jones himself, it will be paraded in a report such as we see here, whether he himself would have supported it or not. Scientists don’t automatically accept all data they are given as being factual. They are usually the first ones to dissect it and find flaws, as is their ultimate goal, finding the facts and analyzing them.

And under what law is he obligated to do so anyway?

[i]”colleagues of Professor Jones who had told him that his strengths included integrity and doggedness but not record-keeping and office tidying.”[/i]

Which proves….? Yeah, nothing negative against him at all, it’s just column filler, they already said that and took it out of context to sensationalize their story. (seriously, how you don’t see such things amazes me. It jumps off the page like 3D print to me.) No wonder you buy into the political BS you are fed daily. You simply don’t know how to take in what you read.

[i]”said he still believed recent temperature rises were predominantly man-made.”[/i]

So they lied so blatantly early in the article, knowing people wouldn’t actually read past bold type and see that they later corrected their initially misleading statement themselves.

I see you omitted it in your race to say man didn’t ’cause’ global warming too. Clever! 😀 Ever thought about writing for the Enquirer or maybe scripting a few Jerry Springer episodes?

[i]but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not.[/i]

So he says there HAS been recent global warming, and details that the last 15 years are but a blip, in a cycle shown to have taken centuries or millenia over the Earth’s history. Again this was taken out of context early on and used to sensationalize the story and mislead the reader.

Your joy is based on some rubbish news piece that proves absolutely nothing at all in even the tiniest way. It’s very clever but very false in almost every paragraph.

He said the debate over warmer periods in Medievil times was also far from settled. However earlier in the article, they state that he agrees it was warmer in medievil times. Again they twisted his words to intone that without actually saying it, hell, you bought it. Even though they also rephrased it later on.

[i]Sceptics believe there is strong evidence that the world was warmer between about 800 and 1300 AD[/i]

[b]Sceptics believe[/b], but have no factual basis for such a theory or did they misplace their paperwork and that’s just fine?

I’m not even going to bother showing the gaping holes in the rest of their fabrications, this post is long enough already. Just the conflicts in their own story show it to be complete and utter rubbish.

Why would you bother to read, buy into and post such crap as facts or proof of ANYTHING, other than how the media spins a story out of nothing?

It sure speaks volumes about how well you research and understand the points of view you offer around here.

Warning to peers: take it all of Max’s posts with a grain of salt, this guy will believe anything he reads. LOL 😀

What a joker, you don’t REALLY take that BS seriously do you? Certainly your years have shown you how the media works.

It’s about as proven and factual as Jaws or E.T. Yes there are sharks in the ocean, yes it is most possible that we are not the only life form in the universe, beyond that they are just Hollywood movies, to sell tickets.

I can see how Joe Public would buy into such tripe, but I thought most people around here were a little beyond that level of incomprehension.

I laugh at you

In reply to There is no admission, nor proof of anything. What complete garbage!

.

Caught

In reply to I laugh at you

Stifling a chuckle, myself.

What’s your problem?

In reply to Caught

I get two different possible tones from your vague reply, 1) you are agreeing with the article or 2) you are agreeing that he got caught spewing a load of crap.

If #1)

It’s in black and white, truth spinning BS that even contradicts itself in the same page.

First he is said to deny global warming, then when the full comment is quoted, he is not denying it at all. He is said to agree that the Eath hasn’t been warming for the last 15 years. Later he is shown to suggest that 15 years is insignifiant in the GW scale. First they state that he wouldn’t release data as proof to skeptics, then they say how skeptics “suggest” but have no proof, that he is wrong. Just a tad two faced.

His coworkers STATE one thing, then later on and in full context they are merely GUESSING at it.

It’s full of gargantuan holes and hypocrisy, without a shred of fact to support it as it falls apart under its own words.

It does demonstrate why Americans are such an easily lead and fed marketplace though, and why The Enquirer is so popular there.

Or, 3)

In reply to What’s your problem?

Your tongue-lashing.

That would be #1

In reply to Or, 3)

The article was garbage and Max likes to post such rubbish in haste thinking nobody will read through it, as he didn’t seem to either.

That’s a compliment

In reply to I laugh at you

Your grasp of a news piece as taken out of context is abysmal. You simply can’t read words and use them to understand teh context of teh statement, that’s why press misleads people so easily. People just don’t know how to decipher what they read,

Even THE artcle contradicts the opening comments later by reiterating what was really said.

YOu can laugh all yuo like, but your are clearly the fool here. They use ACCUSE, and ASSUME, and POSSIBLE, and COULD BE so often it clearly shows the piece to be nothing more than a work of fiction based on nothing but bits of comment taken out of context.

When they later explain in detail, it casts a completely different picture.

If you can’t follow it, you are lost and it certainly explains where you get yoru radical conclusions from, either a complete lack of reading comprehension or a simple misunderstanding of the English language.

The article supported NOTHING that your post says it supports, nothing at all.

Remember to don the proper headgear

In reply to That’s a compliment

when going out… to protect yourself from falling dominoes.

I wear my helmet often!

In reply to Remember to don the proper headgear

Walking chewing gum is hard for us liberal leftist wingnut Democratic-speeling people.

Just ask the Rushheads. :^0

Headgear

In reply to Remember to don the proper headgear

I here I thought you’d be promoting headgear usage because the sky is falling!

🙂

It’s the grown-up version of

In reply to There is no admission, nor proof of anything. What complete garbage!

[i]Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers. [/i]

“The dog ate my homework.”

You call that grown up anything?

In reply to It’s the grown-up version of

Some hack writer was told he had until 7 AM to produce a piece, his research on the subject was a complete failure so he just took one comment and turned it into a page.

and the curious thing

In reply to There is no admission, nor proof of anything. What complete garbage!

[i]Warning to peers: take it all of Max’s posts with a grain of salt, this guy will believe anything he reads. LOL grin

What a joker, you don’t REALLY take that BS seriously do you? Certainly your years have shown you how the media works.
[/i]

is what most of the media [b]aren’t[/b] saying.

STay on track or don’t bother, Tony.

In reply to and the curious thing

I am referring to one piece, which represents exactly how someone can create a full blown, BS story in a pathetic attempt to gain some popularity amongst the public.

The fact that it’s just one piece that supports such a radical claim, which Max dug out like finding buried treasure, is the sad part.

Lindzen

In reply to STay on track or don’t bother, Tony.

even admits the global temperature average has warmed.

He just says it’s not mostly contributable to CO2 from anthropogenic sources.

He never denies it. 🙂

clearly

In reply to Lindzen

It’s just soem absolutely ridiculous junk that Max dug up to support his desires. nothing in it states anything that supports either the title, opening paragraphs or max’s post.

It’s just a bunch of headline text used to sensationalis a rather mundane article, proving nothing but a scientist with a messy office.

I’ve been in a few such offices at UBC and it makes me feel neat and tidy. In a stack like that, a 20 year old collection of data plus all other previous paperwork that has crossed his desk, it doesn’t phase me at all that such documents aren’t close at hand for quick reference when some whiner holds out his hand.

I’m sure he’s actually worked on other things in the last 20 years.

This article was just a waste of space with hardly a shred of fact to support it, besides a cluttered office.

Looking at anything in isolation

In reply to STay on track or don’t bother, Tony.

misses the bigger picture. Look at all the things that are “falling apart”. They ARE related!

The kings of the world are in a game of strip poker, and they’re all losing!

Oh well

In reply to Looking at anything in isolation

Glad to hear that you think you are more astute and in the know than all the world’s politicians and science community.

You and your political fear, LOL.

What the hell are you doing in iT?

I’m leaving IT

In reply to Oh well

the end of this month. Shortly after that I’ll be off the grid entirely with my 57 pounds of gold, so enjoy my musings while you still can.

Leaving IT

In reply to Oh well

Lucky you, Tony.

I’ll just be happy to leave the state I reside within, let alone my profession.

Ah well, who said you work 30 years and retire didn’t say lawnmowing and paper routers don’t count.

The Keys

In reply to Oh well

might, maybe, odds are long but still, survive in the event Yellowstone blows.

You might wanna think twice about that. 😐

Even more curious

In reply to and the curious thing

is why anyone would believe what the media says.

Either way.

it takes time

In reply to Even more curious

It takes time to research something and make up your own mind, people think they are too busy so they just pick their news flavour of choice and go with it.

It happens all the time here (TR), as I am sure you see also, people post such rubbish that is so easily dismissed and proven false, because they can’t be bothered to read through it to research it, whether climate change, politics, health care, education, new technology etc., we’ve seen it all.

To some people, having a single source for all life’s news seems sufficient to them.

Ditto that. (nt)

In reply to Even more curious

😐

There’s often a point

In reply to Even more curious

in a police interrogation where the suspect can no longer cover up his deception. Every day brings us closer to that point.

face it

In reply to There’s often a point

If you deny something, anything you see supporting it will also be deniable. Anything questioning will appear to be solid factual evidence, no matter how false it really is.

The same is true

In reply to face it

when you go into something with a pre-formed opinion. You ignore evidence to the contrary, and you resort to anything to defend your “conclusion”. That’s exactly what happened here.

not even close

In reply to face it

One part of accepting science is accepting changes too. I welcome information from any viewpoint, however when someone simply says, “no it isn’t,…because I don’t think it is”, it just doesn’t stand up against scientific proof.

The so called PROOF shown against GW doesn’t stand up against the slightest scrutiny at all. If scientists started to PROVE they were wrong, which any good scientist always seeks to do, then perhaps the antiGW debate would have a leg to stand on. People, simply attributing it to political posturing, have an ulterior motive to ofering proof, they simply have a political bias. As I don’t buy into any poltical BS, I have no such motive.

What scientific proof?

In reply to face it

There is not one single iota of proof that CO2 levels have a significant effect on the average temperature of the planet.

There IS plenty of evidence that when one rises, so does the other, but… correlation is not causation.

As I’ve said before. It has been warmer, with much lower CO2 levels.

The IPCC’s mission statement:

[i]”The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential and options for adaptation and mitigation.”[/i]

They have a pre-formed conclusion! That’s NOT science!

Their mission statement

In reply to face it

Sounds more like an edict to make an assessment of facts and data in regards to how to deal with climate change in the future, rather than to conclude that it exists without study.

Uh Uh

In reply to face it

[i]Sounds more like an edict to make an assessment of facts and data in regards to how to deal with climate change in the future, rather than to conclude that it exists without study. [/i]

you left out [u][b]human induced.[/b][/u]

That’s important, because without it, they have no leverage to “deal with” anything!

And once you’re assessing how to deal with it, you’ve already concluded that it exists. Anything done after that is to defend the conclusion.

Of course, I’m not sure what a railroad engineer/climate profiteer/soft-core porn writer should be doing differently 🙂

http://www.climategate.com/ipcc-chief-pachauri-do-as-i-say-not-as-i-do

Tony

In reply to face it

[i]”There IS plenty of evidence that when one rises, so does the other”[/i]

So if they have already proven that CO2 levels have increased, then, by your understanding of the facts, the temperature will increase proportionately.

In your reply to jck, you indicate that predicting events in the future is not something we can/should act upon now.

Fact is, if we wait until later, it is too late to have a subtantial impact on the situation. A stitch in time saves nine.

Do you ever listen to yourself?

NO!

In reply to face it

[i]So if they have already proven that CO2 levels have increased, then, by your understanding of the facts, the temperature will increase proportionately.[/i]

What part of “correlation is not causation” are you having trouble with?

If the relationship was direct and proportional, we’d already all be dead!

[i]In your reply to jck, you indicate that predicting events in the future is not something we can/should act upon now.[/i]

I do not believe the predictions are accurate (many of their predictions have already failed to materialize), so to act on them would be foolish.

[i]
Fact is, if we wait until later, it is too late to have a subtantial impact on the situation.[/i]

The fact is, that is no fact at all. It’s not been proven that there IS a “situation”.

Well, Tony

In reply to face it

Let’s look at this logically:

Due to ice cores taken at both poles with all over 400k years of pre-human evolutionary chemicals which can be analysed for information, I think we can safely say we can derive the natural planetary function back to when the only human incurred effects were the methane from their farts and the CO2 they breathed out. :^0

It’s the study of human caused elevations since industrial times that we are looking to evaluate.

And since CO2 is known to trap atmospheric thermal energy, it’s a pretty safe bet that with increased CO2 levels that are proven to have been rising out of the normal cycles of the past 100-120 years are going to cause global warming.

Tony you remind me of Peanut

In reply to face it

Jeff Dunwoody, is a ventriloquist with a purple, monkey like puppet, that whenever he tells Jeff something that he just doesn’t get he fans his wiso of hair to indicate that it flew over his head.

Your replies are so dense sometimes that it makes me just want to bang my head on a wall.

You really have no idea what you are saying. You suggest something is not proven, so I say it is best to err on the side of caution. You then reply that it is not because the end result is not proven. Zooooooom, right over the head again.

You are a great guy, I’m sure, but bloody frustrating to try and have a logical conversation with. 😀

You don’t only miss the point of what I am saying, you don’t even get what YOU are saying.

Too simplistic

In reply to There’s often a point

Both sides of the issue, don’t know. They believe.

It’s only percieved as a deception by those who believe the opposite.

You’d have as much luck getting ‘proof’ from Stumpy and Max on this issue, as you would from me and the pope on the existence of God.

Which one you believe is down to which belief you hold….

Don’t tell me it’s a scientific question, I’ll laugh my arse off. An outcome from an eco-political value systems quite possibly,

But’s that’s like justifiying the existance of Jesus, because he was God’s son….

Examine your assumptions and your motives. Choose who to support, review regularly, is all an objective person can do.

An objective person

In reply to Too simplistic

Does not make sausage alike of climate and God.

Climate, though widespread, is easily and grammatically separable from existence, the two served on separate plates.

The existence [i]of[/i] God, they may not.

You and the Pope — now, there’s a pairing.

One difference in GW/CC vs God

In reply to Too simplistic

You can measure temperature, CO2, methane, ocean levels, etc.

You can’t measure God.

Life’s old quip

In reply to Too simplistic

Err on the side of caution.

Is

In reply to Too simplistic

a (subjective) person capable of objectivity?

“Dust unto dust”

In reply to Too simplistic

Screw the ellipsis.

Hmm, do I believe in climate?

In reply to Too simplistic

Perhaps a bit of a rethink required on your part.

Any position on climate change just like any position on god is onbe based on faith, we are not capabale of proving or disroving the contention of their existance.

Faith is acceptance of fact without proof.

I can measure the number of faithful

In reply to Too simplistic

how many churches, how rich they are etc.

Statistics…

And anyone true to science

In reply to Admission: There has been no global warming since 1995

will admit for ANY science to have ANY validity, the data has to be available and repeatable.

Watch for Profits making a profit and you will quickly see the truth.

I’ve been watching

In reply to And anyone true to science

Valero, BP, Halliburton, Exxon-Mobil and other international petroleum conglomerates have been making sky rocketing profits off the policy standards set by the previous administration in not requiring them to conform to the environmental standards that other modern, industrialized nations are pursuing under the Kyoto Accord and other adopted policies.

All this, despite the previous administration and private industry having [b][u]no proof to back their claim that increased use of fossil fuels by people does not cause increased average global temperatures[/u][/b].

So:

A) You criticize scientists who are proponents of global warming due to the [b]fact[/b] that CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere and that concentrations are at all-time records since the industrial age began.

B) You support the statements of scientists who are against global warming as a [b]belief[/b].

Where are your [b]facts[/b] from the antagonists that [b]validate[/b] your stance with [b]data[/b]?

Thanks. 🙂

Please show me

In reply to I’ve been watching

[i][u][b]increased use of fossil fuels by people does not cause increased average global temperatures.[/b][/u][/i]

who has made that claim.

Who made the claim

In reply to Please show me

In 2004:

a) the Republican party
b) Bush’s own administration/re-election team
c) those tied to petroleum entities such as Exxon-Mobil

Need the press info? here…

Quote:

[i]George W. Bush’s campaign workers have hit on an age-old political tactic to deal with the tricky subject of global warming – deny, and deny aggressively.

The Observer has obtained a remarkable email sent to the press secretaries of all Republican congressmen advising them what to say when questioned on the environment in the run-up to November’s election. The advice: tell them everything’s rosy.

[b]It tells them how global warming has not been proved, air quality is ‘getting better’, the world’s forests are ‘spreading, not deadening’, oil reserves are ‘increasing, not decreasing’, and the ‘world’s water is cleaner and reaching more people’.[/b]

The email – sent on 4 February – warns that Democrats will ‘hit us hard’ on the environment. ‘In an effort to help your members fight back, as well as be aggressive on the issue, we have prepared the following set of talking points on where the environment really stands today,’ it states.

The memo – headed ‘From medi-scare to air-scare’ – goes on: ‘From the heated debate on global warming to the hot air on forests; from the muddled talk on our nation’s waters to the convolution on air pollution, we are fighting a battle of fact against fiction on the environment – [b]Republicans can’t stress enough that extremists are screaming “Doomsday!” when the environment is actually seeing a new and better day.'[/b]

Among the memo’s assertions are ‘global warming is not a fact’, ‘links between air quality and asthma in children remain cloudy’, and the US Environment Protection Agency is exaggerating when it says that at least 40 per cent of streams, rivers and lakes are too polluted for drinking, fishing or swimming.

[b]It gives a list of alleged facts taken from contentious sources. For instance, to back its claim that air quality is improving it cites a report from Pacific Research Institute – an organisation that has received $130,000 from Exxon Mobil since 1998.[/b]

The memo also lifts details from the controversial book The Skeptical Environmentalist by Bjorn Lomborg. On the Republicans’ claims that deforestation is not a problem, it states: ‘About a third of the world is still covered with forests, a level not changed much since World War II. The world’s demand for paper can be permanently satisfied by the growth of trees in just five per cent of the world’s forests.’

[b]The memo’s main source for the denial of global warming is Richard Lindzen, a climate-sceptic scientist who has consistently taken money from the fossil fuel industry. His opinion differs substantially from most climate scientists, who say that climate change is happening.[/b]

But probably the most influential voice behind the memo is Frank Luntz, a Republican Party strategist. In a leaked 2002 memo, Luntz said: ‘The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science.’

Luntz has been roundly criticised in Europe. Last month Tony Blair’s chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, attacked him for being too close to Exxon.

Rob Gueterbock of Greenpeace condemned the messages given in the Republican email. He said: ‘Bush’s spin doctors have been taking their brief from dodgy scientists with an Alice in Wonderland view of the world’s environment. They want us to think the air is getting cleaner and that global warming is a myth. This memo shows it is Exxon Mobil driving US policy, when it should be sound science.’

The memo has met some resistance from Republican moderates.

Republican Mike Castle, who heads a group of 69 moderate House members, senators and governors, says the strategy doesn’t address the fact that pollution continues to be a health threat. ‘If I tried to follow these talking points at a town hall meeting with my constituents, I’d be booed.’

Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords, who left the Republican Party in 2001 to become an independent partly over its anti-green agenda, called the memo ‘outlandish’ and an attempt to deceive voters.

‘They have a head-in-the-sand approach to it. They’re just sloughing off the human health impacts – the premature deaths and asthma attacks caused by power plant pollution,’ Jeffords said.

Republican House Conference director Greg Cist, who sent the email, said: ‘It’s up to our members if they want to use it or not. We’re not stuffing it down their throats.’

He said the memo was spurred by concerns that environmental groups were using myths to try to make the Republicans look bad.

‘We wanted to show how the environment has been improving,’ Cist said. ‘We wanted to provide the other side of the story.'[/i]

– Antony Barnett, The Observer, 4 April 2004

Facts are:

– the Republican party and the Bush administration/campaign tried to deceive America on the topic
– the Republican party and the Bush administration/campaign tried to lead people to believing that [b]proven CO2 level increases[/b] have not caused global warming.
– Bush administration/campaign personnel and Republican party personnel backed and forwarded these deceptions as truth.

So, there you go.

Happy now?

P.S. – In case you think the Bush administration had no scientific data to show their/the Republican party’s assertion to be wrong:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/

The NOAA has been showing it for years that CO2 has been building in the atmosphere.

Stating that something is “not proven”

In reply to Who made the claim

is not the same thing as stating that it was “proven not”.

When someone tells me

In reply to Stating that something is “not proven”

the atmosphere is “better”, yet the increases in pollutants are documented gone up in all but one case (the CFC for which legislation forced reductions), I tend not to believe the party/people who would mislead/lie/truth-stretch to me that way.

Whether not proven or proven not, their deceptive nature was are proven.

Hence why someone as goofy as Al Gore can be is given more creedence for a glamorized presentation of facts from scientific sources, than those from the opposite side who’d tell you
“believe us…it’s not true”.

In the end though, right now I am for a major ouster of most incumbents from their seats in Congress, especially the US Senate who has been nothing but a bed of political wrangling instead of getting America fixed now for a year.

And I mean that for both sides of the aisle.

Enough politics. Fix America.

Things I need to be reminded of.

In reply to Stating that something is “not proven”

(Note to self.)

Gore

In reply to Stating that something is “not proven”

[i]Hence why someone as goofy as Al Gore can be is given more creedence for a glamorized presentation of facts from scientific sources,[/i]

Actually some of the material he used was PROVEN inaccurate. Data that pointed away from the “conclusion” he was trying to portray was intentionally “adjusted” or omitted entirely. And the VERY SAME PEOPLE were involved in creating THAT deception are involved in the current controversy.

There should never be a reason to hide data that doesn’t point to what you want it to point to. That confers a passion on science that simply should not exist.

Er…

In reply to Stating that something is “not proven”

Show me where it was “not proven”…and, I don’t mean just because other scientists said so. I would like the contrary data/studies.

I know that the chart he showed from the CO2 research that one professor did was from the 1950s when the research began to 2000-whatever (2005?).

That’s a pretty complete timeline. Not like he left out years.

Of course, I fell asleep during that show…twice. It was all repeat to me. And, Planet Green TV tends to show it late at night when I finally am tired. :^0

Wrong again JCK, go stand in the corner…….

In reply to I’ve been watching

Your statement is equal to me demanding non-believers PROVE their is no God.

The burden rests entirely on the people bringing the case before the world, and everywhere we look, they have failed miserably.

The hottest year was 15 years ago? The world naturally warms and cools. Always has, always will.

If the claim that CO2 = increased temp, the world would be continuing to warm at a faster rate, which has not happened. CO2 continues to rise but the temps are not rising? Or are you not honest enough to admit such a thing?

Think maybe deforestation has more of an impact than anything else? Instead of declaring war on companies, lets declare war on deforestation.

Ah yes…the environmental expert chimes in…

In reply to Wrong again JCK, go stand in the corner…….

[i] Wrong again JCK, go stand in the corner…….[/i]

No thanks. I’m sitting in my office chair 🙂

[i] Your statement is equal to me demanding non-believers PROVE their is no God.[/i]

Well if you want me to believe YOU and that it doesn’t exist…then prove it to me.

Science has already proven that CO2’s thermal retention within the Earth’s atmosphere.

Therefore, greater CO2 concentration in the atmosphere means greater heat retention.

It’s simple science that they teach kids.

Now, can you prove otherwise?

Please do so, if you can.

[i]The burden rests entirely on the people bringing the case before the world, and everywhere we look, they have failed miserably.[/i]

Wrong. If YOU want ME to believe YOUR side that says “CO2 is not causing global warming”, YOU have to provide me PROOF.

Science has provided me with scientific data showing CO2 retains heat in the atmosphere, and that increasing that level of CO2 increases the amount of heat retained.

Again, simple science. If you can conclusively prove otherwise and show irrefutable proof that CO2 does NOT retain heat, then you can get me to say I’m wrong.

[i]The hottest year was 15 years ago? The world naturally warms and cools. Always has, always will.[/i]

The hottest year on record [b]globally averaged on record[/b] was 2005…not 1995.

True. The earth has cycles. One of them is El Nino. That’s part of the reason there has been some cooling the past few years.

[i]”There’s substantial year-to-year variability of global temperature caused by the tropical El Ni?o-La Ni?a cycle. But when we average temperature over five or ten years to minimize that variability, we find that global warming is continuing unabated.”[/i]
-James Hansen, director of the NASA – Goddard Institute for Space Studies

But if you look at temperature alone compared to CO2, you’re ignoring other greenhouse gas concentrations that have diminished greatly over the past 600k-800k years ago which made the planet more suitable for mammalian lifeforms vs the warmer, moister planet that was here previously.

[i]If the claim that CO2 = increased temp, the world would be continuing to warm at a faster rate, which has not happened.[/i]

Funny. The statistics show that global temperature is up.

Now, keep those cycles in mind you claim to be so prevalent.

The hottest year on record: 2005
2nd hottest year on record: 2009

[i] CO2 continues to rise but the temps are not rising? Or are you not honest enough to admit such a thing?[/i]

The temperature is rising still on global average.

Remember those cycles you mentioned? El Nino-La Nina. cause periodic coolings. The temps are going back up again.

[i] Think maybe deforestation has more of an impact than anything else? Instead of declaring war on companies, lets declare war on deforestation.[/i]

I’ve suggested that too.

But, here’s some more elementary science for you: All those plants they have already cut down (some 20% of the Amazon greenery already) eats that CO2. Oops!

But, some people (including some of your TR cohorts here) eat that McDonalds burger that is from cattle raised and butchered and shipped from…The Amazon…where they are stripping the land for farming cattle because it pays better than farming trees or fruit.

Yay fatness! :^0

caravans for sale

In reply to Heads you win, tails I lose – all based on a false premise

The above thought is smart and doesn?t require any further addition. It?s perfect thought from my side.
****
sam
caravans for sale

Smart for a tool.

In reply to caravans for sale

Sell your caravan at “cravanmarket” 😀

Obviously whoever made that site has no idea of who AdPerfect is.

More embarrassments for the U.N. and ‘settled’ science

In reply to Heads you win, tails I lose – all based on a false premise

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703630404575053781465774008.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion

You invite

In reply to More embarrassments for the U.N. and ‘settled’ science

Another tongue-lashing.

And your point is?

In reply to You invite

?

Edit:

Or you confuse me for someone who cares.

Like I’ve said in previous messages, the politics of personal destruction is alive and well at the TR water cooler. When one can’t debate the issue, then the standard tactic it to attack the person.

Edit 2:

Gee, I just did it again, didn’t I?

My point being

In reply to And your point is?

That your earlier link to events brought Oz out of his corner with almost apoplectic malignity.

If there is a link

In reply to My point being

And Max posts it, Oz isn’t far behind.

Some things never change. I find this oddly comforting.

:) (nt)

In reply to If there is a link

.

I’m used to calling him on his BS

In reply to If there is a link

I have supported Max many times when he offers actual facts on a subject.

However in his quest to be a hack journalist/troll, posting spew from the most ridiculous sources and hoping nobody actually investigates his claims, I can’t help but laugh and post reality to balance the scales.

Now there’s a long sentence!

Facts that you won’t acknowledge

In reply to I’m used to calling him on his BS

[b]Fact One:[/b]
There never were any real [i]facts[/i] to conclusively [/i]prove[/i] the notion of mm gw/cc, only assertions to suggest a theory (none of which have been fully provided for peer review), all based on incomplete and/or flawed computer models, and all to support twenty-plus years of predictions – none of which have come true.

[b]Fact Two:[/b]
And today, we see the global warming house of cards falling down all around us. None of it has – or ever will – stand up under even the slightest bit of scrutiny.

[b]Fact Three[/b]
The real [i]deniers[/i] are the ones who continue clinging onto the notion of mm gw/cc.

I’ve said it for years, and I say it today. The notion of mm gw/cc is arguably the biggest lie in the history of the world.

By the way, Oz, I never thought you were a mm gw/cc extremist/zealot. I always thought you were a [i]just in case[/i] kinda’ guy. And now that their arguments are falling apart all around us, you decide to jump on the bandwagon. Interesting. You must get thrills from riding bandwagons off of cliffs.

Try getting it right, for once at least

In reply to I’m used to calling him on his BS

[b]FACT 1:[/b] There are absolutely NO facts to the contrary of scientific conclusions. Just more theories. I’ll accept scientific conclusions until proven false or until FACTS appear to tha contrary, as you say “just in case”.

[b]Fact 2:[/b]Is not a fact at all. GW stands up against a lot of scientific scrutiny, if it didn’t we wouldn’t be havign this debate. You simply deny sciencific theory being a result of fact based conclusions. Climate change is an undeniable fact, as is the increase of CO2 during such climate changes. To deny the Earth’s cycle of warming and cooling simply demonstrates a lack of education. Your dismissal that ‘man didn’t make it happen’, results in your disbelief of the entire Earth cycle. Just like the BS articles you keep posting, you need to learn how to determine fact from fictional/sensationalized press.

[b]FACT 3[/b] Is also not a fact at all, it is simply your personal disbelief. Are you now suggestin gthat if you don’t believe then it is a fact? YOu believe in religion don’t you? Well you play on the side of safe anyway, meaning that you accept faith as much as history and facts anyway.

” The notion of mm gw/cc is arguably the biggest lie in the history of the world.”

Your belief as to what is lies vs what is truth is irrelevant to this part of the thread.

You state your beliefs as if they are facts, though with no proof whatsoever. What you consider proof is just some ridiculous news piece that even contradicts it’s own false opening comments. Your PROOF had mroe holes than a seive.

[i]”By the way, Oz, I never thought you were a mm gw/cc extremist/zealot.”[/i]
You are right, I am not a zealot at all. My dismissal of contradictors bullshlt doesn’t make me an extremist or zealot.

My views are not extrame, your support for utter rubbish certainly is though.
I am also neither Jewish nor am I fnatically comitted. Like a scientist, I welcome proof either way.

Unlike yourself, I don’t dismiss globally shared and factually supportd scientific conclusions, to support absolute BS that works in my favour.

Nothing at all is fallign apart all around me. GW isw only a real issue of debate in the USA. Most nations, with an acceptable scientific culture and history agree, it’s just the handful of others, such as the still faith based USA, who won’t wake up and do something about it. You feel it is political. God didn’t tell you to believe in politics, so it must be wrong.

I’m not on anyone’s bandwagon. I simply recognize that science proves the Earth is warming and cooling, that CO2 is a huge issue behind such patterns and thay we emit CO2 and thousands of other gases into the atmosphere in immense amounts.

Yourself you feel man didn’t cause it so it isn’t happening, and then post some insanely stupid article, offering proof of NOTHING, as your proof.

You sir are on a bandwagon, not I.

No, you try to get it right

In reply to I’m used to calling him on his BS

By your own admission (albeit many years past), you were (and still are?) a political novice when you first started to reply to my messages. By you own admission (albeit many years past), your motivation was (and still is?) nothing more than a lame attempt at stirring the pot.

YOU try getting things right, Oz; then – and only then – are you worthy of being taken seriously. Until then ……… you fall somewhere between a joke and a legend in your own mind.

Now what are you moaning about?

In reply to I’m used to calling him on his BS

That many years ago I had little or no interest in US politics?

You also failed to recignize that (over the years) I have been urged (by yourself)to learn more about US politics in order to prove your attempts at political mudslinging as BS, which I did. Note, more specifically, the US’s view of global politics, I don’t give a crap what happens with your internal issues.

As it sits now, when we discuss recent politics, I am as well versed as anyone and in many cases, moreso than a lot of people here. Now that’s a scary reality!

While you are more focused on personal attacks than proving your false claims correct:
Regardless of the fact that politics is irrelevant in the debate of scientific facts, you have a constant habit of posting BS articles and online blogs, that are full of holes and can be easily seen through… well, for most people here anyway.

When you post something, it is usually only a headline or opening paragraph that supports your desired conclusion, beyond that it falls flat on its face.

It’s either a failure by yourself to understand the material you present or you assume that people are too ignorant to read through it and see the holes themselves.

You can’t possibly hope to convince anyone that the reason for this entire thread was not based on a contradictory and unsupported BS news piece that you grabbed and posted just to “stir the pot”.

As for stirring the pot, yes, in many cases I do like to play and have fun in the political arena, mainly because Americans are so politically defensive and get personally upset over their political preference being challenged. Note that it is something that merely exists in the US, in other nations people are happy to agree to that fact that their politicians are all clowns and completely screwed in the head.

I don’t often defend a Canadian or British politician, if I can think of doing it once at all. I concede, NO politician is worth their time in office, I don’t think they are correct, they make horrendous decisions at the cost of the citizens whether for or against their party.

Politicians are a joke, Bush, Obama, Clinton, Regan, Harper, Cretien, Blaire, Howard et al. They are crooks and not worth the time nor effort defending.

I simply don’t accept it when someone stands behind a politician and makes excuses their constant f-ups, as you did for 8 years of Bush. And yes they were many concocted lies, not simple misunderstandings due to misinformation.

Now if yuo want to try and show some FACT in the article you posted that started this thread, or even begin to discount the gaping holes i pointed out in it, please do so.

Besides focusing on the BS you started this thread on, which you take great defense to, you have no leg to stand on.

I proved your excitement was due to a news piece that was full of contradicting crap, just in the way it was written. and you are yet to show otherwise.

So get off your high horse and support your statement that this article proves GW is “based on a false premise.”

The article PROVES nothing of the sort, that’s just your sensastional headline created merely for the sake of “stirring the pot.”

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

[i]”YOU try getting things right, (Max); then – and only then – are you worthy of being taken seriously. “[/i]

All those words, yet. . . . .

In reply to I’m used to calling him on his BS

…. you said nothing of substance.

Try again.

Aww

In reply to I’m used to calling him on his BS

That addition was sweet.

Truth hurts does it?

In reply to I’m used to calling him on his BS

The burden is not mine any longer, you have no recourse, you failed and it’s proven in your posts over and over again for everyone to see.

[b]FACT IS:[/b] I pointed out the obvious flaws in your “news” and you simply can’t offer a single shred of proof to support your joke of a thread. That upsets you as your credibility was trampled on for all your ‘peers’ to read, no matter what you think of me or what titles you use in your posts, you can’t change the simple fact that you were proven wrong.

Your only recourse has been to flame me, to suggest I don’t understand politics which, whether right or wrong, is completely irrelevant.

You failed and it’s clear, there’s nothing you can do to change that.

Now you can/will continue to post your little comments and catchy titles, in hopes nobody has followed your inability to support your comments, but I’ve had enough of your constant hypocrisy.

If you feel otherwise, I challenge you to prove me wrong and your ‘story’ correct.

You won’t though, as you simply failed again and can’t prove otherwise.

Some idiots may buy what you consider “proof”, anyone with a second brain cell won’t, end of story.

There is no such thing

In reply to I’m used to calling him on his BS

[i]There are absolutely NO facts to the contrary of scientific conclusions.[/i]

as a scientific conclusion. Just ask Ptolemy.

that’s a bit difficult

In reply to I’m used to calling him on his BS

as Ptolemy has been dead over 18 centuries. 😉

that;s just not right Tony

In reply to I’m used to calling him on his BS

Science is an art of reaching conclusions based on fact finding.

“According to Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, the definition of science is “knowledge attained through study or practice,” or “knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world.”

What does that really mean? Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge. This system uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena. The term science also refers to the organized body of knowledge people have gained using that system. Less formally, the word science often describes any systematic field of study or the knowledge gained from it.

What is the purpose of science? Perhaps the most general description is that the purpose of science is to produce useful models of reality.

Most scientific investigations use some form of the scientific method. You can find out more about the scientific method here.

Science as defined above is sometimes called pure science to differentiate it from applied science, which is the application of research to human needs. Fields of science are commonly classified along two major lines:
– Natural sciences, the study of the natural world, and
– Social sciences, the systematic study of human behavior and society. “

What I’m saying

In reply to I’m used to calling him on his BS

is that many “conclusions” throughout history have been found to be premature. It’s starting to appear that this one is one of them.

You then,

In reply to I’m used to calling him on his BS

are the Universal Mind?

[i]There are absolutely NO facts to the contrary of scientific conclusions.[/i]

Tony

In reply to I’m used to calling him on his BS

With a cycle said to take thousands of years, should we wait and leave it for our future generations to prove when they can’t do anything to have a positive enough effect? That’s the whole immedicay issue behind the sceince of climate change, it is already not reversible or preventable, but unless we make changes, there may be no hope for ANY positive effect later on.

However, we’ll all be dead and gone by then so who cares, it’s a problem for future generations? As long as it doesn’t effect my life, it is irrelevant?

Boxy

In reply to I’m used to calling him on his BS

Have you been hanging out with santee or something?

Your brief comments are not exactly pithy wit demonsrtrating intelligence. Just that you are someone with nothing to say but offering a peanut gallery comment.

I can’t speak for another

In reply to I’m used to calling him on his BS

I can say, for myself, that I log your every word, every pause, every punctuation point, for dimensional analysis.

Nor, am I anyone else. I take you at your word.

Flattery

In reply to I’m used to calling him on his BS

in a universe of magnitude as is ours, is as meaningless as any ‘facts’ we think we ‘know’.

Yet the source is an uncredited opinion piece :-)

In reply to More embarrassments for the U.N. and ‘settled’ science

Even then the main thrust is that a few loose cannons made headlines and now

quote- But there’s no doubt that climategate has spurred at least some reporters to scrutinize the IPCC’s headline-grabbing claims in a way they had rarely done previously. -end quote

Ok major revelation – not.

LOL

In reply to Yet the source is an uncredited opinion piece :-)

“Has spurred some reporters to scrutinize…”

Uh, yeah, they get paid to do just that. So reporters are now deemed fact finding scientists and the word of truth?

Man, what a waste.

It all boils down to…

In reply to LOL

the fact that people critical of global warming/climate change say that there is no proof that it is occurring (even tho the CO2 levels have been elevating for 100+ years and the average surface/sea temps have risen during that time).

However, they give no definitive proof that the conclusions, research, readings and studies are wrong.

They would ask pro-theory for proof.

They would ask for anti-theory for speculation.

Bias. Pure and simple.

Exactly right

In reply to It all boils down to…

Those against demand proof, however are unable to offer contradictory proof to support their disbelief. Any proof that is provided is then dismissed as heresay, just as their unsupported argument.

It is almost like a Schrodinger debate. 😀

Here kitty kitty kitty …

In reply to Exactly right

:^0

Leave my cat

In reply to Here kitty kitty kitty …

out of this. She doesn’t like company. 😐

I wasn’t gonna mess with your kitty

In reply to Here kitty kitty kitty …

I am saving that for someone else’s :^0

Oh dear…I feel a bit…swillish. ]:)

Jst don’t forget the duct tape

In reply to Here kitty kitty kitty …

They make a hell of a mess if they go ‘pop’.

I won’t need any duct tape

In reply to Here kitty kitty kitty …

Nuff said. I don’t feel swillish right now. :^0

One comfort in your post

In reply to Here kitty kitty kitty …

So many people say DUCK tape as opposed to duct (me and my peeves again).

..even though there is now a brand of low quality, utility tape made from fibre reinforced PolyPro, that is branded DUCK tape.

Oh and it is comforting also to know you won’t be ‘popping’ the cat in the near future too. 😀

Ahh, what a thread of nonsense this has become.

The nartural condition of the earth

In reply to Exactly right

is to be “just fine”.

It is the burden of those who think it’s not “just fine” to prove it to a fairly high probability. I liken it to “beyond a reasonable doubt”.

To put the burden of proof on those who think the earth is “just fine” is equivalent to a defendant having to prove he didn’t commit a crime.

Proving a crime

In reply to The nartural condition of the earth

Requires evidence.

NOAA has evidence that dates back 400k+ years, that up until the industrial age there was a standard norm for how the Earth’s atmosphere, ecology, climatology, etc., behaved., which even [b]predated[/b] homo sapiens.

However in the past 100 years or so, there have been two things occurred that are the most likely causes for the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, which are:

1) An increase of approximately 3 times the people walking on the face of the Earth

2) Industrialization of approximately 80 percent of the world population.

Since those two things started, the CO2 levels in the atmosphere have climbed above anything in the data that science has retrieved from ice core sampling, gas analysis, etc.

We, as a race, are guilty of taking the planet from “just fine” (which is its natural state) to “polluted”.

So, want proof we are unnaturally putting contaminants in the air?

When you drive your car, does it put more CO2 and other pollutants than if you just rode a bicycle and didn’t burn fuel?

Yes, it is just that simple.

Guilty.

To alleviate those who would commit an act of selfishness from their responsibility to mankind and their planet is to let the killer walk away with the smoking gun.

😉

Isn’t it 800K though?

In reply to The nartural condition of the earth

I thought that the most recent core illustrated an 800K year history.

but Tony will just quickly dismiss it due to Smarties not all being the same colour anyway.

I am well aware

In reply to The nartural condition of the earth

that CO2 is the highest level in the last 800k years.

That is actually evidence that CO2 is NOT a major contributor to global warming, [u]since those very same records show the earth has been warmer with lower levels of CO2.[/u]

You guys keep pushing that CO2 straw man though. The result will be the near total alienation of science, and then when they really DO see something, nobody will listen.

Remember “The Little Boy Who Cried ‘Wolf'”.

LOL ” CO2 is the highest level in the last 800k years”

In reply to The nartural condition of the earth

LOL, that’s not wat was said at all. The 800K years was simply a correction on the age of the ice core samples.

The whole CO2 straw man argument was devised by the ANTI-GW crowd. 😀

That is teh one miniscule tidbit of data that was taken well out of proportion and dismissed as proof the GW wasn’t occuring. GW scientists don’t propose that CO2 is directly the cause for GW, if youd get up to speed onteh subject you wouldn’t post such laughable comments that are so off base, in this case, an absolute opposite of the real debate.

Jeepers, how damn lost can you get on this subject? You’ve already proven you don’t have a clue what your on about, now you don’t even know what the topics of debate are? I posted a link for you, suggesting you wouldn’t read it, that explains all this and how the naysayers hang onto the CO2 straw man argument.
This proves that, as predicted, you didn’t read it and again are proving it with clueless posts due to your lack of knowledge on the subject.

Even “The Donald” knows. . . . . .

In reply to Heads you win, tails I lose – all based on a false premise

….. that Al Gore is a liar and a fraud – the equivalent of an environmental comb-over; he tries to make something look like it’s there, but it’s not really there.

http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/global_cooling_7njz5ZtpFblMuF5Vf7LJmN

Geez, that wasn’t worth the click

In reply to Even “The Donald” knows. . . . . .

Unusual weather is a part of climate change.
The nations listed are exploring ways to minimize.
This was just Donald (in his ignorance) drawing a laugh (from his gof club cronies, no less). Here is the whole article.

Donald Trump is not a big believer in global warming. “With the coldest winter ever recorded, with snow setting record levels up and down the coast, the Nobel committee should take the Nobel Prize back from Al Gore,” the tycoon told members of his Trump National Golf Club in Westchester in a recent speech. “Gore wants us to clean up our factories and plants in order to protect us from global warming, when China and other countries couldn’t care less. It would make us totally noncompetitive in the manufacturing world, and China, Japan and India are laughing at America’s stupidity.” The crowd of 500 stood up and cheered.

This coming from the man…

In reply to Even “The Donald” knows. . . . . .

who lets investors take the financial brunt of his bad deals, while he protects his personal wealth behind bankruptcy law and avoids paying his debts in a timely manner and under terms of the loan agreement.

e.g.-

Trump Taj Mahal
Trump Towers – Chicago
Trump Towers – Tampa

Talk about a liar and a fraud. Promises the world to everyone who’ll put faith in him, and then half the time loses money for them.

There’s a guy I’d trust to be fair and honest.

He’s also the guy that said:

[b]”Show me someone without an ego, and I’ll show you a loser.”[/b]
Donald Trump, [i]How to Get Rich[/i]

Okay, Donald…how about:

Jesus Christ

What a loser, huh?

His failures surpass his successes

In reply to This coming from the man…

Fortunately for him, one success makes him millions.
He’s the first one to admit the billions he’s lost and how many times he’s had to rely on others to help him stay afloat.

“Okay, but give me another chance anyway”
Should be his corporate slogan.

yeah

In reply to His failures surpass his successes

His father was the real business success story.

“The Donald” is really nothing more than a bad speculative investor.

If he was a financial advisor, he’d have been working at Burger King long ago.

Geesh – can’t you recognize . . . . .

In reply to This coming from the man…

…. what was intended to be a joke? Trump was a good set-up for my [i]environmental comb-over[/i] line.

yes…I saw it…

In reply to Geesh – can’t you recognize . . . . .

I thought about throw in an “Ivana” play on words, but that seemed like a bit much :^0

Wow, we stepped back into the year 2000!

In reply to Even “The Donald” knows. . . . . .

Who teh hell cares what Donald says, he’s not a scientist in any way shape or form. You may as well say, even Donald Duck thinks so.

And why are you still arguing what some extremist tool, Gore, known by the global population to be a complete fool, had to say?

Real GW scientists don’t support Gore or Trump, h=one’s a politician the other an entrepreneur, neither isn a scientist, who gives a rat’s arse what they say or think.

Their rantings are about as qualified and credible as your own.

Your arguments are so out of date on this suhject, I often wonder why you bother to regurgitate such rubbish and refuse to ignore proven science for the sake of political posturing.

You may as well be arguing that the world isn’t flat.

The one thing I can say for Gore

In reply to Wow, we stepped back into the year 2000!

At least he quoted research by scientists.

Donald just quotes himself.

the same applies

In reply to Wow, we stepped back into the year 2000!

http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=325646&messageID=3246126

A tip

In reply to the same applies

seeing as your humour seems to pass by people too easily, and I usually pick up on dry wit, perhaps you should add smiley faces of comments that you are joking. Otherwise I feel it is lost as easy as online sarcasm.

I’m more inclined to trust the scientists

In reply to Heads you win, tails I lose – all based on a false premise

Although there are climatologists and geologists, all with PhDs, who would say otherwise (and get a lot of publicity for saying so), the great bulk of scientists in the field agree that (1) it’s possible for human activity to affect climate, and (2) it probably already has. There’s not a big debate about these two principles.

Although I’m skeptical of a lot of warming assertions, because this is an emerging field with a lot of unsettled doctrine, the scientists are way more likely to know what’s going on than the average citizen, be that Sarah Palin, Mitch McConnell, Glenn Beck, or Pat Robertson. My confidence is with the nerds on this one.

Too true

In reply to I’m more inclined to trust the scientists

As I said before, it’s like erring on teh side of caution.

I don’t go to a proctologist for an ear infection either…though it could be kinda interesting…nah, maybe not.

I’m also more inclined to trust the scientists

In reply to I’m more inclined to trust the scientists

I, however, am inclined to bellieve these and their ilk:

http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=325646&messageID=3242466&tag=content;leftCol

They have less to gain and less to hide – and make much more sense.

I, too, am skeptical of a lot of warming assertions, because this is an emerging field with a lot of unsettled doctrine, the scientists are way more likely to know what’s going on than the average citizen, be that Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Ed Shultz, Randi Rhodes, et al. My confidence is also with the nerds on this one – just different nerds.

Sources

In reply to I’m also more inclined to trust the scientists

Just like politics, one’s choices of the unqualified are not considered when more qualified sources are available. Like I said earlier, you would’t go to a proctologist for an ear infection, even though an ENT specialist and a proctologist are both doctors with a PHD.

As for agenda, wouldn’t youthink that, if you were a climatologist an actually found PROOF either way, that you would hapily offer it and make a global name for yourself. There would have to be a nobel peace prize in proving it either way.

So really there’s no agenda in such a community. They aren’t out for votes or public support, they are out to prove theory, no matter where it falls. Either way, they become renowned in their field and woud receive greater funding and credibility as a result.

Maybe a nice source to center from

In reply to I’m also more inclined to trust the scientists

Just found the site below. Initially it appears to be an information center for both the pro and con viewpoints.
I especially like the categories on the left side of their page, tons of reading.

http://climatedebatedaily.com/

The question is,

In reply to I’m more inclined to trust the scientists

[i](1) it’s possible for human activity to affect climate, and (2) it probably already has. There’s not a big debate about these two principles.
[/i]

how, and how significantly?

If CO2 is how we’re doing it, we’re not affecting it very much, since it has been warmer with much lower (280 ppm) levels. (I think we’re just over 380 now.)

Greenpeace Leader Admits Arctic Ice Exaggeration

In reply to Heads you win, tails I lose – all based on a false premise

Wow

In reply to Greenpeace Leader Admits Arctic Ice Exaggeration

Greenpeace do something radical?

What a shock.

Since you like youtube, here:

Some more fun

In reply to Wow

From what I read, from people comfusing Antacrtica with the Acrtic Cirlcle, we simple need to find a way to rotate the Earth, vertically, 180 degrees and we should be good to go. Then the cold south will once again become the cold north and the warm south will become the warm south again.

I think the key indicator of such need is teh fact that Arizona had more snow than Vancouver Canada this year and neared lows equal to BC northern Interior. Simple problem solved! TADA!!!

Now if we can just het Bruce Willis and his drill team to make another movie, they might be able to nidge the Earth enough to start that North to South rotational swap.

As for your link, I was also rather amused with his explanation of the straw man argument as used by the anti-GW crowd, it is so reminiscent of the falacies we read here so often.

“I would dance and be merry, life would be a ding-a-derry,
If I only had a brain.”

Another nail for the coffin.

In reply to Heads you win, tails I lose – all based on a false premise

Evidence against AGW that has been peer reviewed

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_agw_smoking_gun.html

debunking your “smoking gun”

In reply to Another nail for the coffin.

There are a lot of holes, half-truths, etc., in this piece.

Namely that CO2 is effected by and vibrates at very specific frequencies of IR.

Any molecule, with enough energy applied to, can be made to resonate or alter its resonation with energy from a very broad spectrum.

That is called harmonics.

I could go on, but that piece shows little science and draws a lot of illogical conclusions.

Plus, it cites Lindzen who (as I have shown before) was paid by Exxon to produce material in alignment with their corporate direction.

What????

In reply to debunking your “smoking gun”

You’re questioning “peer reviewed” articles?

But the contradictory side isn’t allowed to?

How quaint!

Not questioning their peer review

In reply to What????

Questioning their claim without a quantitative, logical explanation of fact that is proof to back their statement of that which they say is false.

I can let anyone “peer review” my code.

Does that mean if they say it’s done wrong that it doesn’t work?

Nonetheless, I pointed out the weakness in just one of their points in their argument to the contrary that was false.

CO2 is not solely, majorly or in any greatest quantity *only* responsive to “specific” IR frequencies.

That was an out and out untruth, and meant to mislead or misinform people about how thermal propagation occurs atmospherically.

I’ll be glad to find you theses and dissertations on molecular harmonics and thermodynamics, if you so desire to prove your source wrong.

And

In reply to debunking your “smoking gun”

[i]That is called harmonics.[/i]

The molecule will only vibrate at the harmonic when the exciting waves at the primary resonant frequency are subdued or not present. I don’t think the sun varies its output THAT much.

what a molecule will do in the presence of energy

In reply to And

It vibrates…harmonically resonant or not.

That is why there is something called “inharmonic resonance” as well as “harmonic imbalance”.

A piece of matter accepts energy *best* at its *true harmonic phase*. However, I can take a string cut to the length for F#’s frequency. I can blow an F note in front of it, and as inharmonic as that is, it [b]will[/b] vibrate.

Oh and btw. In case you didn’t know:

The energy put off from the sun is cross-spectral from that of the ultra-infrared to gamma (and even some say cosmic) radiation.

So yes, there is a greatly varied band of energy being put forth by the sun.

The sun isnt blowing just one frequency of energy at a time.

Right

In reply to what a molecule will do in the presence of energy

[i]A piece of matter accepts energy *best* at its *true harmonic phase*. However, I can take a string cut to the length for F#’s frequency. I can blow an F note in front of it, and as inharmonic as that is, it will vibrate.[/i]

But while you’re blowing the F, someone else is blowing the F# with equal energy, and the string will “prefer” to vibrate at the right frequency.

[i]So yes, there is a greatly varied band of energy being put forth by the sun.[/i]

I know. I was trying to say that the sun’s energy output [b]at any given frequency[/b] doesn’t change appreciably from one (relatively short time period) to the next.

But

In reply to Right

the amount of that energy that is re-radiated back into space [b]does[/b] change.

I can see that…

In reply to But

and I might even consider the effect to be significant were the atmosphere, say, 10 or 20% CO2, but we’re talking less than 0.1%.

Um

In reply to And

Are you therefore suggesting the sun is relatively static?

I’m suggesting

In reply to Um

that the energy output at any particular wavelength does not change much from second to second.

I would have said “stable” instead of “static”.

You would have said many things I’m sure

In reply to I’m suggesting

But rarely anything I’d see as logical or would agree with.

LOL

In reply to Another nail for the coffin.

We just finished discussing that straw man argument.

Indeed, the whole of AGW theory is based on one.

In reply to LOL

The presumption that CO2 is a [u]significant[/u] contributor to climate change.

There is zeeeerrrroooo evidence to presume any such thing!

Um, no it isn’t

In reply to Indeed, the whole of AGW theory is based on one.

the media has focused on that spin. Which is what makes the issue a focus for anti-GW supporters to focus on.
Ignoring other facts of the Earth’s visible and easily confirmed changes.
CO2 levels are 100% proven to be at their highest during such time of change, that’s all.

EDIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change

I kn ow it’s just a wiki page but that’s the easiesy way to review a collection of various sources and their contritbuting articles. All noted sources are listed if yuo decide to further investigate them.

As you failed to even read a simple post that Max rpesented before runnign off at teh mouth, ignoring his requested guidelines for reply, I doubt you will take more than a glance (if even that) before spouting your unqualified and outdated rebuttal. But its there if you would like a refreasher on the real issues people are discussing outside of teh local media buzz.

Read what I said, not what you think I said.

In reply to Um, no it isn’t

[i]CO2 levels are 100% proven to be at their highest during such time of change, that’s all.[/i]

I didn’t claim otherwise. What I claimed was that it has not been proven that higher CO2 levels contribute significantly to climate change.

And you failed to recognize the difference

In reply to Read what I said, not what you think I said.

That I posted describing correlation vs association. Anti GW fanatics, ar ethe ones who raise teh CO2 straw man argument, not teh scientists. Scientists don’t say one causes the other, that’s a weak argument from the anti-gw crowd.

Perhaps you didn’t read

In reply to And you failed to recognize the difference

the wiki article you posted to me.

“Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”

And since The most prevalent “anthropogenic greenhouse gas” is CO2…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Anthropogenic_greenhouse_gases

It seems they ARE saying one causes the other.

American “thinker”?

In reply to Another nail for the coffin.

Part of the abstract of the later paper referred to:

“Previously published work using satellite observations of the clear sky infrared emitted radiation by the Earth in 1970, 1997 and in 2003 showed the appearance of changes in the outgoing spectrum, which agreed with those expected from known changes in the concentrations of well-mixed greenhouse gases over this period. Thus, the greenhouse forcing of the Earth has been observed to change in response to these concentration changes.”

Snipped from the conclusions to the same source paper for the rather strange website that you linked to:

“Changing spectral signatures in CH4, CO2, and H2O are observed, with the difference signal in the CO2 matching well between observations and modelled spectra.”

So? The authors don’t seem particularly excited about their paper even though the Hadley Centre is part of the UK Met Office’s establishment and so is part of The Enemy from your perspective. Ah! I know. They are keeping quiet about their research because to publish the data would mean that their jobs are on the line.

There seems to be…

In reply to American “thinker”?

[i]Ah! I know. They are keeping quiet about their research because to publish the data would mean that their jobs are on the line. [/i]

… a lot of that going around. Anytime there’s a bureaucracy involved…

It is a commonly held belief in my country

In reply to There seems to be…

that Americans do not understand irony.

🙂

Perhaps it would be ironic

In reply to It is a commonly held belief in my country

if I didn’t see it every day.

Given that the Hadley Centre

In reply to Perhaps it would be ironic

the source for the original data, is in my country then I do have to believe that any comment you or the somewhat ineptly named “American Thinker” have to make about them is pretty irrelevant and – in this case – wrong.

As for the irony…

Any bureaucracy

In reply to Given that the Hadley Centre

has as its first order of business, its own survival.

…[i]any comment you or the somewhat ineptly named “American Thinker” have to make about them is pretty irrelevant and – in this case – wrong. [/i]

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…

lol

In reply to Heads you win, tails I lose – all based on a false premise

Only 49 states manage to have snowfall this past storm.. lol maybe we can break it with the following one..

An American focus

In reply to lol

“I looked out into my own backyard and it doesn’t support global claims.”

The fact that Americans don’t see beyond their own yards and have no clue what the rest of the world is doing, is the big problem in America.

Science is more than . . . . . . .

In reply to Heads you win, tails I lose – all based on a false premise

[i]Science is more than a body of knowledge; it’s a way of thinking. A way of skeptically interrogating the universe with a fine understanding of human fallibility. If we are not able to ask skeptical questions, to interrogate those who tell us that something is true – to be skeptical of those in authority – then we’re up for grabs by the next charlatan, political or religious, who comes ambling along.[/i]
-Carl Sagan

I think it’s appropriate – especially in this case – to [i]ask skeptical questions, to interrogate those who tell us that something is true – to be skeptical of those in authority[/i] – because I think they’re a bunch of [i]charlatans[/i].

The scary thing is,

In reply to Science is more than . . . . . . .

Ptolemy’s view of the universe lasted a thousand years, and although science has advanced since then, politicians haven’t.

But but but

In reply to Science is more than . . . . . . .

You don’t ASK any questions. You are not sceptical. You are a committed nay-sayer.

The only way to “interrogate those who tell us something is true” is with knowledge of your own. You might also try – even occasionally would be good – interrogating those who tell you something is false. But the latter feed your personal requirements.

Just what

In reply to But but but

Does this truth/falsity crap have to do with [i]science[/i]?

Are you all emissaries from the Office of Error?

Not a lot

In reply to Just what

But I didn’t know there were particular thread rules operating. I was answering Maxwell and he was answering me. When dealing with someone who is rabidly set against ones own position, I have long realised that a certain relaxed style is necessary.

Max knows this too! 🙂

I believe that an apposite – although quaint – American phrase is “bite me”. Is the context correct?

😀

To the contrary, I ask many questions

In reply to But but but

Note: the use of the word [i]you[/i], in most cases, is plural, addressing the whole of the mm gw/cc advocates.

I ask:

Why don’t you (scientists, et al) make all of your data and papers available for peer review to other climate scientists who disagree with your theories and conclusions, and who claim that your computer models are flawed or incomplete?

And why don’t you answer their questions?

And why doesn’t the UN have any climate skeptics on the IPCC?

And why do you use words like consensus and majority when they are neither proven nor accurate?

And why do you claim that mm gw/cc is a foregone conclusion when it clearly is not?

And why do you misrepresent (or flatly lie about) glacier characteristics?

And why do you misrepresent (or flatly lie about) Arctic and/or Antarctic ice characteristics?

And when introduced to climate skeptics, why do you (including the singular [i]you[/i], Neil) only discredit the person instead of seriously addressing the argument presented?

And why do the media (except for the [i]Internet media[/i]) refuse to give equal-time to the climate skeptics?

And why do ALL of the, so-called, solutions to mm gw/cc conveniently fall under the umbrella of socialist and/or collectivist ideals, always demonizing and blaming capitalism?

And why are 99.99 percent of those pulling and/or riding the mm gw/cc bandwagon left-leaning politicians, supporters, pundits, and activists?

And why won’t James Hansen participate in a public discussion with Bill Gray and allow Dr. Gray to directly challenge Dr. Hansen on many of his assertions?

Bottom line question: What do you have to hide?

I ask the questions that I’m qualified to ask. I don’t presume to be a global warming and/or climate expert (like jck and others who hang around the TR water cooler).

Something’s rotten in the state of Denmark, so to speak, and I ask what it is? However, no one will dare answer any of these questions. Why is that?

I ask a lot of questions – none of which have come even close to being answered.

P.S. I wonder how the state of Denmark was selected for that particular saying? If I was Denmark, I’d be offended.

P.P.S. Grab a brew or a cup of tea, Neil, and try to answer those questions, one by one.

P.P.P.S. To the mm gw/cc advocates (as described above), why does [i]just in case[/i] trump individual freedom and liberty? And why does prevention trump adaptation?

“Just in case”

In reply to To the contrary, I ask many questions

Why is it acceptable to use “just in case” as a reason to accept GW but not for (input your favorite religion here)?

Because religion has not stood up to scrutiny.

In reply to “Just in case”

Science has proven evolution beyond a reasonable doubt. We can see it in carbon dating methods and astrological discovery. We know the Eart wasn’t simply made as we see how other planets form too.

ANY preacher of ANY religion will tell you to simply have FAITH and look for your own signs/reasons to believe.

Religion

In reply to Because religion has not stood up to scrutiny.

That would seemingly disprove a couple of bible stories but doesn’t disprove the existence of God (or a group of Gods depending on the religion).

You’ve asked Max, a non-believer, to disprove human assisted global warming when many supporters are following along with this psuedo-religion “just in case”.

I’m asking you, a non-believer, to disprove the existance of God (or Gods) when many supporters of their religion are following along in their religions “just in case”.

I don’t want you to disprove any or all of stories told in some religious document, just prove beyond a reasonable doubt that God doesn’t exist.

OK, I’m game

In reply to Religion

to give it a shot!

Which of the many gods – and godesses – would you like me to have a stab at disproving? I can’t do for ALL gods because the goalposts can get moved too easily but one at a time we can do easily. Once you’ve actually got the “god” defined, they disappear up their own arse in a burst of logic. Getting agreement on the definition is the difficult bit.

Really, though, the burden of proof is on the believer but that NEVER happens.

I infer from your post that Max’s position and the position of those who think that MMGW is a real phenomenon is somehow equal, that some form of parity exists. I don’t want him to prove anything. I just want him to step outside of his libertarian, “no one is telling ME what to do” shoes for a short while and examine the evidence.

🙂

Of course I [b]know[/b] that gods are “outside logic and science” else this would have been nailed long ago.

Neil

In reply to Religion

How about Buddha? That way we can get away from the Christian bashing; at least for a little while.

🙂

Buddha isn’t a god

In reply to Religion

I quite like Buddha and I have no problem with Siddartha Gautama and the Eightfold Path. All the Buddhists that I know are nice people.

🙂

My mistake.

In reply to Religion

I have never studied Buddhism so wasn’t clear on their history or beliefs. I just thought of it after hearing Tiger over the weekend. That’s what I get for trying to stay away from Christianity. 🙂

How about Vishnu?

God exists

In reply to Religion

He exists in millions of human minds.

But as science proves more and more fact about the Earth’s formation by studying other planets that have and continue to form in the exact same fashion, BELIEF falls flat.

I won’t ask you to prove your FAITH; that is in your personal set of BELIEFS that help you to continue your life and feel you have purpose. Everyone needs ‘faith’ in something, whether religion or the science of creation and evolution.

However when compared to facts found in modern times, as opposed to beliefs carried on for two millenia, religion has nothing other than a history of people showing faith with no supporting facts.

I agree that a simple farmer named Noah may have actually built an ark, it doesn’t matter that filling it with a collection of Gods creatures is unrealistic and impossible. However it was simply a man who THOUGHT he was instructed to do so as he had faith and believed in God.

Again, there are no priests, God’s supposed voice, that will or can prove the existence of the lord they ask you to follow. They simply tell you you MUST believa dn have faith, then all of a sudden random acts of life will appear to be a message from God.

The more you look at it, the more BELIEF and FAITH is required and facts simply don’t exist to support it.

As for Bhuddism, I too agree that it is an excellent system of being, again based on faith. In fact many of my “personal” more spiritual “values” fall in line with Bhuddism, another set of beliefs tah I feel create more preferable character to Christianity comes from North American native Indians who are far more in tune with the Earth than most other faith I see.

I don’t think a man in a acmoe crosses the sky and sets the moon up every night, but I certainly admire their respect for wisely using land’s resources and nature’s right to life.

If I had followed Christianity ‘religiously’ then I would be hard pressed to choose either the old or new testament. God wants me to be a bastard that doesn’t accept anyone non Christian or God wants me to accept everyone, but have faith in only him anf ollow only his unspoken word. Hmmmm.

The Hindu pantheon is a bit fluid

In reply to Religion

and the problem is that I know relatively little about it. Vishnu, if I remember correctly, is the Top God. However, disproving Vishnu’s existence is something that I’ll still try and do once I find out what Vishnu is all about. I can’t apply logic when I don’t know what Vishnu does…

The number of different religions has always intrigued me and the way that most personal religious beliefs can be inferred from the beliefs your parents or the culture in which you were raised.

A Saudi Arabian will be a Muslim, an Irish citizen will likely be Catholic and an Indian will be a Hindu. I wonder how many theists ask the question: “are my religious beliefs a product of cultural and familial brainwashing?”

🙂

CAN God exist?

In reply to Religion

God created the universe but the universe is all that exists.

The universe is all that exists?

In reply to Religion

That’s what I always thought growing up – that [i]the universe[/i] is everything, it’s all that exists.

However, science has, since those formative years, suggested the big-bang theory is what started it all. That’s all fine and dandy, but it does beg the question, if the universe began with the big-bang of something, where did that something reside before-hand?

Moreover, we also hear that the universe is still expanding. Therefore, if the universe is all that exists, into what is it expanding?

So when it’s all said and done, I suppose it depends on what the meaning of the word [i]is[/i] is – or in this case, what the meaning of the word [i]exists[/i] is.

That is dependant

In reply to Religion

On if you believe that there is such thing as nothing. In order for something to become, there has to be nothing prior to it’s beginning.

How many posts do you think we can reach with black holes? 😀

Something from nothing? How about nothing from nothing?

In reply to Religion

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuaG-TCpbtw

Max: If you de-tune an analogue television

In reply to Religion

Some of the visual noise on the screen is from the CMBR, cosmic microwave background radiation, which originated in the Big Bang.

It’s just a few percent, the rest being random thermally generated signals in the electronics. The microwave photons were created in the first minute or so of the history of the Universe. since then, they’ve cooled to around 2.73 Kelvin.

Five minutes before THAT, there wasn’t anything.

I’d post the maths but I don’t understand it at all and I couldn’t even guarantee to post it the right way up.

🙂

Neil: Five minutes before THAT, there wasn’t anything.

In reply to Religion

I would concede that, at the instance of the big-bang, there wasn’t anything that fits into scope of what we mere humans have discovered and/or have come to understand up to the present point in our on-going history of discovery and understanding.

If human history can be used as a guide, however, it stands to reason that what we do understand and have discovered up to now, pales in comparison to what we don’t and haven’t respectively. Would you agree?

In the book, [i]The History of Human Understanding and Discovery[/i], what chapter are we currently up to, and how many chapters are left to be written?

Thanks Max!!!

In reply to Religion

Wicked, retro moment, I LOVE IT!!!

I saw your link to YouTube and though, Oh No, here we go again, some indefinite clip from a university student. You tube is full of those scientific conclusions that are fodder of endless debate.

After only just finishing a ridiculous conference call with a motor mouth woman in Texas (she spoke faster than me when I was 18!) I just wasn’t into more of a headwreaker.

But noooo, Billy Preston Jammin his little heart out!

Again, THANKS, I really needed that. Made my day! I have some new energy now and gonna get stuff done. (bookmarked for another day, if not right now)

pales in comparison to what we don’t and haven’t respectively.

In reply to Religion

I completely understand your viewpoint here but to suggest that what we have discovered is greater than what we haven’t is pessimistic, if not arrogant.

We have no idea how much or how little we have discovered, compared to what we could or have not discovered.

Historically compared, we have definitely come leaps and bounds. But who’s to say we have learned ANYTHING respectively when compared to what other possible civilizations on other planets may have learned in the same time?

For all we know, we are the dumbest race in the universe. And, if there were a god watching down upon us, would he be slapping his forehead and thinking “DAMN, this lot is stupid”, or “MAN, they finally figured it out” or “Holy CRAP! What are they doing now?”

We have learned a lot about ourselves, our composition and the composition of the LAND we inhabit, but seeing as we haven’t even properly explored the sea or outside our galaxy (apart from afar) we really can’t say we know squat in the grand scheme of things.

Still got Nothing from Nothing in my head now! Tap tappin’ away. That there is some damn funky music!

Billy P is the only . . . . . .

In reply to Religion

….. artist to get co-credit on a Beatles track (Get Back); he played the keyboards on that track as well on several others during those last [i]Let it Be[/i] sessions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQOATAW-ZqE

He also joined the group for their last performmance together on the rooftop of Apple Records.

[i]”……a bit of an imposition to disrupt all the business in the area…..” [/i]

The guy probably later bragged about being there!

Billy Preston on the [i]Get Back[/i] track. Gotta’ love it. Rest in Peace, Billy. You live on in your music.

Oz, you either misread what I said. . . . . .

In reply to Religion

…..or your comment was for others.

[i]If human history can be used as a guide, however, it stands to reason that what we do understand and have discovered up to now, pales in comparison to what we don’t and haven’t respectively. Would you agree?[/i]

It appears that we agree.

Billy P.

In reply to Religion

Firstly, yes I did misread your post and reneg my comment, was was based on a complete misunderstanding of your comment.

Billy P. yes I remember the rooftop performance, don’t remember what BIO it was in but I’ve seen the movie/doco that details it. He also covered Blackbird of course, but I dont know if that was a Beatles original, I just assume it was.

Hey Oz – check out this Billy Preston

In reply to Religion

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SiqmoZq47I

Or B.P. at 11 yrs. old with Nat King Cole

In reply to Religion

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1loV9_xLF8Q

Nat King Cole

In reply to Religion

[i] Or B.P. at 11 yrs. old with Nat King Cole
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1loV9_xLF8Q [/i]

If you get a network called Ovation TV on your cable/satellite, there is a program called “Nat King Cole: When I Fall In Love” that is a great tribute to the man, and includes the clip of Nat playing with Billy Preston on his former NBC television program.

I was raised on Nat King Cole. He’s another case of an incredible talent and pioneer who was gone far too early.

jck – re: Nat King Cole

In reply to Religion

No, I don’t get that channel. I have rabbit ears – no cable TV.

But I love Nat King Cole – especially the stuff he did with the King Cole Trio in the late 1930s – 1940s. I have quite a bit of that music on 78 RPMs.

A great story about Nat King Cole:

In the late 1940s, he bought a home in an all-white neighborhood outside LA. The home owners association knocked on his door one night and told him that they were trying to keep out undesirables. His reply: [i]If I see any undesirables, I’ll be the first to complain.[/i]

And a sad story:

He was an extremely heavy smoker. So much so, that he intentionally chain-smoked before performances and recordings because he though it kept his voice lower. He died of lung cancer at a too-early age.

The answers are in your questions

In reply to To the contrary, I ask many questions

” Why are 99.99 percent of those pulling and/or riding the mm gw/cc bandwagon left-leaning politicians, supporters, pundits, and activists?”

You see CC as a leftist view and see it as a left vs right issue, as you do all political issues too.

Anyone believing in CC is immediately deemed a left wing activist, in your eyes, and that is why there is no support from what you accept as the right.

Until the GOP tells you they are on board with CC, it will always be a leftist issue to you. However then you’ll probably say they are flip flopping and weak in their convictions, as they are really leftists.

In this case, the “you” was Maxwell “Hammer” Edison

In reply to To the contrary, I ask many questions

OK, I have a cup of tea. Well, I actually have my Morning Mug which is around 3/4 pint (our pint and not your piddly pint). It’s raining hard and so I was going to try and answer some of your questions. It would have been nice if you could have put them in the order that’s most important to you.

But I need more information because I’m “me”. I consider most of your questions are the set always posed by those who are against the MMGW concept. Most of them are in the form of flat statements of “fact” that I don’t even know to be true!

The easy one first – Denmark. It’s Shakespeare, said by Marcellus in Hamlet and it’s pointed at Denmark because the play is set there. The phrase is generally misused. Given YOUR particular views, however, I would think that you would consider it very apt. It’s a finely targeted phrase as the “state of Denmark” rather than “Denmark” implies that the “rotting” is from the head down.

A couple that I can partly answer as “me”.

[b]Why don’t you (scientists, et al) make all of your data and papers available for peer review.[/b] WE DO! I’m guessing what you mean here but everything that I’ve ever seen referenced is published in scientific journals available for ANYONE to comment on. The process of getting the material published is the “peer-review”. My own scientific papers – I have a couple – were sent out to members of a panel of workers in the same field for critique before publication. It’s designed to limit bias, misinterpretations and errors entering the pool of data that other scientific examination is based upon.

I assume that you’re suggesting some sort of pro-GW cabal controls this process for all of the atmospheric science and suppresses the work that purports to “disprove” anything? Please point to specific examples.

[b]And why do the media (except for the Internet media) refuse to give equal-time to the climate skeptics?[/b] I’m sorry, but where does this requirement of “equal time” originate? I would guess the same notion of “fairness” that puts Intelligent Design alongside Evolution. Irrelevant. Anyway, I don’t know about the USA but over here nothing other than readership figures forces the newspapers in any direction other than the one they want to go. Most people over here – including me – would be ecstatic if MMGW could be disproved (reluctant believers, most of us) and the newspapers know this. The “leaked emails” and the “Himalayan Glaciers” stories broke bigger than anything “pro” has ever done.

[b]”demonizing and blaming capitalism?”[/b] Well, jeaving aside the question as to whether they caused it all, MMGW is something that is going to really bite in ten, twenty years or more and Capitalism doesn’t look past the next Board meeting.

It’s brightening up and I’m going out now so I’ll try some more later. Most are – as posed here – implicitly rhetorical so I’m not going to bother to try.

Equated to IT

In reply to In this case, the “you” was Maxwell “Hammer” Edison

Science is an open source community.

Politics is as proprietary as Apple.

Really?

In reply to But but but

[i]The only way to “interrogate those who tell us something is true” is with knowledge of your own.[/i]

What is the “knowledge” that allows one to question… say… the existence of God?

That’s so “Middle Ages”, Neil. What?, “You peasants will heed us… because we KNOW, and you are not qualified to question us!”? As you once said… bollocks!

What is the [b]proof[/b] that CO2 is a significant contributor to climate change?

(And no, Oz, the answer isn’t, “Man causes CO2 to be emitted into the atmosphere.”, nor is it, “CO2 is a greenhouse gas.”, and it’s not “CO2 levels higher than they’ve been in at least 800,000 years.”. None of these facts, alone or in combination [b]proves[/b] that CO2 significantly contributes to climate change.)

The kings are down to their knickers. Next hand!

Speaking of God

In reply to Really?

I paraphrase Steven Hawking.

(I’ll find and provide a link to the exact comment if anyone questions.)

The how (the beginning of the universe) is less important than the why. If we can find the answer to why, we will have tapped into the mind of God.

I wonder how Hawking defines God?

You don’t need to look up Hawking

In reply to Speaking of God

Cf., my post of the same title some time ago.

I could find it if I had to

In reply to You don’t need to look up Hawking

I was recently watching a YouTube video of an interview facilitated by, I believe, Charlie Rose, with Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan, and ….. dang – I forgot who the third guy was.

Nonetheless, I’m not inaccurate with my paraphrase. I’d lay 1000-1 on it.

At the top of the page

In reply to I could find it if I had to

In, “Search Forums”, punch in, “Speaking of God…”

Hawkings explanation of that comment

In reply to I could find it if I had to

http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?p=40817

Well if it’s THAT easy…

In reply to Speaking of God

[i]If we can find the answer to why, we will have tapped into the mind of God.[/i]

The answer is: Because 🙂

Ah

In reply to Well if it’s THAT easy…

By way of causality, you have tapped into the Algorithm of the Almighty, have you?

Lay it on us.

What do you mean?

In reply to Ah

I [b][u]AM[/u][/b] the Algorithm of the Almighty 🙂

Quite so

In reply to Ah

Now, lay it on us — in detail.

You know how dreams are…

In reply to Ah

I can’t control them (that, at least, should be obvious), and I can’t explain them 🙂

The only thing I do know is that Totality came into existence with my first conscious thought, and as long as I continue to think, it will continue to exist.

You’re certain of that?

In reply to Ah

[i]…Totality came into existence with my first conscious thought, and as long as I continue to think, it will continue to exist.[/i]

That makes you God, does it not?

Well and good

In reply to Ah

That you leave it open.

Boxfiddler

In reply to Ah

You touch upon it.

Not I, santee.

In reply to Ah

I but see the touch of another.

To do elsewise,

In reply to Ah

[i]That you leave it open. [/i]

would not be justified.

Holy phluck!

In reply to Ah

Open system/closed system goes BANG!

I don’t see that

In reply to Ah

[i]That makes you God, does it not? [/i]

as a forgone consequence of my statement.

‘Totality’.

In reply to Ah

[i]came into existence with my first conscious thought, and as long as I continue to think, it will continue to exist.[/i]

How can it be otherwise?

It cannot be otherwise. (nt)

In reply to Ah

.

Tony

In reply to Ah

You are getting dreamy on me.

I hope you know: I can be down and dirty with God.

Don’t you — nor, anyone else — be go getting indistinct with me.

Getting?

In reply to Ah

Have always been.

as long as I continue to think, it will continue to exist.

In reply to Ah

Well you made that easy, obviously it doesn’t exist.

Um. No.

In reply to Well if it’s THAT easy…

That’s the answer as we can know it, now. We haven’t the wherewithal to pinch the infinite.

Of course!

In reply to Um. No.

[i]That’s the answer as we can know it, now.[/i]

I just gave it to you…

[i]We haven’t the wherewithal to pinch the infinite. [/i]

You are of course, speaking for yourself and ???

One is

In reply to Um. No.

as corporeally limited as any other.

etu

One what?

In reply to Um. No.

🙂

Oops.Wrong spot.

In reply to Well if it’s THAT easy…

.

Hawkings definition of God, as described by Hawking.

In reply to Speaking of God

[i]”one can define god as the embodiment of the Laws of Nature”, but that most people think of god as “a human-like being with whom one can have a personal relationship. When you look at the vast size of the universe and how insignificant and accidental human life is in it, that seems most implausible”. [/i]

http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?p=40817

Link includes a link to the BBC interview where he stated the above.

Damn are you dense

In reply to Really?

Your ignorance of the subject is once again proven in your comment:[i]”What is the proof that CO2 is a significant contributor to climate change?”[/i]

You refuse to read the facts, you refuse to read the corrections when you misunderstand what people are saying. It’s as if you have one train of thought and simply can’t ingest anything else. As a result you throw around the same old, weak, argument that is the onlly argument anti-CC crowd has offered and yet it is not even an issue of debate.

NOBODY, get this for once [b]N O B O D Y[/b] is saying that CO2 CAUSES CC or GW. That is just what people such as yourself wrongly use as a defense.

Again, look at the what scientists are REALLY saying.

The dominant mechanisms to which recent climate change has been attributed all result from human activity. They are:

-increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases (one known greenhouse gas, of MANY, is CO2)
-global changes to land surface, such as deforestation
-increasing atmospheric concentrations of aerosols. (no, not just aerosols as in hairspray)
– sulfate aerosols from fossil fuel combustion, exert a cooling influence on the climate which partly counteracts the warming induced by greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. Aerosol impacts are admittedly unconfirmed conclusions that are the current basis of scientific studies.

Attribution of recent change to anthropogenic forcing is based on the following facts:

-The observed change is not consistent with natural variability.
-Known natural forcings would, if anything, be negative over this period.
-Known anthropogenic forcings are consistent with the observed response.
-The pattern of the observed change is consistent with the anthropogenic forcing.

By studying the Earth’s changes over 800,000 years, they can safely say that the changes we have seen recently are NOT in course with natural actions and that there are many other contributing factors that are a result of our industrial focused existence.

They have illustrated that CO2 levels are but one of MANY greenhouse gases that are highest when climate change occurs. They are NOT saying it is the reason, YOU are concluding that yourself and offering it as your sole, weak argument that isn’t in debate by anyone anyway.

SEE: Attribution of “recent” climate change:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change

Perhaps you’ll take off the broken record. Who am I kidding, you don’t read.

Proof

In reply to Really?

“Man causes CO2 to be emitted into the atmosphere.”, nor is it, “CO2 is a greenhouse gas.”, and it’s not “CO2 levels higher than they’ve been in at least 800,000 years.”

If those things are true then how can this CO2 NOT be having an effect?

Knowledge and God

In reply to Really?

Plague, famine, earthquake, flood…

The painful death of young children.

Mostly the last one.

What I found interesting

In reply to But but but

Was how Max [i]thinks[/i] he has used scienctific methods to support his CONCLUSIONS, which is why he doesn’t buy into GW. Yet overtly dismisses scientists using the same method of questioning data to arrive at their conclusions, as it is not factual.

‘When they do it, it is not credible. When I do it it creates a solid argument.’

No you don’t

In reply to Science is more than . . . . . . .

All of your posts and all of your views here are not about accepting questioning at all, they are focused on the fact that science questions data which results in their conclusions, thus cannot be trusted.

Unfotunately, I don’t think God is going to let us know the facts on the subject, therefore predictions and conclusions based on findings and questioning causes is all that is left…’science’.

To you, that is not black and white enough.

[b]Your basis of argument is that it is not a proven fact, therefore such science is hogwash,[/b] as is the reson behind this entire thread.

If you are trying to suggest that your dismissal of scientific conclusion is in iteself ‘science’ you are out of your mind, but that’s nothing new.

I used to be amused at how you pruposely take comments out of context to support yoru own conclusions, but in teh last few years I think it’s a result of you simply not understanding what you are reading anymore. As proven with your article that you started the thref with.

Right on Max!

In reply to Heads you win, tails I lose – all based on a false premise

one snowstorem invalidates GW!

We’re entering a new ICE AGE,
This data refutes GW totally:

In august it was 70oF
each month it has dropped a few degrees.

It is now 10oF!

At this rate we’ll be at the temp of Pluto (the diss’d non-planet) in a couple years.

never mind that it is 90o in Australia and rising! Woops, we’re all going to fry like Venus!

Advocates of “sea level rise” are drowning in lies

In reply to Heads you win, tails I lose – all based on a false premise

How many of us remember when the global warming scare first came onto the political scene with its full steam ahead agenda, and the advocates were predicting catastrophic rises in sea levels that would result in major seaboard cities, such as New York, London, Miami, et al, finding themselves totally submerged by sea water in, what they then predicted, a mere 50 years.

Well, we’re about half-way there on their initial time-line, but nowhere close on their predicted rise-line. And now, the ones who cling to the sea-level lifeboat, decided to talk in a time-line measured by centuries, not decades. (I suppose they think we can meet on the shores Miami Beach to verify their predictions – or Orlando Beach, of course, if their predictions actually came true.)

The future King of England is still clinging:

[i][b]PRINCE CHARLES ON CLIMATE CHANGE: GLOBAL WARMING SCEPTICS ARE ALL LIARS[/b]:

“Well, if it is but a myth, and the global scientific community is involved in some sort of conspiracy, why is it then that around the globe sea levels are more than six inches higher than they were 100 years ago? This isn’t an opinion – it is a fact.”[/i]

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/156294/Prince-Charles-on-climate-change-Global-warming-sceptics-are-all-liars

Really, Prince? Who’s the lair, here? Other than natural and historic fluctuations in global sea levels, there is absolutely nothing to even remotely conclude that anything has been caused by human activity! Moreover, the current predictions – for whatever they may or may not be worth – are both insignificant and consistent with what might have happened anyway in the absence of ANY human activity.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/21/sea-level-geoscience-retract-siddall

[i]”Retraction is a regular part of the publication process ….. Science is a complicated game and there are set procedures in place that act as checks and balances.”[/i]

Too bad the good Prince and those still on the [i]rise in sea level[/i] floating bandwagon – including many around the TR water cooler – don’t know the meaning of the word [i]retract[/i].

But still, doom and gloom persists:

[i]”I can only appeal to you to listen to the cries of those who are already suffering from the impact of climate change,” he said.[/i]

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/146265/Prince-Charles-Executive-jet-with-big-carbon-footprint-gets-him-to-climate-change-talks

And who might those people be, Charlie? Let me guess. You’d cite all those people – mostly in underdeveloped countries – who have been suffering the impact of ……. (whatever – including political corruption) anyway. And you use taxpayer funds to justify and [i]offset[/i] YOUR hypocrisy.

Sorry, Charlie, the [i]rise in sea level[/i] football has, yet again, been pulled away from you at the precise moment you thought you would make a successful kick, and you’ve ended up flat on your back. (A little mixing together of cartoon characters – Charles and Charlie! With all due credit, of course, to yet another Charles – Charles Schultz.)

You are simply drowning in your personal liberties.

In reply to Advocates of “sea level rise” are drowning in lies

You are so overwhelemed with trying to discount the factors that surround GW/CC, that clearly you are the one who is drowining in the GW/CC theory.

Similar to politics, you expend so much effort trying to disprove the opposition that you miss the important part in between, living life.

If by ‘drowining in a sea of lies’ you feel that people are over infatuated with the GW/CC concept, then the same can be said for yourself in your effort to dispell GW/CC due to it conflicting with your political acceptance of personal liberties.

If time is also money then is not your time vested, in what you believe to be a false theory, simply just wasting more of your money than the tax dollars you oppose spending?

Have you ever heard the term, “Not worth wasting my time over?”

You most obviously believe in the theory of CC but simply doubt there is substantial proof for it to become fact.

Proof that you need in order for you to feel that you have retained, or that the government has respected, your civil liberties.

Proof which can only be shown by centuries if not millennia of future time, which you nor I have.

Therefore your argument, once again, is simply one of sustaining your personal liberties.

You also keep posting these arguments as if they are proof and not the mere conjecture that they are.

You’re quoting Prince Charles?

In reply to Advocates of “sea level rise” are drowning in lies

Yes, I know I’m following my usual tack of shooting your messenger before commenting on the message but in this case I’d rather you quoted Al Gore than that hypocritical royal arsehole!

Look, Chas is a complete waste of space who’s only in the newspapers because he’s got a famous mum. He isn’t very bright in what he says or when he says it. He’s supposed to keep his gob shut – it goes with his job that we pay through the nose for – but he thinks that he is some sort of campaigner. All he manages to do is to prove over and over again that he is completely out of touch with everything.

As for the sea-level rise, I refer you to a quote in the guardian article “Siddall said that he did not know whether the retracted paper’s estimate of sea level rise was an overestimate or an underestimate.”

And?

As for the sea-level rise . . . . .

In reply to You’re quoting Prince Charles?

[i]I (you) refer you (me) to a quote in the guardian article “Siddall said that he did not know whether the retracted paper’s estimate of sea level rise was an overestimate or an underestimate.”[/i]

Meaning they don’t know squat. Yet the false claims are used over and over again by the mm gw/cc advocates – including two of your favorites Cousin Charlie and Uncle Albert – as [i]proof[/i] of their theory and justification for their intrusive solutions.

NONE of these people should be taken seriously.

Even you, Neil, have repeated the [i]London will flood[/i] argument. Are you ready to retract that prediction and call it unfounded?

London will indeed flood unless we do something

In reply to As for the sea-level rise . . . . .

At the moment, at the very highest tides, the Thames rises to within a few feet of the top of the protective embankment walls. Even without additional rise in sea level if there is a strong atmospheric depression in the North Sea at the spring tides, London will flood. That’s why we have the Thames barrier.

A couple of feet sea rise and even that might not be enough.

🙂

The reason that I’ve maintained that London will flood is because it WILL.

If true, then the solution can ONLY be found in. . . . . .

In reply to London will indeed flood unless we do something

…..dikes, dams, and levees.

You could take every automobile in the world off the road and shut down every coal fired power plant forever, and STILL the only fix would be found in dikes, dams, and levees.

Do you disagree?

([i]Factopinguess[/i] disclaimer acknowledged, since we obviously can’t take every automobile in the world off the road and shut down every coal fired power plant forever.)

Both

In reply to If true, then the solution can ONLY be found in. . . . . .

Why is action on cutting CO2 and action to protect the city in other ways in any way mutually exclusive?

That way, we make the dykes, levees and barriers lower.

🙂

Because. . . . . . .

In reply to Both

…… cutting CO2, so to speak, will not only have NO affect on sea levels, but ALL – I repeat, ALL – of the proposed solutions to do so are anti-capitalism, anti-freedom, anti-free market; and they ALL – I repeat ALL – are pro-socialism and will wreak havoc on personal and economic freedom.

In short, because there is EVERYTHING to lose, and NOTHING to gain.

P.S. Here’s where you go back to your doom and gloom predictions to justify your perceived gain.

Both of you

In reply to Both

Are full of it. Entertaining, though.

If Neil and I are BOTH “full of it”. . . . . .

In reply to Both

….(which may or may not be true) who’s not “full of it”?

Perspicuous of you, Maxwell.

In reply to Both

.

Can either of you truly be void?

In reply to Both

You both exist, therefore you are.

As for the political, Anti-freedom BS, that’s your expected and rather typical take as an American. Anti-capitallism? BS

Perhaps there will be some repercussions or changes for people who wnt to be as environmentally irresponsible as they please.

That doesn’t make anything Anti-Freedom or Anti-Capitalism in anyway. Pro scoialism?

I assume you lump conservative leaders in your list of Anti-capitalism, pro-socialism findamentalists too then. They are really socialists in diguise.
If they don’t follow your beliefs, they must be?

When your ox gets gored, Oz,

In reply to Both

you’ll understand perfectly.

Why should he ?

In reply to You’re quoting Prince Charles?

Why would Prince Charles be goven any creidbility on such issues? That’s like saying GWB or Obama knows what they are saying with respect to climate predictions.

They may parrot scientific conclusions that they themselves believe in, and feel it is their position to bring such findings to public attention, however it is people who are charged with the task of collecting evodence and supporting claims either for or against that support their own conclusions.

In short, people should make up their own minds. Anyone so easily coerced into conformity is obviously a sheep waiting to be lead, whether by a politician, monarch, media reporter etc. It’s not the fault of the sources conclusion, its the fault of the person supporting it, as is that case with Prince Charles and those who support his objectives.

All of you mm gw/cc advocates don’t want the truth

In reply to Heads you win, tails I lose – all based on a false premise

[i][b]New Climate Agency Head Tried to Suppress Data, Critics Charge[/b]

The scientist who has been put in charge of the Commerce Department’s new climate change office is coming under attack from both sides of the global warming debate over his handling of what they say is contradictory scientific data related to the subject.[/i]

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/22/tom-karl-tried-to-suppress-data-critics-charge/#/scitech/planet-earth/ci.New+Climate+Agency+Head+Tried+to+Suppress+Data%2C+Critics+Charge.opinion

Don’t tell Locke what he can’t do!

In reply to All of you mm gw/cc advocates don’t want the truth

Didn’t Locke die?

Kidding aside, one rather unqualified man is not about to prove or disprove science.

I also don’t buy a single Fox news source changing the views of the world, without the rest of the world acknowledging it. I think if there were supporting facts, it would preempt life as we know it, every news channel every radio station on the globe blasting the great news. We’d be burning vats of oil in the streets to celebrate. Unless it’s a secret scientific breakthrough/dicovery of course.

That’s kind alike saying someone found a bigfoot carcass or has God in his basement, but is not telling the rest of the world.

Proof it is not, not of anything.

So Karl is in bed with politicians and people have ACCUSED him of misrepresentation.

I can accuse you of murder, it doesn’t make you a killer no matter how many blogs and rags I submit it to.

I assume you also feel that the IPCC is the only scientific body that supports CC/GW too. Maybe that’s the root of your disbelief and why you always see a political slant on it.

You are desperate, Oz.

In reply to Don’t tell Locke what he can’t do!

The thing crumbles.

Why do you bother?

In reply to You are desperate, Oz.

I often wonder why you bother commenting.

You have only ever offered comments that rate other people’s comments here. Just yuor typical peanut gallery commenting, with nothing relevant or useful to add to the discussion at all. Do you actually have a purpose other than mere judgement of other people’s discussions without offering content of your own?

I suppose by saying nothing, you don’t have to defend your opinions. You can just sit in the background and hold up scorecards while thinking you are still being a relevant participant.

He bothers because. . . . . .

In reply to Why do you bother?

….. he loves you.

Should there be a congressional investigation. . . . . .

In reply to Heads you win, tails I lose – all based on a false premise

…… into the lies, deceptions, and mistruths perpetrated by the mm gw/cc advocates, including, but not limited to, the testimony given by former Vice President Al Gore, who has reaped millions of dollars as a result?

Ooh! Ooh Loaded question!

In reply to Should there be a congressional investigation. . . . . .

Why not just put some proper money into an independent and public inquiry into whether MMGW has any basis in fact? See if you can keep the politics out, keep the lobbyists out and just stick to the science.

No chance while such attitudes as yours and Al Gore’s are the norm for the two opposing sides.

Neil 🙂

Oh noes. Godwin’s Law. Mmm mmmfh mmm…

. . . . .an independent and public inquiry. . . . .

In reply to Ooh! Ooh Loaded question!

[i]Why not just put some proper money into an independent and public inquiry into whether MMGW has any basis in fact? See if you can keep the politics out, keep the lobbyists out and just stick to the science.[/i]

That’s an interesting idea. I wonder………

However, money and politics (of some sort) usually go hand-in-hand. That would be the biggest obstacle. News outlets used to provide such a thing, but even they have become politicized.

How could it be done?

At the risk of using an over-used term, it would have to be a grass-roots effort that would, somehow, collect a lot of small donations from individuals who really do want to know. Big money – which usually comes with big influence – would have to be turned down.

Thoughts?

Still would fail

In reply to . . . . .an independent and public inquiry. . . . .

Even grass roots efforts get corrupted.

Greed isn’t lost below a dollar level.

Someone is always money hungry…even for $.01.

Let’s revive. . . . . – AND – Is the . . . . .

In reply to Heads you win, tails I lose – all based on a false premise

Let’s revive this global warming thread.

AND

Is the planet destroyed yet?

Al Gore thinks so:

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2010/20100316061540.aspx

Why isn’t that guy (Al Gore) tarred and feathered and run outta’ Dodge?

I have to invoke Godwin’s Law

In reply to Let’s revive. . . . . – AND – Is the . . . . .

Get off your thread!

I thought a new Al Gore story. . . . .

In reply to I have to invoke Godwin’s Law

….. might bring you out to play.

Godwin’s Law:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

By the way, [i]Why isn’t that guy (Al Gore) tarred and feathered and run outta’ Dodge?

Tarring and feathering isn’t carbon-neutral

In reply to I thought a new Al Gore story. . . . .

You can’t possibly use any oil-derived substances on the Messiah of Climate Change.

Anyway, I just want him silenced.

Permanently.

🙂

But, because I care, I want it done in a way that is good for butterflies and green growing things.

[Author]

Replies