or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Global Warming Hysteria Building
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Global Warming Hysteria Building - Page 11

post #401 of 440
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

You are incorrect on your assumptions WRT GCM's.

All numerical models are vetted through a two step process called calibration and verification, this is SOP for numerical modelers.

Actually you are incorrect. I said nothing about 'vetting' a model, I said the modeling was different. The modeling for paleo climate studies are based on various forms of regression to find correlations between proxy's (e.g. tree rings) and temperatures in order to reconstruct 'absolute' historical temperatures.

GCM's are models that replicate climate processes (evaporation, water vapor, cloud cover, CO2 production, volcanic activity, etc) using geophysics equations and mathematical representations of climate processes. Plugging in known or assumed data in order to predict temperature and climate.

That each require a calibration period and then a supposed verification process is a given, but the model constructs are different. Paleo models could be statistically flawed without implying the GCM models are similiarly flawed.

And I disagree that the GCM models "have been rather successful when compared to the recent historic physical measurements of record.", they've done rather poorly, no better than a simple bi-variate linear regression line (take a straight line, draw it between the data points is the simplest (inexact) explanation for those unfamiliar with regression...).
post #402 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregmightdothat View Post

It's Cletter O2, not Czero2. CO2, not C02.

I know. Not sure why I did it like that.
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 #403 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Yes, sorry missed the "majority" part at the start! Doh!



No, to this part of his statement! So I stand by the "all time CO2 record" (We are talking about atmospheric CO2 here, aren't we?) part of my statement if we continue to burn Carbon deposits at ever increasing rates.

But really, we aren't adding any carbon to the Earth (Are we?), we are converting the existing deposits of carbon (i. e. carbon atoms in fossil fuels) through chemical reactions into gaseous CO2, and that the Earth's biosphere/oceans can not absorb this gaseous CO2 increase at an equal rate, thus the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels.

And that fact (I believe) is what most concerns climate scientists.

That is all.

And we're still not contributing significantly to the total CO2 levels. Why do you refuse to acknowledge this?
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 #404 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

CO2 is a stand-in for a variety of greenhouse gases, some of which are (by volume) are up to 20 times stronger in trapping solar radiation (e.g. methane, much of which seems to come from cows and nature).

Of course the use of graphs to show dramatic increases in CO2 conveys one impression. However, note two particular points:

First, we are speaking of parts per million - that is the hair-pulling is over an increase of CO2 from .028% to .038%. The increase of 1/100th % suggests a balance so delicate that the tiniest change in volcanic activity over a short period alone would cause dramatic swings in global temperature. And given that humans only contribute between 3 and 6% of yearly CO2 this seems (on its face) dubious to ascribe it to humans.

Second, GCM's are as much an art as a science. Of the 12 or so major input factors only half are pretty well understood, and big factors such as volcanic output are mere guesses. So what it amounts to is filling in guesses for independent variables until you get the prediction you are seeking, autocorrelated against past data that has, BTW, been adjusted.

I am with Lindzen on this - yes the earth probably is warming, and more likely than not humans have made a significant but unknown contribution to this. The degree of contribution is not really known, nor is the future course of warming or its effect. I suspect real warming will be less than one-half of current conservative estimates...i.e. maybe 1/2 ti to two degrees over 100 years - not much and nothing to worry about.

Let's see now, (385 - 280)/280 = 37.5% increase in CO2 from pre-industrial levels!

So taking the current trend line 2 ppmv/yr (and increasing), extrapolate to let's say 2,100 AD, after the physical measurements are well defined and we now have ~50 years of record. And since one of the many hats I wear is as a Research Hydraulic Engineer, and having taken 2 graduate level courses in hydrology (BTW, it is very heavy on statistical analyses), a factor of 2 extrapolation really nice, SOP is a factor of 3-5.

So that it is highly likely that by 2,100 AD CO2 will be ~ 600 ppmv, so now we have;

(600-280)/280 = 114 %

By 2,500 AD or so humankind should have set the all time record throughout all of Earth's history!

And when we humans set the record, we all will erect a plaque with all of the names of the AGW Cylons from the early 21th century!

PS the volcanic sensitivity you mention HAS been successfully modeled using at least 2 GCM's using the Mount Pinatubo eruption of 1991. BTW, that was the validation step of mumerical models, and that was circa mid-1990's.

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 #405 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

And we're still not contributing significantly to the total CO2 levels. Why do you refuse to acknowledge this?


SDW we are talking past each other, or at least you are!

Total CO2 flux from humans IS currently a few percent. Duh!

Buildup of gaseous CO2 in Earth's atmosphere is not insignificant, it has already risen ~ 38% from pre-industrial levels.

See my previous post, the math is very simple, so that even you should be able to understand it!
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 #406 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerLurker View Post

But that's NOT what the article says!

It says "OK, so global warming is NOT bunk... but, so what?

I'm pretty sure this is a new tactic for Lindzen.

Hmmm...I've always been of the opposite opinion...the world is warming, the root cause debatable but who cares? How will we deal with the climate change?

Vinea
post #407 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

First, we are speaking of parts per million - that is the hair-pulling is over an increase of CO2 from .028% to .038%. The increase of 1/100th % suggests a balance so delicate that the tiniest change in volcanic activity over a short period alone would cause dramatic swings in global temperature.

While I mostly agree with you, I just want to point out that this is a logical fallacy. Yes, CO2 is a minor percentage of the atmosphere, but it still is the second most significant greenhouse gas. It's not the size that matters, it's what you do with it

The tiniest change in volcanic activity causes a very tiny change in CO2, like .00001%, and therefore doesn't affect the temperatures. If we increased CO2 by a factor of 5 or 10, we'd be in some serious shit. But I don't think humans are even capable of doing that.

Quote:
Second, GCM's are as much an art as a science. Of the 12 or so major input factors only half are pretty well understood, and big factors such as volcanic output are mere guesses. So what it amounts to is filling in guesses for independent variables until you get the prediction you are seeking, autocorrelated against past data that has, BTW, been adjusted.

Absolutely. I pretty much ignore GCMs—it's like using Quantum physics to predict movements everyday objects. There's too many things we don't know with regards to weather, solar fluctuations, oceanography, and so on, and the exponential compounding of errors make GCMs utterly useless, particularly over long periods of time.

We need to take an approach similar to weather forecasting: look at trends, look at history.

I agree here with the IPCC that GCM's aren't great, but they're likely not too far off about global warming: there's no sign of it stopping at the moment.

I just ignore the crazy GCM's that predict all kinds of doom and hurricanes and droughts, because there's absolutely no historical evidence of that from the Medieval warm period.

Quote:
I am with Lindzen on this - yes the earth probably is warming, and more likely than not humans have made a significant but unknown contribution to this. The degree of contribution is not really known, nor is the future course of warming or its effect. I suspect real warming will be less than one-half of current conservative estimates...i.e. maybe 1/2 ti to two degrees over 100 years - not much and nothing to worry about.

Actually, that's about half of all estimates, not just conservative ones. Or rather, that's right in line with conservative estimates. Since I've seen little evidence that the rate of global warming is going to increase, I agree with you—it'll probably increase around another 0.6˚C this century.

CO2 increases will probably peak around 2050-2100 and then start to decline, based on extrapolations from ice core data.
post #408 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

I don't dispute your first statement. The flux of human CO2 versus the natural flux is indeed a few percent.

Where I think we differ, is in the causes of past CO2 changes versus the current CO2 changes. Maybe I'm mistaken, and I need to read up on it some more!

Anyway, WRT past histories of CO2, my understanding is the Earth's orbital motions are one natural source of temperature changes, that these temperature changes lead to CO2 changes (lags), but that at some point CO2 feedback causes further temperature changes.

You are not mistaken. CO2 does cause a heat increase. However, to what degree this happens is unknown.

It isn't hugely significant, however, because we've had similar CO2 and heat spikes before. If CO2 causes large heat spikes, since heat spikes also cause CO2 spikes, the world would have ended up stuck in a position of extreme amounts of CO2 and extreme temperatures. Obviously, since we're all here today, this hasn't happened.

CO2 is important to look out for because, if the temperature does increase too much, atmospheric-CO2-reducing methods are a possibility in the future—it's a possible escape from global warming. But it alone cannot possible have caused current global warming.

Quote:
In terms of the recent changes in atmospheric CO2, everything I have read suggests that these are anthropogenic in origin, and not due to changes in Earth's orbital motions or other natural causes. So that now the CO2 increases occurring will act as a feedback mechanism that causes the temperature to increase in a lagged fashion.

Everything i have read indicates most scientists feel that it is at least partly anthropogenic in origin. However, I don't think a single scientist ever pointed out that it was ONLY anthropogenic in nature.

Quote:
So what was a driver in the past, is not the same as the current driver.

Past: Natural causes of temperature increase >> Lagged CO2 increase >> Further temperature increases due to GHG/CO2 feedback effect.

Present: Anthropogenic emissions cause increased concentrations of atmospheric CO2 >> Further temperature increases due to GHG/CO2 feedback effect.

This is what I was trying to point out before. Current CO2 is almost entirely because of the Medieval Warm Period, with extra contributions from humans.

The same driver as in the past is driving this time, but now we have an extra turbocharger from humans that's giving it a bit of a boost.

However, we still don't how much temperature is increased due to CO2, and therefore if humans are or are not significant. More importantly, we don't know how much the temperature will increase on its own, which is of more concern to me at the moment. Finally, we don't really know exactly what the full effects of the warming will be.

A lot of people talk about how there's a "global warming conscensus," and there absolutely is: very few people deny temperature increases worldwide.

However, that doesn't mean that every global warming study is correct, and it doesn't mean that there aren't more questions than answers right now.

Quote:
If I'm totally off base in this please provide some bona fide links from peer reviewed scientific journals, or at the very least some links at RealClimate.

Again, I could be mistaken, but I believe that all the GCM's support these CO2 temperature feedback effects.

That is all.

You're not off base at all, you're just a tad obsessed with placing a blame for global warming when most scientists are hoping to find a solution, or at least a more accurate idea of the effects, regardless of why it's happening

That said, you need to branch out a bit from RealClimate. It's very accurate, well-written, and I haven't found anything there that is flat out wrong; it's also really biased. It's the truth, and nothing but the truth, but it's not the whole truth.

For me, I cherry pick from both sides. ClimateAudit.org is also a very good site, although less well organized. If you see an argument that seems weak, check it out on the other site, and see what they have to say. Between the two of them, you'll generally find what you want.
post #409 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregmightdothat View Post

You are not mistaken. CO2 does cause a heat increase. However, to what degree this happens is unknown.

It isn't hugely significant, however, because we've had similar CO2 and heat spikes before. If CO2 causes large heat spikes, since heat spikes also cause CO2 spikes, the world would have ended up stuck in a position of extreme amounts of CO2 and extreme temperatures. Obviously, since we're all here today, this hasn't happened.

CO2 is important to look out for because, if the temperature does increase too much, atmospheric-CO2-reducing methods are a possibility in the future—it's a possible escape from global warming. But it alone cannot possible have caused current global warming.



Everything i have read indicates most scientists feel that it is at least partly anthropogenic in origin. However, I don't think a single scientist ever pointed out that it was ONLY anthropogenic in nature.



This is what I was trying to point out before. Current CO2 is almost entirely because of the Medieval Warm Period, with extra contributions from humans.

The same driver as in the past is driving this time, but now we have an extra turbocharger from humans that's giving it a bit of a boost.

However, we still don't how much temperature is increased due to CO2, and therefore if humans are or are not significant. More importantly, we don't know how much the temperature will increase on its own, which is of more concern to me at the moment. Finally, we don't really know exactly what the full effects of the warming will be.

A lot of people talk about how there's a "global warming conscensus," and there absolutely is: very few people deny temperature increases worldwide.

However, that doesn't mean that every global warming study is correct, and it doesn't mean that there aren't more questions than answers right now.



You're not off base at all, you're just a tad obsessed with placing a blame for global warming when most scientists are hoping to find a solution, or at least a more accurate idea of the effects, regardless of why it's happening

That said, you need to branch out a bit from RealClimate. It's very accurate, well-written, and I haven't found anything there that is flat out wrong; it's also really biased. It's the truth, and nothing but the truth, but it's not the whole truth.

For me, I cherry pick from both sides. ClimateAudit.org is also a very good site, although less well organized. If you see an argument that seems week, check it out on the other site, and see what they have to say. Between the two of them, you'll generally find what you want.

OK, works for me!

Yes, I would agree on pretty much most of what you stated. I would disagree with the MWP argument simply because that temperature "bump," if it in fact existed at the global level, is very small WRT past temperature changes and subsequent CO2 changes, some CO2 rise from an actual MWP is certainly possible, but just look at a plot of CO2, the last 50 years is almost a vertical line WRT the past 800,000 years (Antarctica ice cores).

As to AGW, I can only go by what the IPCC stated earlier this year (which I think is correct statement of their current position (?)); p => 90% that human contribution is => 50% (or is that human input is the largest of many sources (?)). So no at this time I don't think it's 100% human in origin.

I actually have read a fair amount of ClimateAudit (perhaps 20-30%), while RealClimate gets the other fraction (70-80%). That does not include the the science journals, you'd have to knock down those numbers above by a factor of 3 at least.
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 #410 of 440
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Let's see now, (385 - 280)/280 = 37.5% increase in CO2 from pre-industrial levels!...

So that it is highly likely that by 2,100 AD CO2 will be ~ 600 ppmv, so now we have;

(600-280)/280 = 114 %

By 2,500 AD or so humankind should have set the all time record throughout all of Earth's history!

It is obvious that your graphs convey one impression (as I said) of dramatically increasing rates. However my point is also true...i.e. 2 X trival is still trivial. Unless CO2 is some hyper forcing agent, the conern seems to be misplaced.

Quote:
PS the volcanic sensitivity you mention HAS been successfully modeled using at least 2 GCM's using the Mount Pinatubo eruption of 1991. BTW, that was the validation step of mumerical models, and that was circa mid-1990's.

Sorry, a single volcanic eruption that is measured in all of human history is but a very rough estimate specific to time and place. Volcanics vary in flow, content of eruption, dynamics (e.g. underwater), and gasses. Nice try...but another dog that don't hunt.

Pretty graph, again more trickster propoganda. Color the first graph to resemble ice, and the second to resemble greening would be equally valid.
post #411 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

SDW we are talking past each other, or at least you are!

Total CO2 flux from humans IS currently a few percent. Duh!

Buildup of gaseous CO2 in Earth's atmosphere is not insignificant, it has already risen ~ 38% from pre-industrial levels.

See my previous post, the math is very simple, so that even you should be able to understand it!

And once again, while it may be 38% higher than immediately before the industrial revolution, it was far higher than that at various times in Earth history. You'll counter this, I'm sure, with "the rate of change." Problem is, we don't know what a normal rate of change looks like. Do 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
post #412 of 440
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregmightdothat View Post

While I mostly agree with you, I just want to point out that this is a logical fallacy. Yes, CO2 is a minor percentage of the atmosphere, but it still is the second most significant greenhouse gas. It's not the size that matters, it's what you do with it

... We need to take an approach similar to weather forecasting: look at trends, look at history.

I agree here with the IPCC that GCM's aren't great, but they're likely not too far off about global warming: there's no sign of it stopping at the moment.

Actually, that's about half of all estimates, not just conservative ones. Or rather, that's right in line with conservative estimates....

CO2 increases will probably peak around 2050-2100 and then start to decline, based on extrapolations from ice core data.

I agree that CO2 is a tiny percentage of the global air envelope and I agree that the total volume does not say anything about its POWER as a greenhouse gas, just as the FS charts do not show anything about its effectiveness. However, I was addressing the use of charts to create subjective impressions.

That a trace gas have such dramatic effects is something that needs solid confirmation through robust methods, something that GCM's may/may not be ccrrect wth.
post #413 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post


Sorry, a single volcanic eruption that is measured in all of human history is but a very rough estimate specific to time and place. Volcanics vary in flow, content of eruption, dynamics (e.g. underwater), and gasses. Nice try...but another dog that don't hunt.

Pretty graph, again more trickster propoganda. Color the first graph to resemble ice, and the second to resemble greening would be equally valid.

Not according to the USGS:

Quote:
Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.

Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 1998) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2.]. Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)!

So, you've tossing around the standard "but volcanoes" caveat here, when a very simple check would show you it's meaningless.

Which makes me wonder just how serious you are, and how carefully you've researched your other arguments.

A great deal of climate change skeptic rhetoric consists of "gotchas" (as in the case of "but volcanoes") that can be easily shown to have no merit, but which serve as talking points for people who wish to believe climate change is an artifact of hippies like Al Gore who want to kill capitalism and plant flowers on its grave-- in other words, people for whom anthropegenic forcing is not a matter of science at all, but rather a marker in a larger cultural war which includes the oddly parallel attack on evolutionary theory.

This thread is a testament to that: one denialist after another solemnly putting forth another well worn "but ice cores" or "but water vapor" or "but the hockey stick" caveat, each of which is readily refuted, but in the aggregate are designed to give the impression of a host of "problems" with climate theory.

These distortions, lies and misunderstanding are used "whack-a-mole" style, wherein no matter how many times a given objection is put down, it will always pop up later, in discussions such as this, after a dozen other, equally specious objections have had their turn.

You claim to have once been a climate change believer, but, having reviewed the literature, came to believe that the issue has been overstated and misrepresented.

For my part, I look at the way the denialist program is conducted, constantly reinserting transparently contrived, ascientific gotchas back into the discourse with the apparently deliberate intent of simply muddying the waters enough to maintain the illusion of "controversy" and can't imagine how anyone with a bit of integrity or understanding of how science works could buy it.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #414 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

It is obvious that your graphs convey one impression (as I said) of dramatically increasing rates. However my point is also true...i.e. 2 X trival is still trivial. Unless CO2 is some hyper forcing agent, the conern seems to be misplaced.



Sorry, a single volcanic eruption that is measured in all of human history is but a very rough estimate specific to time and place. Volcanics vary in flow, content of eruption, dynamics (e.g. underwater), and gasses. Nice try...but another dog that don't hunt.

Pretty graph, again more trickster propoganda. Color the first graph to resemble ice, and the second to resemble greening would be equally valid.

I really don't know what all you are trying to say. I really don't care how they are plotted as long as I can discern whatever message that they are trying to convey, quantitatively. Be they physical measurements or GCM model simulations.

As to the color coding, at least in engineering, red denotes high values of whatever, and blue denote low values of whatever. This is fairly SOP, kinda like the color spectrum, blue = short wavelength, red = long wavelength.


blue ~ short ~ small ~ low
red ~ long ~ large ~ high

Get it!

RE: The 1991 volcanic eruption/simulation is important simply because the had an existing global network of physical measurements prior, during, and after this event. Now you run the GCM's for given time varying BC's (the climate drivers) that are a subset of the overall physical measurements (RHS), the IC's to start the model (RHS), and you compare the model response (LHS) to the remaining subset of physical measurements that represent the system's response mechanisms (LHS). Since these models have already been validated from the previous historic record, this further validation with good agreement, suggests the utility of GCM's to forecast climate under various assumptions WRT future climate drivers. And remember these were circa 1990's GCM's.
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 #415 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

And once again, while it may be 38% higher than immediately before the industrial revolution, it was far higher than that at various times in Earth history. You'll counter this, I'm sure, with "the rate of change." Problem is, we don't know what a normal rate of change looks like. Do we?

See my first CO2 plot, we already have 50 years of actual physical CO2 measurements, the curve is very well defined (and ever so slightly concave up), there is no magical climate driver that will suddenly "flatten" or "lower" that curve, short of us all completely stopping our energy usage, and don't ask me why, but somehow I don't see that happening.

And the current rate of change is unprecedented over the last 800,000 years, it is over an order of magnitude higher than the maximum CO2 rate of change coming out of the last ice age! And that most recent ice age warming maximum rate of change occurred during Meltwater Pulse 1A, when sea levels rose 6 meters!
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 #416 of 440
There's money in junk!

[Source: Santiago Times, 3/19/07. El Tiempo, 4/7/07. Miami, Santiago]

April 9 (EIRNS)-- Fat Al issued a list of stringent demands to the Chileans who will be hosting him as keynote speaker at the May 11 "Global Warming and Climate Change: Now is the Time to Act," conference in Santiago. According to {The Santiago Times,} Gore's agent has already booked a room for him at a luxury hotel, under an assumed name, and wants it stocked with fruits and nuts (literally raisins and peanuts) plus mineral water. Is Al on a diet?

But Al's honorarium for speaking--$200,000--isn't exactly peanuts. This is what he's charging the companies sponsoring the conference--the daily {El Mercurio} (which helped orchestrate the bloody 1973 Pinochet coup); the Chilevision TV network owned by Sebastian Pinera, the right-wing multibillionaire who invited Gore to Chile, and is already campaigning to be Chile's next President; and the Oikos-Chile environmental NGO, also linked to the fascist Pinera. There are unconfirmed reports that the Canadian Barrick Gold, closely linked to Bush family interests, is another sponsor.

Gore says he'll only offer a few suggestions for "healthy changes" to his Chilean audience: using energy-saving light bulbs, reducing automobile use, more recycling, using less hot water, lowering the thermostat, proper tire pressure, and planting a tree. Fat Al also insists he'll track his trip's carbon emissions, and make a donation so it will be "carbon neutral." Reportedly, he'll only use hybrid vehicles while in Santiago. But some Chilean observers point out there's a discrepancy between what Gore preaches and the gigantic quantities of energy he consumes at his Tennessee mansion.
post #417 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by lunocrat View Post

There's money in junk!

[Source: Santiago Times, 3/19/07. El Tiempo, 4/7/07. Miami, Santiago]

April 9 (EIRNS)-- Fat Al issued a list of stringent demands to the Chileans who will be hosting him as keynote speaker at the May 11 "Global Warming and Climate Change: Now is the Time to Act," conference in Santiago. According to {The Santiago Times,} Gore's agent has already booked a room for him at a luxury hotel, under an assumed name, and wants it stocked with fruits and nuts (literally raisins and peanuts) plus mineral water. Is Al on a diet?

But Al's honorarium for speaking--$200,000--isn't exactly peanuts. This is what he's charging the companies sponsoring the conference--the daily {El Mercurio} (which helped orchestrate the bloody 1973 Pinochet coup); the Chilevision TV network owned by Sebastian Pinera, the right-wing multibillionaire who invited Gore to Chile, and is already campaigning to be Chile's next President; and the Oikos-Chile environmental NGO, also linked to the fascist Pinera. There are unconfirmed reports that the Canadian Barrick Gold, closely linked to Bush family interests, is another sponsor.

Gore says he'll only offer a few suggestions for "healthy changes" to his Chilean audience: using energy-saving light bulbs, reducing automobile use, more recycling, using less hot water, lowering the thermostat, proper tire pressure, and planting a tree. Fat Al also insists he'll track his trip's carbon emissions, and make a donation so it will be "carbon neutral." Reportedly, he'll only use hybrid vehicles while in Santiago. But some Chilean observers point out there's a discrepancy between what Gore preaches and the gigantic quantities of energy he consumes at his Tennessee mansion.

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 #418 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

See my first CO2 plot, we already have 50 years of actual physical CO2 measurements, the curve is very well defined (and ever so slightly concave up), there is no magical climate driver that will suddenly "flatten" or "lower" that curve, short of us all completely stopping our energy usage, and don't ask me why, but somehow I don't see that happening.

And the current rate of change is unprecedented over the last 800,000 years, it is over an order of magnitude higher than the maximum CO2 rate of change coming out of the last ice age! And that most recent ice age warming maximum rate of change occurred during Meltwater Pulse 1A, when sea levels rose 6 meters!

OK, let's assume all of that as a given. So what do we do? Punt?
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 #419 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

OK, let's assume all of that as a given. So what do we do? Punt?

SDW,

I have already stated as clearly as I can that I am a pessimist WRT limiting our CO2 emissions through the burning of less fossil fuels. I stated that when I first joined into the PO discussion threads in 9/2006 towards the end of the first GW thread in which I participated, in an exchange with enumbers.

If anything, I blame humanity for being a little bit too smart, you know the scientists, engineers, inventors, etceteras, who gave us the tools to make our rather large modern technological societies possible.

I think it will be at least another XX years before we have a really clear understanding of our potential long term impact on Earth's climate if we "stay the course."

My optimism for the future, is that even then it will not be too late to "cut and run" meaning fundamentally changing our energy use patterns.

So as I see it, we have at least XX years to invest in developing energy alternatives (i. e. lowering the current costs of existing alternatives, improving efficiencies of existing alternatives, developing new alternatives, etceteras).

NOTE: For XX substitute something like 10, 20, or even 40.
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 #420 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

This thread is a testament to that: one denialist after another solemnly putting forth another well worn "but ice cores" or "but water vapor" or "but the hockey stick" caveat, each of which is readily refuted, but in the aggregate are designed to give the impression of a host of "problems" with climate theory.

These distortions, lies and misunderstanding are used "whack-a-mole" style, wherein no matter how many times a given objection is put down, it will always pop up later, in discussions such as this, after a dozen other, equally specious objections have had their turn.

You claim to have once been a climate change believer, but, having reviewed the literature, came to believe that the issue has been overstated and misrepresented.

For my part, I look at the way the denialist program is conducted, constantly reinserting transparently contrived, ascientific gotchas back into the discourse with the apparently deliberate intent of simply muddying the waters enough to maintain the illusion of "controversy" and can't imagine how anyone with a bit of integrity or understanding of how science works could buy it.


Ermm...as they say....the shoe is on the other foot.

Allow me to remind you that the Mann hockey stick which is a central plank of so much of the IPCC's so called consensus science has been found to be utterly flawed.

Furthermore, all the so called scientific proof you speak of makes sense only if you (like the IPCC) lie/distort/supress or ignore scientific facts or use selective data to maintain Global Warming hysteria.

If your intention is to discuss real science, then you might start by admitting that the IPCC is nothing more than a political pressure group that is only interesting in what it calls "Consensus Science" but which others call Pseudo or Junk Science.

Or is that a bit too hard for you to admit..?

Aquafire.
There are 3 types of people in the world.

Those who count.

&

Those who can't.
Reply
There are 3 types of people in the world.

Those who count.

&

Those who can't.
Reply
post #421 of 440
Again I will ask:

If we assume global warming is being caused by humans to some degree and choose to do something about it, we might be able to make a change for the better if indeed it is true. If it is not true, what harm will come from less pollution?

If we assume global warming is not caused by humans in any way we are fine unless we are wrong, in which case we get screwed in the long run while a few get rich now ("an increase in temps 100 years form now won't affect ME" syndrome).

Which way would you rather go? Which is the path of greater denial?

Well, some people want to get us educated on the matter:

http://edgcm.columbia.edu/

Anybody remember SimEarth? It was fun, albeit ungodly slow. Wonder if they will ever bring it back?

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #422 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Again I will ask:

If we assume global warming is being caused by humans to some degree and choose to do something about it, we might be able to make a change for the better if indeed it is true. If it is not true, what harm will come from less pollution?

People will die. That's the harm.

People died decades ago when the West arbitrarily started banning pesticides out of fear.
There were good reasons for us to do so in our countries, but the effect on some developing nations was severe.

People died when we decided the ozone layer required banning certain refrigerants.
Again, good reasons were behind the shift, but the lack of cheap refrigeration in parts of the Third World means medicines are scarce, food is contaminated and disease causes chaos and economic ruin.

As we debate whether Gore and his pals (and plenty of Republicans too) can rake in billions in the planetary shell game trading of "credits", we need to consider that once again we're going to go for the touchy-feely warmth of 'saving the planet' while millions of people - and one continent in particular - goes to hell in a handbasket.

So if we're willing to collectively pay billions to fix a problem that may not really exist, while assigning brothers and sisters across the globe to famine, disease and death, I say let the planet implode.

As Adama says, it's not enough to exist. We have to deserve to exist.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #423 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

People will die. That's the harm.

People died decades ago when the West arbitrarily started banning pesticides out of fear.
There were good reasons for us to do so in our countries, but the effect on some developing nations was severe.

People died when we decided the ozone layer required banning certain refrigerants.
Again, good reasons were behind the shift, but the lack of cheap refrigeration in parts of the Third World means medicines are scarce, food is contaminated and disease causes chaos and economic ruin.

As we debate whether Gore and his pals (and plenty of Republicans too) can rake in billions in the planetary shell game trading of "credits", we need to consider that once again we're going to go for the touchy-feely warmth of 'saving the planet' while millions of people - and one continent in particular - goes to hell in a handbasket.

So if we're willing to collectively pay billions to fix a problem that may not really exist, while assigning brothers and sisters across the globe to famine, disease and death, I say let the planet implode.

As Adama says, it's not enough to exist. We have to deserve to exist.

I agree we can do more to change our patterns of fossil fuel use. For security reasons alone (economic a military) we should do so. The question, though, is how far to we go. Investing billions in getting ourselves off of foreign oil and reducing our dependence on gasoline is one thing. Severely limiting consumer's choices and lifestyles coupled with spending billionson the aforementioned carbon credits and what not? That's another. I think that the net result will be that we the middle class will probably end up paying through the nose. We'll have vastly increased taxes on oil, coal, gas, etc. It will cost much more to heat our homes, drive our cars and operate appliances as a "penalty" for not "going green." That's my fear.
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 #424 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Again I will ask:

If we assume global warming is being caused by humans to some degree and choose to do something about it, we might be able to make a change for the better if indeed it is true. If it is not true, what harm will come from less pollution?

If we assume global warming is not caused by humans in any way we are fine unless we are wrong, in which case we get screwed in the long run while a few get rich now ("an increase in temps 100 years form now won't affect ME" syndrome).

Which way would you rather go? Which is the path of greater denial?

Well, some people want to get us educated on the matter:

http://edgcm.columbia.edu/

Anybody remember SimEarth? It was fun, albeit ungodly slow. Wonder if they will ever bring it back?

I know I'll get dinged from both sides, but for the short term (next 10-50 years);

1) Aggressive EPA CAFE standards,
2) Aggressive nuclear power development (standardized "cookie cutter" design, and permanent waste depositories) instead of building coal fired power plants.
3) Aggressive development of efficient solar cells and environmentally friendly battery technologies (an oxymoron, but whatever) for eventual single building usage (versus centralized power grid).

And I wish AG would STFU! Not because I don't think he's basically right (in a very long term sense), but because he's the poster child for the AGW Cylons!
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 #425 of 440
I got my Prius in 2004. It saves $ 14,000 per 70,000 miles over every other comparable car. I will hit 70k this year.
My solar panels have eliminated my electric bill and cost 14,000 after the CA rebate. This means my gas and maintenance savings have purchased my solar panels. In just 3 years my car has amortized my solar panels which will make my juice for the next 40 years at least. I am now making money by preventing CO2 emissions by the tons for many years to come (at least for the rest of my life).
CO2 prevention is GREAT business!!! But some politically motivated "it wasn't me" people think it's cool to waste their own money on antiquated technology as well as waste their breath on irrelevant discussions about global climate phenomenii that in their own words nobody really understands.
If you do what I did not only you can help eliminate CO2 but make substantial amount of money which you can use to pay scientist to say that you were right.

I no longer care who is right and who caused what, not buying into energy efficiency is idiocy.
post #426 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac View Post

I got my Prius in 2004. It saves $ 14,000 per 70,000 miles over every other comparable car. I will hit 70k this year.
My solar panels have eliminated my electric bill and cost 14,000 after the CA rebate. This means my gas and maintenance savings have purchased my solar panels. In just 3 years my car has amortized my solar panels which will make my juice for the next 40 years at least. I am now making money by preventing CO2 emissions by the tons for many years to come (at least for the rest of my life).
CO2 prevention is GREAT business!!! But some politically motivated "it wasn't me" people think it's cool to waste their own money on antiquated technology as well as waste their breath on irrelevant discussions about global climate phenomenii that in their own words nobody really understands.
If you do what I did not only you can help eliminate CO2 but make substantial amount of money which you can use to pay scientist to say that you were right.

I no longer care who is right and who caused what, not buying into energy efficiency is idiocy.

If I had $14000 laying around, I'd love to do solar. It's great technology. I think all of you here should pay for my house to have solar. By way of the government taxing you to give it to me, of course.

Is the price of this stuff ever going to come down? PV cells don't seem to be dropping in price as fast as would make this attractive.

Congrats on going for it and demonstrating that it works. Now let's make it economical so that average people can do it without subsidies.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #427 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac View Post

I got my Prius in 2004. It saves $ 14,000 per 70,000 miles over every other comparable car. I will hit 70k this year.
My solar panels have eliminated my electric bill and cost 14,000 after the CA rebate. This means my gas and maintenance savings have purchased my solar panels. In just 3 years my car has amortized my solar panels which will make my juice for the next 40 years at least. I am now making money by preventing CO2 emissions by the tons for many years to come (at least for the rest of my life).
CO2 prevention is GREAT business!!! But some politically motivated "it wasn't me" people think it's cool to waste their own money on antiquated technology as well as waste their breath on irrelevant discussions about global climate phenomenii that in their own words nobody really understands.
If you do what I did not only you can help eliminate CO2 but make substantial amount of money which you can use to pay scientist to say that you were right.

I no longer care who is right and who caused what, not buying into energy efficiency is idiocy.

So assuming your claim is true, your Prius saves you what...$1500 a year? I hate to tell you, but most hybrids cost $3000-6000 more than their non-hybroid counterparts. You have to drive the vehicle for at least 5 years to see any savings at all. The Toyota Highlander is a good example.

As for "idiocy," well what pray tell can I do as someone who now lives in an apartment? My hot water bill is divided amongst all residents, so I have almost no control of it. My electric bill is about the same every month no matter what I do. My Toyota Camry V6 gets almost the same mileage as my 4 cyl Camry did. What should I do? Install flourescant bulbs to feel good about myself? Not watch my TV as much?

And that's not even considering that there are real tradeoffs that have to be made to "go green." I don't like flourescant light. I hate the Prius. It's small and looks like a Go Kart. I can't fit stuff in it. In an accident, I'll take my Camry any day of the week, no matter what crash data you try and show me. I like my TV too.

It's great that you can feel fuzzy inside and save money. Good for you. But it's not for everyone...either financially or in terms of convenience.
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 #428 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

So assuming your claim is true, your Prius saves you what...$1500 a year? I hate to tell you, but most hybrids cost $3000-6000 more than their non-hybroid counterparts. You have to drive the vehicle for at least 5 years to see any savings at all. The Toyota Highlander is a good example.

As for "idiocy," well what pray tell can I do as someone who now lives in an apartment? My hot water bill is divided amongst all residents, so I have almost no control of it. My electric bill is about the same every month no matter what I do. My Toyota Camry V6 gets almost the same mileage as my 4 cyl Camry did. What should I do? Install flourescant bulbs to feel good about myself? Not watch my TV as much?

And that's not even considering that there are real tradeoffs that have to be made to "go green." I don't like flourescant light. I hate the Prius. It's small and looks like a Go Kart. I can't fit stuff in it. In an accident, I'll take my Camry any day of the week, no matter what crash data you try and show me. I like my TV too.

It's great that you can feel fuzzy inside and save money. Good for you. But it's not for everyone...either financially or in terms of convenience.

This is not about you, SDW2001bc. But you still have the right to show your ignorance.

Even with the added cost of purchase hybrid cars save tons of money. (this from a research study, I'll find the link)
No smog check needed ever.
47 mpg
60,000 mile service $ 320.-
brake pads still like new after 60k mi
get a Camry hybrid

Your problem: You hate. "I hate the Prius"
If you would stop hating your life could improve. Hate narrows your mind and causes cancer.

Convenience: Prius has RF key no need to ever take it out of your pocket, you save hours of your life at the gas station.

I comment you that you live in an apartment. It is indeed much more efficient way to live.
post #429 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac View Post

This is not about you, SDW2001bc. But you still have the right to show your ignorance.

First, I don't see why you need to attack me. I took issue with what you said...I didn't call you names. Secondly, you MADE it about me and anyone who you said was an idiot for not doing you're doing. Thirdly, this is a message board. I'll participate in threads as much as I like. Your posts are not immune from criticism or being questioned. How dare I question your Prius!

Shit, you remind me of the South Park "Cloud of Smug" episode, where everyone is covered in hybrid "smug" and smells their own farts out of wine glasses.

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 #430 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

First, I don't see why you need to attack me. I took issue with what you said...I didn't call you names. Secondly, you MADE it about me and anyone who you said was an idiot for not doing you're doing. Thirdly, this is a message board. I'll participate in threads as much as I like. Your posts are not immune from criticism or being questioned. How dare I question your Prius!

Shit, you remind me of the South Park "Cloud of Smug" episode, where everyone is covered in hybrid "smug" and smells their own farts out of wine glasses.


Ha, ha, ha.
SDW2001 without you this board just wouldn't be as much fun.
You're sooo cute
post #431 of 440
There was an article on the web a few weeks ago about the Prius versus Hummer H3 life-cycle costs environmental footprint. So first off I don't know whether to believe it's conclusion or not; that the Hummer is more environmentally friendly then the Prius. If I can find the link again, I'll post it.

Anyway, the basic argument seemed to come down to the battery technologies environmental costs (mining and disposal) and transportation of the components used the manufacture said batteries.

Anyway, after what I considered were some rather dubious economic arguments, they said that the Hummer was more environmentally friendly!

They also concluded that currently the most cost effective transportation was an efficient ICE like like you know a Honda Civic.
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 #432 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


The Toyota "PIOUS"

"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #433 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

There was an article on the web a few weeks ago about the Prius versus Hummer H3 life-cycle costs environmental footprint. So first off I don't know whether to believe it's conclusion or not; that the Hummer is more environmentally friendly then the Prius. If I can find the link again, I'll post it.

Anyway, the basic argument seemed to come down to the battery technologies environmental costs (mining and disposal) and transportation of the components used the manufacture said batteries.

Anyway, after what I considered were some rather dubious economic arguments, they said that the Hummer was more environmentally friendly!

They also concluded that currently the most cost effective transportation was an efficient ICE like like you know a Honda Civic.

This fits very well into this thread.
I can imagine it to be true at this time since the Hummer is a truly antiquated piece of machinery and has that "One day soon I'll be in a museum" feel.
I also agree with comparing the Prius to the model T or VW bug. What if Ford and Hitler would have never built them...?

None of the articles mention the cost of a war started over oil that is raging as we type. I am also not sure if anyone has looked into the environmental impact of brake pad dust which is one of the most toxic substances being avoided by the Prius' electric braking. Indeed Brakepad dust is a real killer and every mg (Microgram) of the stuff can kill. I think a Hummer with it's tonage will exceed the Prius in this respect by a factor of 100 at least.

There is no data yet on the life of the batteries since all of them are still functioning properly. Judging from my own experience I anticipate to drive the Prius for at least 150kmiles and then I will get a Toyota Volta if it is out yet (salivate...).

When I first got my Prius I made it a game to out accelerate Hummers at lights. I always enjoyed the thought that they just spent $ 5 in gas not be completely left in the dust by a Prius..
post #434 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac View Post

When I first got my Prius I made it a game to out accelerate Hummers at lights. I always enjoyed the thought that they just spent $ 5 in gas not be completely left in the dust by a Prius..

Oh dear! Such swaggering bravado! Dr. Schadenfreude, line 1.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #435 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquafire View Post

Ermm...as they say....the shoe is on the other foot.

Allow me to remind you that the Mann hockey stick which is a central plank of so much of the IPCC's so called consensus science has been found to be utterly flawed.

Yeah, thanks, that's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about.

There have been some demonstrated methodological issues with the Mann et al study. However, they really don't amount to making it "utterly flawed", and more importantly, there is lots and lots of corroborating data that doesn't require Mann's methodology at all. In other words, you can get a "hockey stick" lots of different ways. For instance, as described here. The idea that Mann's study is a "central plank" of climate change modeling is just simply not true, but, again, the fact that you think it's some kind of devastating blow to "junk science" speaks to the process in my original post, wherein the same false and easily dismissed talking points keep coming up, over and over again, now matter how many times refuted. As in this case.

At any rate, from the link:

Quote:
“The NAS report concluded that the Mann et al study “has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence.” They find it plausible that “the northern hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the twentieth century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium.” They note that confidence in the record decreases back in time, especially before A.D. 1600, in agreement with the original conclusions reached by the university researchers. The Academy panel also concluded: “Surface temperature reconstructions for periods prior to the industrial era are only one of multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that climatic warming is occurring in response to human activities, and they are not the primary evidence,” says Bradley.

Quote:
Furthermore, all the so called scientific proof you speak of makes sense only if you (like the IPCC) lie/distort/supress or ignore scientific facts or use selective data to maintain Global Warming hysteria.

Yes, that's what you'll read on so called "skeptic" sites that generally can be traced back to oil industry money and PR. That's why they do it, so people like you can say things like that without the slightest idea of what that might mean. But surely those egg headed academics are all in it together, cooking the books because they stand to reap huge profits from the notoriously lucrative funding and grant industries. Unlike the dispassionate oil companies, who are largely unaffected by the debate but just want to make sure that we all understand how corrupt the "science industry" is, as a public service.

Quote:
If your intention is to discuss real science, then you might start by admitting that the IPCC is nothing more than a political pressure group that is only interesting in what it calls "Consensus Science" but which others call Pseudo or Junk Science.

Yikes. My intention is to talk to people who aren't in some kind of fugue state who long for "science" to be overthrown so we can get back to getting our information about how the world works from sturdy institutions like the church, the state, and global corporations.

Quote:
Or is that a bit too hard for you to admit..?

Friend, we're so not in the same ballpark that the word "admit" doesn't even have any meaning. I find it akin to being confronted by a man on the street who demands I "admit" that the Masons are putting drugs in the money, and when I demur begins shouting that I'm one of them.

Aquafire.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #436 of 440
post #437 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post


And the award for repetitive and unnecessary use of animated images goes to.....
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 #438 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

And the award for repetitive and unnecessary use of animated images goes to.....

.... the person who quoted it!
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #439 of 440
Gingrich & Kerry: Global Warming Bosom Buddies!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #440 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

.....the same false and easily dismissed talking points keep coming up, over and over again, now matter how many times refuted. As in this case.

Your clearly into newspeak..you know, the notion that if you keep repeating that something is true, regardless of how many times it is shown to be patently false...then it MUST be true. The Mann issue is of profound importance, because the IPCC themselves made it a central piece of evidence in their claims related to Co2. It was used over and over to show just how all their beliefs were confirmed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

. Yes, that's what you'll read on so called "skeptic" sites that generally can be traced back to oil industry money and PR. That's why they do it, so people like you can say things like that without the slightest idea of what that might mean.

Amazing hypocrisy. You point the finger at some skeptics and suggest that their opinion is tainted simply because they were allegedly paid by oil companies. Tell me, Whats a few tens of millions of dollars compared to the billions of dollars of tax payers money that the IPCC is stealing from every country on the planet ? The IPCC are practically choking on it and all you can say is maybe some skeptical scientists got paid a few sheckels by industry.

I seriously wonder who is the greater blood sucker.

Do me a favour, write to McKitrick and Macintyre and ask them if they have ever recieved any payment from oil companies etc..

Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

. But surely those egg headed academics are all in it together, cooking the books because they stand to reap huge profits from the notoriously lucrative funding and grant industries.

If you only knew. This is more true than you realise, only you probably never appreciate how much pressure is being put onto environmental scientists to either conform or accept without raises dissenting voices, the claims of the IPCC and similar panels

So many scientists that I personally know, have been intimidated by the thought of losing their grant monies if they don't tow the soviet style IPCC party line. But it's likely you will never understand, since your so clearly incapable of independent thought.

Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

. Unlike the dispassionate oil companies, who are largely unaffected by the debate but just want to make sure that we all understand how corrupt the "science industry" is, as a public service.

Like I said, read the above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

. My intention is to talk to people who aren't in some kind of fugue state who long for "science" to be overthrown so we can get back to getting our information about how the world works from sturdy institutions like the church, the state, and global corporations.

Fugue.... as opposed to the Dillusional.. Aka...what describes people who accept so blindly "Consensus" ~ junk science.

Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

. Friend, we're so not in the same ballpark that the word "admit" doesn't even have any meaning. I find it akin to being confronted by a man on the street who demands I "admit" that the Masons are putting drugs in the money, and when I demur begins shouting that I'm one of them.

No sir, I never shout, I simply point out the 'Emperors clothes syndrome' whenever I see it.

Sadly, from my experience, all I can say is that it takes a particularly obstinate and stone deaf person to maintain the sort of self righteous position that your expressing, whilst so many questions remain unanswered or disputed.

Therefore, in my book that makes you a follower of Psuedo Science Sir....Nothing more, nothing less.....

(....you know... the same type of junk science that gave rise to Eugenics, Nazi Death camps, and Soviet era Gulag lunacy.)

Aquafire
There are 3 types of people in the world.

Those who count.

&

Those who can't.
Reply
There are 3 types of people in the world.

Those who count.

&

Those who can't.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Global Warming Hysteria Building