or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Climategate
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Climategate - Page 23

post #881 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

So what does that have to do with what I posted?

Science is not infallible and neither is the peer review process. If you want to believe it, nobody says you shouldn't. What they do say is that they don't, and believe that the process has been undermined. All the rest of the arguments about believers and deniers is really secondary to the topic's main point of the possible lies and cover-ups. You and others are so worried that this belief will kill any momentum for cleaning the earth or air or anything if it is taken seriously. It also seems you are not willing to take a moment and consider what may occur if such a possible falsehood is allowed to stand without being investigated.

However since scientists are above that sort of thing. Why worry? That is, unless they are not funded by the right sources...


None of this talks specifically about the effect of greenhouse gasses. It was mainly a question regarding the peer review process and what the effect of ignoring possible subversion of it may be. The only way the question would not be valid is if scientists are not human and not susceptible at all to corruption, bribery, group-think, or hubris.

Peer Review is a good process, and it serves science well. But it is not perfect, do not pretend that it is.

Yes but if there's enough evidence it probably means something. And if things aren't changing how do you explain things like this : http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...i092547D38.DTL

Obviously there's a mechanisim at work here. If it's not us ( which alot of evidence points to that ) then we still should be concerned.

Quote:
The only way the question would not be valid is if scientists are not human and not susceptible at all to corruption, bribery, group-think, or hubris.

Other than the " E-mail " incident do you have a real logical reason to believe this is going on and that's all there is to GW?

If so please show us the proof.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #882 of 3039
Ya know...I think it's just that we're in the warm "part of the cycle". I mean I figure everything can be explained away by vague reference to "cycles". The cool...err...neat thing is it kinda sounds cool, thoughtful and even insightful without having any actual meaning. So I'm going with "cycles". We're just in the warm part of the "cycle".

post #883 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

Ya know...I think it's just that we're in the warm "part of the cycle". I mean I figure everything can be explained away by vague reference to "cycles". The cool...err...neat thing is it kinda sounds cool, thoughtful and even insightful without having any actual meaning. So I'm going with "cycles". We're just in the warm part of the "cycle".


And you believe this because?

If of course you're making reference to my belief in political/social cycles they are documented.

Which by the way I did post proof some time back.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #884 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

Ya know...I think it's just that we're in the warm "part of the cycle". I mean I figure everything can be explained away by vague reference to "cycles". The cool...err...neat thing is it kinda sounds cool, thoughtful and even insightful without having any actual meaning. So I'm going with "cycles". We're just in the warm part of the "cycle".


Brilliant!

But seriously, my main issue with the current climate science is the notion that there is a temperature that the Earth is 'supposed' to be, based on a comparatively limited set of reliable (modern) observations. (~110+ years out of roughly 545 million of the current epoch)

Are we in a warming cycle? Probably. Is mankind contributing to it? Possibly.
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #885 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPoster View Post

Brilliant!

But seriously, my main issue with the current climate science is the notion that there is a temperature that the Earth is 'supposed' to be, based on a comparatively limited set of reliable (modern) observations. (~110+ years out of roughly 545 million of the current epoch)

Are we in a warming cycle? Probably. Is mankind contributing to it? Possibly.

Proof? Evidence? That supports this from an unbiased source?

I'll be back later to check your reply.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #886 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPoster View Post

But seriously, my main issue with the current climate science is the notion that there is a temperature that the Earth is 'supposed' to be

I agree. Add to that the absence of any consideration of the positive effects that might result from global warming (oh, I forgot, they renamed it "climate change" when it wasn't warming anymore).
post #887 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPoster View Post

The only denial going on around here is denying there is no room to question the CRU data based on the e-mails and program code, which is the OP's topic. Sure, the CRU and IPCC released nicely worded denials, that is expected and what I would do if I was in their place. But if they desired true transparency, as many scientists as well as laypersons like ourselves now desire, they would release ALL the raw temperature data and the full model code for review. The CRU and IPCC are not supposed to make a profit off of their research, so they can't claim copyright infringement, etc. Will they release it? That remains to be seen.

You accuse me of being a "denier", but if you review the thread I have posted favoring both sides of the argument, since as I have said I think AGW is


but the bias and inaccuracies revealed by the 'climatgate' information calls the basic research into question in my opinion. I would apply Occam's Razor, but to use the local vernacular, "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.".

If the AGW 'Affirmers' think the data is sound, why all the fuss over requesting a total review of the data and models? Won't they have the same results if they were correct?

As for your typical ad hom attack, I never at any point claimed to be a researcher, but I have worked for the government. I'm not sure what research the Corps of Engineers (a commendable organization BTW, I'm certainly not knocking you for working there) does, but I'm fairly certain they are not involved in any climate research from the information on their website. Unless you have a degree in climatology or perform research in the area you are just as much a 'rank amateur' on the topic as I am, your logic is like saying you're an expert auto mechanic just because you drive a car and read car magazines. BTW when it comes to amateurish, at least I don't use 36 point bold text and changes in topic to respond to reasonable questions and concerns.

I am a Research Hydraulic Engineer (retired) for the Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory at ERDC. The lead article on their website was the last project that I worked on as a private contractor. The technology is patented and I'm one of the patent holders. Did a lot of structural engineering on that project, in addition to the usual wave and current induced hydrodynamics. Field work, laboratory work, numerous numerical analyses, and analytical work (numerical hydrodynamic modeling), I've done all four, extensively in my career. Have had the chance to work on several very interesting and technically challenging projects during my career.

So, while I'm not a climate scientist, we do deal with coastal and inland flooding due to hurricanes and other extreme weather events, we design coastal and inland structures, and as such, must be cognisant of future sea levels for 100-year structural design lifetimes. Same goes for hydrology for return periods of 100 years or greater.

I can, and do, read extensively from the climate science literature, and have looked into, and used, the raw ice core data extensively, for my own educational purposes.

I've already mentioned that I'm a "bit" of a polymath, for what that's worth. \
I do understand many science, engineering, and technology disciplines very well, as it was an essential part of my job description.

In regard to the emails, I do believe that all temperature data and code will be released shortly, they've started to do so already (All.zip).

Once all raw data and codes are released, others can attempt to do their own reconstructions, heck look at the last paper I linked to, Mann's 2009 paper, unzip the files and you have ~100MB of proxy data and codes, it's all there for anyone else to use.

The IPCC and CRU don't "make a profit" as you claim, they have never "made a profit" no one "makes a profit" in the public/academic sectors. Jiminy Cricket, listen to yourself! \
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #888 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

The IPCC and CRU don't "make a profit" as you claim, they have never "made a profit" no one "makes a profit" in the public/academic sectors. Jiminy Cricket, listen to yourself! \

I suspect you have a very narrow definition of "profit".
post #889 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Yes but if there's enough evidence it probably means something. And if things aren't changing how do you explain things like this : http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...i092547D38.DTL

Obviously there's a mechanisim at work here. If it's not us ( which alot of evidence points to that ) then we still should be concerned.

Nature is a fascinating thing. Just when we thing we know all there is to know, Manhattan sized pieces of ice go AWOL. Yep, something is up alright.

Quote:
Other than the " E-mail " incident do you have a real logical reason to believe this is going on and that's all there is to GW?

If so please show us the proof.

Did I say anything about this being all there is to GW? Although the term is now Climate Change, not Global Warming, I did not say that this proves or disproves either. It calls into question a portion of the science behind it and the peer review process as it relates to the emails in question at the least.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #890 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

I suspect you have a very narrow definition of "profit".

No one goes into scientific research or academia to become filthy rich.

It's all about publish or perish, to gain name recognition and/or tenure, and subsequent research monies to publish new research papers. \
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #891 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

No one goes into scientific research or academia to become filthy rich.

It's all about publish or perish, to gain name recognition and/or tenure, and subsequent research monies to publish new research papers. \

As I said, it seems you have a very narrow definition of "profit". Hint: It ain't always about money.
post #892 of 3039
Since you've cited your own credentials, attacking them isn't personally attacking you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

I am a Research Hydraulic Engineer (retired) for the Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory at ERDC. The lead article on their website was the last project that I worked on as a private contractor. The technology is patented and I'm one of the patent holders. Did a lot of structural engineering on that project, in addition to the usual wave and current induced hydrodynamics. Field work, laboratory work, numerous numerical analyses, and analytical work (numerical hydrodynamic modeling), I've done all four, extensively in my career. Have had the chance to work on several very interesting and technically challenging projects during my career.

You've shown, just like Gore, how there is plenty of money opportunities within "government" work while likewise claiming just the opposite, lack of profit motive. You note yourself as the patent holder and thus know due to intellectual property rights, that royalties are paid on patents. You've claimed yourself that government pensions in an age of 401k's make them a very sound and expensive asset. As is always the case, the rich don't have to have the money in their pocket, they just control it. Donald Trump doesn't have to own the private jets. His corporation just leases them and he conveniently flies in them.

These climatology centers and foundations, are in control of massive amounts of dollars and are seeking even more. Every politicians and WARMmonger are declaring the future to be rich with green jobs and the next technological gold rush.

Yet folks like yourself are dismissing skepticism due to the profit motive. Please, that is nonsense. Don't cite yourself as someone who is sticking patents under their name and declare that there is no financial stake in the matter. You show exactly why and how there is a financial stake.

As you note, an engineer has to design to possible future specs. If they own a patent related to a claimed future spec and thus the patent must be used in all future products that now meet that spec, they have just become rich without lifting a finger.

Everyone can make LCD screens, but I have patented the technology that allows them to perform in the same manner but with 20% less energy. People can ignore the energy use and thus ignore my patent. However I lobby the government to regulate energy use on LCD panels and suddenly... I'm a rich man. Suddenly my patent can no longer be ignored and in fact, is the key to staying in business.

You don't just prove the point Frank, you personify it.

You've declared that you have patents related to engineering. If the specs don't have to account for 100 years of global warming, if the specs presume no rising sea level, then perhaps the final engineering specs won't make use of engineering techniques that just so happen to fall under your patents. Thus they can be ignored. However if the government has to include such conclusions, then those patents are accessed and some become rich and others poor.

Being readers on an Apple forum we see this sort of thing going on all the time.

So again, you show exactly why the game is being played as it is being played and show exactly how the profit comes out even while claiming an altruistic motive.

Quote:
So, while I'm not a climate scientist, we do deal with coastal and inland flooding due to hurricanes and other extreme weather events, we design coastal and inland structures, and as such, must be cognisant of future sea levels for 100-year structural design lifetimes. Same goes for hydrology for return periods of 100 years or greater.

You've not afforded other educated professionals the same courtesy you extend yourself here. You dismiss them outright. By your own reasoning, the same should be done to you.

Quote:
I can, and do, read extensively from the climate science literature, and have looked into, and used, the raw ice core data extensively, for my own educational purposes.

I'm sure every person who has written the books, articles, funded foundations, etc... all the stuff you have called into question and dismissed, has done the exact same thing. Stephen McIntyre is a mathematician for goodness sakes and spends his time at Climate Audit...checking the math. Yet you dismiss him outright. Dismiss yourself outright as well lest you be a hypocrite under your own reasoning.

Quote:
I've already mentioned that I'm a "bit" of a polymath, for what that's worth. \
I do understand many science, engineering, and technology disciplines very well, as it was an essential part of my job description.

Understanding them isn't enough. You dismiss anyone who does not have the proper credentials.

Quote:
In regard to the emails, I do believe that all temperature data and code will be released shortly, they've started to do so already (All.zip).

Once all raw data and codes are released, others can attempt to do their own reconstructions, heck look at the last paper I linked to, Mann's 2009 paper, unzip the files and you have ~100MB of proxy data and codes, it's all there for anyone else to use.

The IPCC and CRU don't "make a profit" as you claim, they have never "made a profit" no one "makes a profit" in the public/academic sectors. Jiminy Cricket, listen to yourself! \

Hollywood movies don't have to make a profit. Books don't have to make a profit. Patents don't have to make a profit. They just have to break even while paying out what the contract stipulates. If the movie contract stipulates that the star makes twenty million and it breaks even, the star is still twenty million richer. If the book author makes an advance of $10 million and then the publisher doesn't recover it, or only breaks even in subsequent printings, then the author is still $10 million dollars richer. If a patent holder is paid a royalty or or if the foundation that is controlled by individuals is paid that on that royalty, then is money transferring hands. If the patents are accounted for in the engineering specs, or even if are part of a pool of owned patents they constitute intellectual property and thus wealth.

If anything, your post has shown that folks like yourself are the MOST biased people speaking on this matter. You know that the initial spec sheet determines EVERYTHING about how that project can be engineered and thus who and what will be used. If the spec demands it last 50 years instead of 25, the whole nature of what is used can change. If the sea levels rise 50 feet instead of 5 feet, entirely different materials, construction methods and yes PATENTS, are accessed and thus who is enriched, changes completely.

Again Frank, you aren't just an example, you PERSONIFY what is at stake in these discussions and those pushing the WARMING agenda just happen to own carbon offset companies. They just happen to hold the patents on technologies that allow the same component to work with a lower power footprint and the industry ignored it because the $10 difference in annual electrical use wasn't worth it. When the government mandates it, it suddenly becomes very worth it.

Global warming is about controlling and redistributing wealth. It always has been and will be. It is the ultimate example of the intent game and Al Gore is the ultimate example of someone who has enriched himself by 100 million dollars while collecting Nobels, and "saving" the planet.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #893 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

LOL Taskiss. The research shows that the current warming has almost 0% to do with the glacial periods.

What are you smoking? It's entirely within the bounds represented by the graph.

Do you know how to read the graph, Hands? Ask Frank for help if you need.
post #894 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Since you've cited your own credentials, attacking them isn't personally attacking you.



You've shown, just like Gore, how there is plenty of money opportunities within "government" work while likewise claiming just the opposite, lack of profit motive. You note yourself as the patent holder and thus know due to intellectual property rights, that royalties are paid on patents. You've claimed yourself that government pensions in an age of 401k's make them a very sound and expensive asset. As is always the case, the rich don't have to have the money in their pocket, they just control it. Donald Trump doesn't have to own the private jets. His corporation just leases them and he conveniently flies in them.

These climatology centers and foundations, are in control of massive amounts of dollars and are seeking even more. Every politicians and WARMmonger are declaring the future to be rich with green jobs and the next technological gold rush.

Yet folks like yourself are dismissing skepticism due to the profit motive. Please, that is nonsense. Don't cite yourself as someone who is sticking patents under their name and declare that there is no financial stake in the matter. You show exactly why and how there is a financial stake.

As you note, an engineer has to design to possible future specs. If they own a patent related to a claimed future spec and thus the patent must be used in all future products that now meet that spec, they have just become rich without lifting a finger.

Everyone can make LCD screens, but I have patented the technology that allows them to perform in the same manner but with 20% less energy. People can ignore the energy use and thus ignore my patent. However I lobby the government to regulate energy use on LCD panels and suddenly... I'm a rich man. Suddenly my patent can no longer be ignored and in fact, is the key to staying in business.

You don't just prove the point Frank, you personify it.

You've declared that you have patents related to engineering. If the specs don't have to account for 100 years of global warming, if the specs presume no rising sea level, then perhaps the final engineering specs won't make use of engineering techniques that just so happen to fall under your patents. Thus they can be ignored. However if the government has to include such conclusions, then those patents are accessed and some become rich and others poor.

Being readers on an Apple forum we see this sort of thing going on all the time.

So again, you show exactly why the game is being played as it is being played and show exactly how the profit comes out even while claiming an altruistic motive.



You've not afforded other educated professionals the same courtesy you extend yourself here. You dismiss them outright. By your own reasoning, the same should be done to you.



I'm sure every person who has written the books, articles, funded foundations, etc... all the stuff you have called into question and dismissed, has done the exact same thing. Stephen McIntyre is a mathematician for goodness sakes and spends his time at Climate Audit...checking the math. Yet you dismiss him outright. Dismiss yourself outright as well lest you be a hypocrite under your own reasoning.



Understanding them isn't enough. You dismiss anyone who does not have the proper credentials.



Hollywood movies don't have to make a profit. Books don't have to make a profit. Patents don't have to make a profit. They just have to break even while paying out what the contract stipulates. If the movie contract stipulates that the star makes twenty million and it breaks even, the star is still twenty million richer. If the book author makes an advance of $10 million and then the publisher doesn't recover it, or only breaks even in subsequent printings, then the author is still $10 million dollars richer. If a patent holder is paid a royalty or or if the foundation that is controlled by individuals is paid that on that royalty, then is money transferring hands. If the patents are accounted for in the engineering specs, or even if are part of a pool of owned patents they constitute intellectual property and thus wealth.

If anything, your post has shown that folks like yourself are the MOST biased people speaking on this matter. You know that the initial spec sheet determines EVERYTHING about how that project can be engineered and thus who and what will be used. If the spec demands it last 50 years instead of 25, the whole nature of what is used can change. If the sea levels rise 50 feet instead of 5 feet, entirely different materials, construction methods and yes PATENTS, are accessed and thus who is enriched, changes completely.

Again Frank, you aren't just an example, you PERSONIFY what is at stake in these discussions and those pushing the WARMING agenda just happen to own carbon offset companies. They just happen to hold the patents on technologies that allow the same component to work with a lower power footprint and the industry ignored it because the $10 difference in annual electrical use wasn't worth it. When the government mandates it, it suddenly becomes very worth it.

Global warming is about controlling and redistributing wealth. It always has been and will be. It is the ultimate example of the intent game and Al Gore is the ultimate example of someone who has enriched himself by 100 million dollars while collecting Nobels, and "saving" the planet.

Quote:
Global warming is about controlling and redistributing wealth. It always has been and will be. It is the ultimate example of the intent game and Al Gore is the ultimate example of someone who has enriched himself by 100 million dollars while collecting Nobels, and "saving" the planet

And the unbiased proof of all of this horrible conspiracy ( so we can believe you ) is.................????????

Is there more evidence than there is for GW being real and us having a part in it? I mean do you have something like an ice sheet that's been frozen for thousands of years the size of Manhattan breaking loose and floating away? Something tangible like that showing that it's the motivator for this movement would do it.

Ps. Something other than your interpretation. Something other than an isolated email incident.


Quote:
Everyone can make LCD screens, but I have patented the technology that allows them to perform in the same manner but with 20% less energy. People can ignore the energy use and thus ignore my patent. However I lobby the government to regulate energy use on LCD panels and suddenly... I'm a rich man. Suddenly my patent can no longer be ignored and in fact, is the key to staying in business.

And the thing about designing something that uses less of our energy supply ( which is finite ) is bad because...........?????????????????

The guy invented something useful and benificial and got rich off of the patent is bad because..............????????

I thought you guys liked free enterprise? Which is basically all about building a better mousetrap and getting rich off of it in the process.

Quote:
Again Frank, you aren't just an example, you PERSONIFY what is at stake in these discussions and those pushing the WARMING agenda just happen to own carbon offset companies. They just happen to hold the patents on technologies that allow the same component to work with a lower power footprint and the industry ignored it because the $10 difference in annual electrical use wasn't worth it. When the government mandates it, it suddenly becomes very worth it.

Since these people are interested in our enviroment and the effects of GW ( which is very real to them ) wouldn't it follow that they'd develope these items and hold patents on them?

And this is bad because.........??????

In our society money is the fuel for the engine that drives change. People turning a profit to further their efforts ( unless they're selling snake oil like a certain former president but it has to be proven to be snake oil ) is all of a sudden a bad thing because.......??????

The way people look at movements is kind of like looking at drawing of a old tree. Sometimes people see faces ( conspiracies ) and things in the bark that aren't really there. It's part of the human condition. And before you start we have already seen that the climate is changing. That's not a theory that something is going on that isn't the norm ( for us ).
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #895 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

And the unbiased proof of all of this horrible conspiracy ( so we can believe you ) is.................????????

Reality is the proof. Cap and trade is legislation, not a pipe dream.

Quote:
Is there more evidence than there is for GW being real and us having a part in it? I mean do you have something like an ice sheet that's been frozen for thousands of years the size of Manhattan breaking loose and floating away? Something tangible like that showing that it's the motivator for this movement would do it.

Ps. Something other than your interpretation. Something other than an isolated email incident.

There is plenty of evidence for considerable temp swings on this planet. The difference this time is in claiming that man is the cause rather than nature.

As has been noted repeatedly by others in this thread, Greenland was once... GREEN. It was farmed by Vikings. This means all the large ice sheets currently there were not there. Likewise a visit to most national parks in the the northern United States will allow you to visit areas carved out by glaciers that are no longer there and were long gone before the industrial revolution.


Quote:
And the thing about designing something that uses less of our energy supply ( which is finite ) is bad because...........?????????????????

Our energy supply is not finite. A percentage of sunlight each day isn't even what humankind uses in an entire year.

Quote:
The guy invented something useful and benificial and got rich off of the patent is bad because..............????????

Because the market didn't pick the winner. Rather he won by lobbying the government to remove the competition thus leaving him the winner by default.

Quote:
I thought you guys liked free enterprise? Which is basically all about building a better mousetrap and getting rich off of it in the process.

It isn't a better mousetrap. All designs are a series of trade offs. By outlawing certain trade offs, that doesn't make it a better design, rather it simply eliminates possible choices. Most alternative technologies take 10-15 YEARS to break even on their additional cost. So the television you design uses 15% less electricity than my design. However it will take 10 years of electric bills to break even with the additional cost. The consumer should have that choice. Instead the government makes the choice for them. That is not free enterprise.

Quote:
Since these people are interested in our enviroment and the effects of GW ( which is very real to them ) wouldn't it follow that they'd develope these items and hold patents on them?

And this is bad because.........??????

It is bad because it doesn't make a difference and it doesn't improve the quality of life. It would be no different than me holding the licensing for Hannah Montana stickers and getting the government to pass a law requiring a Hannah Montana sticker be on every item sold.

Quote:
In our society money is the fuel for the engine that drives change. People turning a profit to further their efforts ( unless they're selling snake oil like a certain former president but it has to be proven to be snake oil ) is all of a sudden a bad thing because.......??????

Money is nothing. Money is simply the medium of exchange. This is what yourself and other liberals fail to see. They think they can demand the exchange for free by declaring that the printing presses will conjure the money or declaring future generations will pay back the exchange. It doesn't work. There is no free ride. These people aren't enriching themselves by actually making life better. They are selling the very snake oil you note. Likewise most folks like myself tease that carbon offsets are very much like the historic Catholic indulgences whereby you could be forgiven for sinning if you had deep pockets were going to hell if you didn't. To an atheist, indulgences look ridiculous and to a climate skeptic, carbon indulgences look like a ridiculous waste of time. If it makes you feel any better you can call us the carbon reformation.

Quote:
The way people look at movements is kind of like looking at drawing of a old tree. Sometimes people see faces ( conspiracies ) and things in the bark that aren't really there. It's part of the human condition. And before you start we have already seen that the climate is changing. That's not a theory that something is going on that isn't the norm ( for us ).

So a big summit in Copenhagen where people are making billion and trillion dollar pledges is my imagination? Good to know.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #896 of 3039
Z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z ...
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #897 of 3039
Quote:
As I said, it seems you have a very narrow definition of "profit". Hint: It ain't always about money.

Yeah and everyone needs to eat too.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #898 of 3039
Associated Press review of those emails:

Quote:
E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data — but the messages don't support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press.
The 1,073 e-mails examined by the AP show that scientists harbored private doubts, however slight and fleeting, even as they told the world they were certain about climate change. However, the exchanges don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

It's the frontal zone where politics and science mingle (always dodgy)... but here, more like the proverbial "storm in a teacup". As the article states, it is "not very pretty", but the AP review panel found that the "science has not been faked", and the huge body of evidence that points to human industrial activity being a factor in global warming is not affected.

This "climategate" affair is about the interpretation of (some very inappropriate) human interaction amongst professionals.

Falsifying scientific data for political ends? Lets not even go there.. it's such common practice. The "Climategate" affair is blown up out of all conceivable proportions and it doesn't even leave the starting block in a "bad science" contest.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #899 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Associated Press review of those emails:



It's the frontal zone where politics and science mingle (always dodgy)... but here, more like the proverbial "storm in a teacup". As the article states, it is "not very pretty", but the AP review panel found that the "science has not been faked", and the huge body of evidence that points to human industrial activity being a factor in global warming is not affected.

This "climategate" affair is about the interpretation of (some very inappropriate) human interaction amongst professionals.

Falsifying scientific data for political ends? Lets not even go there.. it's such common practice. The "Climategate" affair is blown up out of all conceivable proportions and it doesn't even leave the starting block in a "bad science" contest.

Because the AP has access to all the data, their own scientists recompiled it and found the results to be the same?
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #900 of 3039
[QUOTE=jimmac;1534052


Didn't you study basic evolution in school? Probably not huh?

Well the longer a species is around the tendency is for it to become more specialized ( dependent on it's local environment ). In our case we're dependent on where our crops are grown, where we get our medicine, etc. If we were asked to go back to a more primitive time where we had to grow our own food etc. I doubt many would survive. I mean the places where we grow food would be gone thanks to climate change. [/quote]

I see what you mean, but I don't see how its relevant to this discussion. The kinds of changes you are talking about are severe. Not even the worst GW scenarios show this kind of change.

Quote:

Ice ages ( if that was the result of GW ) can vary a lot. Here's the absolute worst :



Now it probably would take very different conditions for things to get that bad. But it shows how different they can be. The one in the middle ages was mild.

Here's a little info : http://www.scienceclarified.com/He-In/Ice-Ages.html

It would take hundreds of years to adjust. In the mean time I don't think there would be much of us left. And that's only if we have a nice ice age like the one you were talking about. Conditions were harsh enough but there have been periods where it lasted much longer and was much worse. Best case scenario we'd have another dark ages and it would be hundreds ( if not in thousands depending on how bad things got ) of years before we got back to where we are today. In the mean time many would die. I think that's bad enough don't you? Of course this scenario is all speculation as we can't be sure what the exact effects would be. The only thing you can be sure of is if GW gets the upper hand it will be bad for us. We're a lot more fragile than you can imagine. And it gets better! Now the thinking is that this can happen in a matter of months not years. I suggest you read the link I posted earlier in this thread.

And it really doesn't have to get all that dramatic as an ice age. All we'd have to have is drought in the right places and we'd all starve to death. We like to think of ourselves as so superior and on top of things in our modern world but the truth is it wouldn't take much change to kill us off.

So if you were expecting the worst that could come out of this was just a different coastline think again.

I don't disagree that the ice age you reference was more severe. But it's not relevant to this discussion. Also, aren't you arguing that we're really at risk because of global cooling? Your statement about GW happening in a matter of months is patently false and unsupportable.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #901 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z ...

That's about the all you can do to respond to this matter. You've gone from dismissals to outright dozing.

Don't worry, we know you need your naps.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #902 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

The IPCC and CRU don't "make a profit" as you claim, they have never "made a profit" no one "makes a profit" in the public/academic sectors. Jiminy Cricket, listen to yourself! \

I said "not make a profit", be more specific.

True, not many people go into academics or research for the "big bucks", but they can make a nice salary. Here is a link to the UCSD (picked at random from Google) pay scale for researchers, they can make $83-164K per year, not including money from patents, etc. Lots more than I'll make in a year anytime soon working as a radiography tech at a hospital. It's not uncommon for tenured academics to make in the low six figures. I know from working with GS types that the pay scale starts out low but can hit some nice paychecks in the high ranges, plus per diems and expenses if they travel allot. A couple of the GSes at one command I was at made more income than the full bird CO. So a blanket statement of "no one" makes a profit in the academic or public sector is a bit disingenuous.

But whatever, no sense in sidetracking the thread more over differences in opinion, since that seems to be the main occupation here currently. (not meaning you, I'm speaking in general)
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #903 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I see what you mean, but I don't see how its relevant to this discussion. The kinds of changes you are talking about are severe. Not even the worst GW scenarios show this kind of change.



I don't disagree that the ice age you reference was more severe. But it's not relevant to this discussion. Also, aren't you arguing that we're really at risk because of global cooling? Your statement about GW happening in a matter of months is patently false and unsupportable.


Quote:
Your statement about GW happening in a matter of months is patently false and unsupportable

Here lets play a game you guys play " Having a problem with the quote function???? "

Actually that's an ice age in a matter of months. two different things where one might lead to the other. And of course in the famine scenerio if the places where you grow food don't grow anymore what the hell are you going to do about it? I know big domes in space! Well I'd be an advocate of any such safe guard for a number of things but that would take longer than it would for you to starve to death. Just imagine the conflicts we'd have over the stockpiles of food that were left and then what? That could happen over the course of a few years.

Quote:
But it's not relevant to this discussion

SDW if you had bother to do a fraction of what you want me to do on this site ( search for a quote you made years ago ) and look back in this thread you'd see how it was relevant.

There was a direct reference to all of this but the truth is you're only interested in hearing yourself talk.

Here's the link again : http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34242705...ience-science/



Quote:
Starting roughly 12,800 years ago, the Northern Hemisphere was gripped by a chill that lasted some 1,300 years. Known by scientists as the Younger Dryas and nicknamed the"Big Freeze," geological evidence suggests it was brought on when a vast pulse of fresh water — a greater volume than all of North America's Great Lakes combined — poured into the Atlantic and Arctic Oceans.

Quote:
This abrupt influx, caused when the glacial Lake Agassiz in North America burst its banks, diluted the circulation of warmer water in the North Atlantic, bringing this "conveyer belt" to a halt. Without this warming influence, evidence shows that temperatures across the Northern Hemisphere plummeted.

Quote:
No time to react
Previous evidence from Greenland ice samples had suggested this abrupt shift in climate happened over the span of a decade or so. Now researchers say it surprisingly may have taken place over the course of a few months, or a year or two at most.



But of course you know more than these guys right?

For the record in the article they actually state that they are not for or against the theory of GW. That's pretty unbiased.

I know it's asking a lot but actually read the entire article ok?

Yes, yes I know! Here at the fantasyland sandbox only SDW and trumptman are right.






Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #904 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Reality is the proof. Cap and trade is legislation, not a pipe dream.



There is plenty of evidence for considerable temp swings on this planet. The difference this time is in claiming that man is the cause rather than nature.

As has been noted repeatedly by others in this thread, Greenland was once... GREEN. It was farmed by Vikings. This means all the large ice sheets currently there were not there. Likewise a visit to most national parks in the the northern United States will allow you to visit areas carved out by glaciers that are no longer there and were long gone before the industrial revolution.




Our energy supply is not finite. A percentage of sunlight each day isn't even what humankind uses in an entire year.



Because the market didn't pick the winner. Rather he won by lobbying the government to remove the competition thus leaving him the winner by default.



It isn't a better mousetrap. All designs are a series of trade offs. By outlawing certain trade offs, that doesn't make it a better design, rather it simply eliminates possible choices. Most alternative technologies take 10-15 YEARS to break even on their additional cost. So the television you design uses 15% less electricity than my design. However it will take 10 years of electric bills to break even with the additional cost. The consumer should have that choice. Instead the government makes the choice for them. That is not free enterprise.



It is bad because it doesn't make a difference and it doesn't improve the quality of life. It would be no different than me holding the licensing for Hannah Montana stickers and getting the government to pass a law requiring a Hannah Montana sticker be on every item sold.



Money is nothing. Money is simply the medium of exchange. This is what yourself and other liberals fail to see. They think they can demand the exchange for free by declaring that the printing presses will conjure the money or declaring future generations will pay back the exchange. It doesn't work. There is no free ride. These people aren't enriching themselves by actually making life better. They are selling the very snake oil you note. Likewise most folks like myself tease that carbon offsets are very much like the historic Catholic indulgences whereby you could be forgiven for sinning if you had deep pockets were going to hell if you didn't. To an atheist, indulgences look ridiculous and to a climate skeptic, carbon indulgences look like a ridiculous waste of time. If it makes you feel any better you can call us the carbon reformation.



So a big summit in Copenhagen where people are making billion and trillion dollar pledges is my imagination? Good to know.

Remember the criteria for proof was not your interpretation.

Sigh!

Please supply proof of your claims sir!

Or I could say like I.S. " Thank you for your opinion. "

Remember I'm the one that never supplies support for my statements.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #905 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

That's about the all you can do to respond to this matter. You've gone from dismissals to outright dozing.

Don't worry, we know you need your naps.

It seems:

It is the potential interference in the so-called "free market" that is fueling the ire of those who regard the human factor in global warming as a "lie", or a "scam". Suddenly, a long-standing 'way of life' in the US, namely the freedom to conduct business exactly as we please, is being threatened by the specter of some faceless international regulators telling us what we can and cannot do, in an area which we have dominated for a century or more. (How dare they!). Our energy M.O. has given rise to the national infra-structure as it stands currently, and to have some global regulations forced upon us is an absolute no-no. To be dictated to by some non-US body, comprising people of all nationalities is akin to giving up a part of our national sovereignty. The allegiance of many groups who lead the skeptics' charge tend towards the "libertarian" end of the political spectrum, especially in regards to the sacred principle of "keep government out of my business".

When politics interferes with science and people (from either side of an argument) fudge the facts, cook the books, dry-lab the studies and generally cheat to bolster their political stance, or to save face, there are no winners. The last one standing never wins; we all lose.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #906 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Here lets play a game you guys play " Having a problem with the quote function???? "

Yeah we were into like five levels deep there. Not good!

Quote:

Actually that's an ice age in a matter of months. two different things where one might lead to the other. And of course in the famine scenerio if the places where you grow food don't grow anymore what the hell are you going to do about it? I know big domes in space! Well I'd be an advocate of any such safe guard for a number of things but that would take longer than it would for you to starve to death. Just imagine the conflicts we'd have over the stockpiles of food that were left and then what? That could happen over the course of a few years.

No, it could not happen over a course of a few years. Why? Because the Earth's climate doesn't change like that without a 6 mile meteor hitting the surface.

Also, you are now fully transitioned to arguing that we may be in for another Ice Age.

Quote:



SDW if you had bother to do a fraction of what you want me to do on this site ( search for a quote you made years ago ) and look back in this thread you'd see how it was relevant.

There was a direct reference to all of this but the truth is you're only interested in hearing yourself talk.

Here's the link again : http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34242705...ience-science/

...

I read the link. I frankly don't think it's possible. But even if it is, what are we doing now to cause it? That is what I'm getting at here. We're not talking about climate change in general. We are talking about man made climate change.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #907 of 3039
post #908 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic View Post


Small and hard to read, do you have a bigger version?
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #909 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Yeah we were into like five levels deep there. Not good!



No, it could not happen over a course of a few years. Why? Because the Earth's climate doesn't change like that without a 6 mile meteor hitting the surface.

Also, you are now fully transitioned to arguing that we may be in for another Ice Age.



I read the link. I frankly don't think it's possible. But even if it is, what are we doing now to cause it? That is what I'm getting at here. We're not talking about climate change in general. We are talking about man made climate change.

Quote:
I read the link. I frankly don't think it's possible. But even if it is, what are we doing now to cause it? That is what I'm getting at here. We're not talking about climate change in general. We are talking about man made climate change

Ok. Already when you start to claim equal or more knowledge than these scientists you've already cast doubt on everything you have to say on the subject ( frankly for me that happened when you said my claims weren't supportable ). But there is a lot of evidence to show we're causing the warming. You know that.

I just used these guys because they had a relevant article about how bad things could get in a short period of time. And they claim to be unbiased. However no where in the article did they say we weren't the cause of it. These ice sheets ( that have been frozen for thousands of years ) are breaking loose now for a reason. That's not theory. If it's not us we still need to know why because it could cause big trouble for us. And we know this can happen because that's what their core samples show.

Quote:
Also, you are now fully transitioned to arguing that we may be in for another Ice Age.

Once again you've only absorbed half of what I've said. How about this :
Quote:
And it really doesn't have to get all that dramatic as an ice age. All we'd have to have is drought in the right places and we'd all starve to death. We like to think of ourselves as so superior and on top of things in our modern world but the truth is it wouldn't take much change to kill us off.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #910 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

It seems:

It is the potential interference in the so-called "free market" that is fueling the ire of those who regard the human factor in global warming as a "lie", or a "scam".

It's one of the factors, yes.

Quote:
Suddenly, a long-standing 'way of life' in the US, namely the freedom to conduct business exactly as we please, is being threatened by the specter of some faceless international regulators telling us what we can and cannot do, in an area which we have dominated for a century or more. (How dare they!).

Basically, yes.

Quote:
Our energy M.O. has given rise to the national infra-structure as it stands currently, and to have some global regulations forced upon us is an absolute no-no. To be dictated to by some non-US body, comprising people of all nationalities is akin to giving up a part of our national sovereignty.

That's exactly what it is. The US is not accountable to a world government. I don't want to be accountable to regulating world body. Why? Because the further government gets from the people directly, the greater a chance of tyranny. Our Founding Fathers know this, which is why they attempted to limit the powers of national government. Those limits have been ignored and destroyed. I can only imagine what a regulating world body would do.

Quote:


The allegiance of many groups who lead the skeptics' charge tend towards the "libertarian" end of the political spectrum, especially in regards to the sacred principle of "keep government out of my business".

That's generally true. But for me, it has little to do with politics. It has to do with bad science, manipulated by those who have an agenda.

Quote:

When politics interferes with science and people (from either side of an argument) fudge the facts, cook the books, dry-lab the studies and generally cheat to bolster their political stance, or to save face, there are no winners. The last one standing never wins; we all lose.

But that is human nature. It doesn't make it right, but it does happen. The problem I see is that those who embrace the theory of AGW see this corruption on the skeptic side, but not their side. There is going to be a little of it everywhere. That is what The Believers refuse to acknowledge.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #911 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Ok. Already when you start to claim equal or more knowledge than these scientists you've already cast doubt on everything you have to say on the subject ( frankly for me that happened when you said my claims weren't supportable ). But there is a lot of evidence to show we're causing the warming. You know that.

First, I am not claiming to "know more." I am taking issue with the prediction that an Ice Age could happen in months or a few years. You make it sound like scientists are some sort of infallible gods. How many times have we heard predictions that are reversed within months?

Secondly...THERE IS NO WARMING. How many times do you have to read this to understand? Despite increased "greenhouse gas" emissions, the temperature is not going up.

Quote:
I just used these guys because they had a relevant article about how bad things could get in a short period of time. And they claim to be unbiased. However no where in the article did they say we weren't the cause of it. These ice sheets ( that have been frozen for thousands of years ) are breaking loose now for a reason. That's not theory. If it's not us we still need to know why because it could cause big trouble for us. And we know this can happen because that's what their core samples show.

I didn't say they were biased. I said they were making predictions that I don't agree with. Do you accept every scientist's word as law? I don't. And really...your proof that we are the cause of it is that they didn't say we WEREN'T the cause of it? Wow.

Quote:

Once again you've only absorbed half of what I've said. How about this :

I understand, and I'm not necessarily disagreeing. What I'm saying is that there is NO evidence we are causing climate change, much less evidence that we are going to cause an Ice Age.

Why is it happening? I have one word for you: Cycles. Yes, I'm deadly serious. Funny that you explain everything political with this word, but cannot understand it on this issue.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #912 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

First, I am not claiming to "know more." I am taking issue with the prediction that an Ice Age could happen in months or a few years. You make it sound like scientists are some sort of infallible gods. How many times have we heard predictions that are reversed within months?

Secondly...THERE IS NO WARMING. How many times do you have to read this to understand? Despite increased "greenhouse gas" emissions, the temperature is not going up.



I didn't say they were biased. I said they were making predictions that I don't agree with. Do you accept every scientist's word as law? I don't. And really...your proof that we are the cause of it is that they didn't say we WEREN'T the cause of it? Wow.



I understand, and I'm not necessarily disagreeing. What I'm saying is that there is NO evidence we are causing climate change, much less evidence for mine that we are going to cause an Ice Age.

Why is it happening? I have one word for you: Cycles. Yes, I'm deadly serious. Funny that you explain everything political with this word, but cannot understand it on this issue.

Quote:
First, I am not claiming to "know more." I am taking issue with the prediction that an Ice Age could happen in months or a few years. You make it sound like scientists are some sort of infallible gods. How many times have we heard predictions that are reversed within months?

Firstly I think you sound like you're are saying you know more by taking issue with it. Based on what?

Secondly there's a record of it happening before!

Quote:
What I'm saying is that there is NO evidence we are causing climate change, much less evidence that we are going to cause an Ice Age.
Then how do you explain all the evidence out there? Let me guess you think they're making it up for some get rich scheme that you have no evidence to support?
Quote:
Why is it happening? I have one word for you: Cycles. Yes, I'm deadly serious. Funny that you explain everything political with this word, but cannot understand it on this issue

Listen SDW stuff is happening now that hasn't happened for thousands of years. All of a sudden because it's picking up the pace.

Quote:
Secondly...THERE IS NO WARMING. How many times do you have to read this to understand? Despite increased "greenhouse gas" emissions, the temperature is not going up.


What?

Say that again so we all can hear!

It's pretty common knowledge that the average temp of the earth is warmer now than usual.

Wow! Just wow!

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/loo...arth_warm.html

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/clim...on-study_N.htm

Quote:
The Earth's temperature from January-March 2009 was the 8th-warmest on record, according to data released Thursday from the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. The global temperature of 55.04 degrees for the year's first three months was almost a full degree above the 20th-century average of 54.1 degrees.
This continues a decades-long trend of warmer-than-average temperatures. If the warming pattern persists throughout the remainder of the year, it will mark the 33rd consecutive year of above-average global temperatures. The Earth's temperature record dates back to 1880.

Honestly in the last few months you've made the most unintelligent claims including your full of bullshit claims about me not supplying evidence so I have to go back and dig it up for you again! Yes I know I still haven't dredged the bottom of the river for the Clinton quote. Who knows maybe you didn't say exactly that but just inferred it. But what would it matter? You still wouldn't admit anything. Proving the same things over and over again to you is a waste of my time.

We won't even talk about the spelling bee ( which as I've shown you make the same mistakes yourself but are unwilling to impose the same dictates about the content ).

Really SDW your claims are unsupportable.

I'm sorry SDW but it's been shown now without a doubt most of what you say is stuff and nonsense tailored to fit your own partisan viewpoint.

Enjoy the time you and your head have in the sand.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #913 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

Small and hard to read, do you have a bigger version?

CO2 dosen't seem to be linked to temperature at the South Pole.
post #914 of 3039
Only 10% of the human population live on the southern hemisphere.
There is lot more ocean to reflect sunlight and much less Methane. CO2 is only one of the problems.
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #915 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

Only 10% of the human population live on the southern hemisphere.
There is lot more ocean to reflect sunlight and much less Methane. CO2 is only one of the problems.

That CO2 is a problem, is an assumption on your part and an incorrect one. That graph proves CO2 does not contribute to temperature change.
post #916 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic View Post

That CO2 is a problem, is an assumption on your part and an incorrect one. That graph proves CO2 does not contribute to temperature change.

No, the graph doesn't prove shit. There may be a time lag between CO2 buildup and temperature changes.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #917 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

No, the graph doesn't prove shit. There may be a time lag between CO2 buildup and temperature changes.

I don't know that I agree. If it clouds up in your area what is the lime lag between cloud cover and temperature rising?

If these are truly "greenhouse gases" and they truly trap the heat in, you should see the results over the course of a few years. The graph does not even seem to show a general rising in temperature at all. If anything, the temperature seems to trend lower in the latter years.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #918 of 3039
I think the funniest comment on this thread was that smog isn't pollution, it's "smoke and fog". As if smoke isn't pollution. Yeah, it's all those naturally occurring forest fires that cause the grey sky over Los Angeles.
post #919 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I think the funniest comment on this thread was that smog isn't pollution, it's "smoke and fog". As if smoke isn't pollution. Yeah, it's all those naturally occurring forest fires that cause the grey sky over Los Angeles.

That would only seem funny because your reading and interpretation skills are off by a factor of at least 2. The full quote is shown below so there are no problems remember what was actually said.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

So all smog is is CO2 and pollution? I am currently posting from a blackberry so research is a bit hard to do but it seems to me that smog is smoke combined with fog.

The largest greenhouse effect element that I have heard of is water vapor. And smog is loaded with it. The issue I have with smog is how hard it is to breathe. I postulate that the warming from smog is mainly due to the water vapor. Not the pollutants. However, the pollutants may cause the formation of smog itself. Like I said, being on a blackberry makes it hard to research.

So actually you are factually incorrect in your interpretation. I am fully aware of the pollution in smog. I never stated that smog was not loaded with pollution. My main point was that the greenhouse effect was not mainly due to the pollution in the smog, but the water vapor.

And you have a problem of seeing what you want to see.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #920 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Firstly I think you sound like you're are saying you know more by taking issue with it. Based on what?

Would you believe a few scientists who said our sun was going to explode tomorrow? It's just a fantastic claim, that's all.

Quote:

Secondly there's a record of it happening before!

If you read the article, it's really a prediction of a few scientists gathering evidence from ice core samples. I can't claim to be an expert on ice cores, but I do know it's a fairly new science. It's also one that requires a lot of extrapolation from the data. They are taking samples an analyzing them at the chemical level, then making statements about what happened tens of thousands of years ago. They are also making predictions based on those supposed occurrences. We're talking about looking at the number of carbon dioxide and oxygen isotopes and determining how fast the Ice Age set in.
I'm not saying it's invalid, just highly speculative and potentially very inaccurate.

Also, note this:

Quote:
Looking ahead to the future Patterson says there is no reason why a 'Big Freeze' shouldn't happen again. "If the Greenland ice sheet melted suddenly it would be catastrophic," he says

Here is the problem. Yes, it could happen...but is it likely? Are we causing it? Even if we are warming the planet, we are doing so gradually. Events like this are unpredictable and unstoppable. It's no reason to cede control of our economy and lives to some international regulatory authority that has questionable motives.


Quote:
Then how do you explain all the evidence out there? Let me guess you think they're making it up for some get rich scheme that you have no evidence to support?

I say there is no evidence, and you say "how do you explain all the evidence out there?" You haven't show evidence, so let's move on.

Quote:

Listen SDW stuff is happening now that hasn't happened for thousands of years. All of a sudden because it's picking up the pace.

Really jimmac. Like what? What hasn't happened for thousands of years, exactly?

Quote:


What?

Say that again so we all can hear!

It's pretty common knowledge that the average temp of the earth is warmer now than usual.

Wow! Just wow!

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/loo...arth_warm.html

PAGE NOT FOUND The page you requested either doesn't exist anymore, or was moved.
You can try searching for the topic, or follow the links below.

Better try that link again.



Your second link is biased. It assumes that AGW is real and without question. It also says this:

Quote:
This continues a decades-long trend of warmer-than-average temperatures. If the warming pattern persists throughout the remainder of the year, it will mark the 33rd consecutive year of above-average global temperatures. The Earth's temperature record dates back to 1880.

This is a misleading statement. Notice the standard is not a gradually increasing temperature, but a "warmer than average temperature" over several decades. This blows the first assumption (man made C02 causes warming) out of the water, because while C02 has increased dramatically, temperature has not. It's just been a maximum of one degree above the average temperature. I don't believe the article even defines how they are calculating the average...over what period, etc.

Quote:

Honestly in the last few months you've made the most unintelligent claims including your full of bullshit claims about me not supplying evidence so I have to go back and dig it up for you again!

You made an attempt...I'll give you credit there. But you haven't provided evidence that the Earth is warming and/or that we are causing the warming. The reason is that the Earth is not warming significantly. If we assume our temperature data is accurate to within 1/10th of a degree as far back as 100 years ago (and I think that's a tough pill to swallow), then the Earth has warmed between .06 and 1 degree centigrade. There is no rapid warming, no hockey stick graph for temperature, etc. I suppose you think I just throw things out there to try them out. I hold my opinions for a reason. I understand the facts. Based on those facts, I am far from convinced that AGW is 1) happening and 2) man-made.

Quote:


Yes I know I still haven't dredged the bottom of the river for the Clinton quote. Who knows maybe you didn't say exactly that but just inferred it. But what would it matter? You still wouldn't admit anything. Proving the same things over and over again to you is a waste of my time.

You mean "implied." The person reading does the inferring.

Quote:

We won't even talk about the spelling bee ( which as I've shown you make the same mistakes yourself but are unwilling to impose the same dictates about the content ).

I generally don't make the same mistakes. The ones I do are occasional. As for content, your content might be even worse than your grammar. You make claims but cannot support them. You post "evidence" that doesn't prove your assertions. You can't seem to distinguish between opinion and fact. Your claims tend to be vague and rhetorical. The list goes on.

Quote:

Really SDW your claims are unsupportable.

I disagree. Most of my claims are backed by fact. The ones that aren't I label as opinions. On this issue, I'm not the one making the claim...you are. I've even gone farther though. I've provided evidence that AGW is not happening. Doing your job is something I've come to expect.

Quote:

I'm sorry SDW but it's been shown now without a doubt most of what you say is stuff and nonsense tailored to fit your own partisan viewpoint.

Enjoy the time you and your head have in the sand.

I wasn't aware this was a partisan issue. I suppose Republicans and Democrats see it differently, but I don't think we even got into that. Did we?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Climategate