AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › An inconvenient truth
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

An inconvenient truth - Page 3

post #81 of 128
5/6/09 at 11:34am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic View Post

I'm not disturbed, but the CBO has no standing.
The CBO piece is nothing more than an opinion piece (and they say as much). My tax dollars should be better spent. for example...
If the Government is so convinced that the world is coming to an end, Why don't they mandate that THEY in the government give up their big cars and air polluting big jets (Nancy). Why doesn't the postal service run their vehicles on CNG? How about Government going paperless? How about they turn off the lights on all the monuments in D.C. How about they close D.C. to car traffic? How about they (Those in Government) lead by example. "Do as I say NOT as I do?" NO, NO and NO...

Green DC Agenda http://www.green.dc.gov/green/cwp/vi...8,q,461471.asp


Washington D.C. is the first large US city to mandate that any new buildings, over 50,000 ft² built are 'green' buildings.

"The District is poised to become the first major city in the country to require that private developers build environmentally friendly projects that incorporate energy-saving measures."~ Washington Post, 2006. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...111501624.html and it was passed- http://www.ecmag.com/index.cfm?fa=ar...articleID=6951

For $40 a year you get a years use of a bicycle at ten different locations in Washington D.C. (update-it's now growing to 100 stations and 1000 bicycles, in D.C.) The programs only recently started in D.C, but in Barcelona it's already grown to 400 stations and 6000 bicycles. I'm sure a lot of people will like it, but it's going to be difficult to wean me off of my mountain-bike!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23869261/

D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty, Tues, April 21st, 2009~
"a pledge to increase the District's tree cover. Today, 34.8 percent of the city is under a canopy of trees, officials said. Fenty (D) wants to make it 40 percent."~ Washington Post

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #82 of 128
5/6/09 at 12:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic View Post

I'm not disturbed, but the CBO has no standing.
The CBO piece is nothing more than an opinion piece (and they say as much). My tax dollars should be better spent. for example...
If the Government is so convinced that the world is coming to an end, Why don't they mandate that THEY in the government give up their big cars and air polluting big jets (Nancy). Why doesn't the postal service run their vehicles on CNG? How about Government going paperless? How about they turn off the lights on all the monuments in D.C. How about they close D.C. to car traffic? How about they (Those in Government) lead by example. "Do as I say NOT as I do?" NO, NO and NO...

No content. No comment.
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 #83 of 128
5/6/09 at 1:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

Give the guy a break, he was bushwacked, like Palin was.

He appeared on a program called Hardball, and seemed surprised that he wasn't getting softball questions....
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #84 of 128
5/6/09 at 1:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerLurker View Post

He appeared on a program called Hardball, and seemed surprised that he wasn't getting softball questions....

Which is what adds to the stupidness of him.

Isn't it common on knowledge that Mathews is a bleeding heart LIBERAL?

Geez.
Reply
Reply
post #85 of 128
5/6/09 at 2:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

Give the guy a break, he was bushwacked, like Palin was.

The Evil Liberal Elite Biased Media once again used it preferred MO of Gotcha Questions.

 

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 #86 of 128
5/6/09 at 2:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

The Evil Liberal Elite Biased Media once again used it preferred MO of Gotcha Questions.

In concert with the comedians that drag the uneducated masses into a conspiracy to usurp the "right" way of thinking.
Reply
Reply
post #87 of 128
5/6/09 at 2:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

The Evil Liberal Elite Biased Media once again used it preferred MO of Gotcha Questions.



Maybe next time Palin wont struggle so much answering that Gotcha question, which newspapers she reads? She can just go "Oh Shucks, I know this one, none of them!"

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #88 of 128
5/6/09 at 2:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerLurker View Post

He appeared on a program called Hardball, and seemed surprised that he wasn't getting softball questions....

Actually I think he was surprised that an interviewer would ask a question and then monologue over him trying to answer it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

Which is what adds to the stupidness of him.

Isn't it common on knowledge that Mathews is a bleeding heart LIBERAL?

Geez.

It is common knowledge.

You know what would be a nice little utility to have a for video, something I'm sure we will see within the next couple years, something where we could upload some video and then have it figure out which percentage of the time each person spends speaking. In that clip I'm sure it would be roughly 75% Matthews and 25% Pence. The person being interviewed should just get up and walk away the second time he is interrupted answering a question. That isn't an interview. It asks no questions other than rhetorical ones that Matthews then insists Pence shut up so that he can continue to monologue with his berating of the Congressman.

Republicans should wise up and withdraw their sanction. He should just have left.

"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 #89 of 128
5/6/09 at 2:49pm
The same with O"Reilly, Hannity and the rest of the talking heads from both sides.

Point is, if you're going on a talking head show, don't feign surprise if it doesn't go your way.

Don't expect an easy time, know your shit.
Reply
Reply
post #90 of 128
5/6/09 at 3:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Actually I think he was surprised that an interviewer would ask a question and then monologue over him trying to answer it.



It is common knowledge.

You know what would be a nice little utility to have a for video, something I'm sure we will see within the next couple years, something where we could upload some video and then have it figure out which percentage of the time each person spends speaking. In that clip I'm sure it would be roughly 75% Matthews and 25% Pence. The person being interviewed should just get up and walk away the second time he is interrupted answering a question. That isn't an interview. It asks no questions other than rhetorical ones that Matthews then insists Pence shut up so that he can continue to monologue with his berating of the Congressman.

Republicans should wise up and withdraw their sanction. He should just have left.

I'm in a strange mood today, but why not, say, a guest comes on to a show, decides not to answer the question, so the interviewer reaches for his gun, if the guest still refuses to answer the simple question, a countdown begins 3-2-1- BANG!! A shot straight to the head.

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #91 of 128
5/6/09 at 3:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

Oops indeed.

Seems cut and dried to me.

So answering a question about evolution in school and being asked if you personally have a religious belief and how do you reconcile that belief with evolution are the same?

Not at all. Obama was allowed to state the two are different and leave it at that. Matthews demanded and then lectured Pence about how the two cannot be compatible and how even admitting belief in one must make his belief in the other suspect. (intent again) Matthews then spend the rest of the interview lecturing and heckling him while he tried to respond to various claims related to caricatures in the head of Matthews. Your party... your party... your party...

Obama was not made to answer for his party at all. Obama was not asked in any form or fashion to resolve the two into one comprehensive belief. Obama did not have the fact that he is religious treated as an anathema and thus he must be lying about evolution.

Quote:
But then everything Obama says in your opinion isn't worth crap right?

I'm not going to waste time on rhetorical questions.

Quote:
Having faith and understanding the differences without pandering is something foreign to some.

I'll gladly look at any video or transcript of Obama answering such questions. He was taken at his word. Matthews did not take Pence at his word and proceeded to attack and monologue over him.

Quote:
In this instance he spoke what he believed, unlike Pence.

Dissemble all you like, won't change the outcome.

It won't change the outcome at all. Pence wasn't interviewed, he was attacked. Matthews spends the entire interview talking, sneering and interjecting over him. He didn't listen to a word he even said and kept pressing attacks based not off what Pence was even answering but making him answer for every Republican caricature he has in his little head.

"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 #92 of 128
5/6/09 at 3:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

I'm in a strange mood today, but why not, say, a guest comes on to a show, decides not to answer the question, so the interviewer reaches for his gun, if the guest still refuses to answer the simple question, a countdown begins 3-2-1- BANG!! A shot straight to the head.

How about the reverse as well. When the interviewer begins interrupting two seconds into the answer the interviewee gets to trigger the reverse.

I'd probably opt for shock collars though just because no one would die and it would be funnier.

Wouldn't it be cool to have a mechnasm where if one is talking and the other starts, the collar of the one who interrupts would be activated.

Matthews would be dead and it would be self-inflicted via a non-lethal weapon.

"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 #93 of 128
5/6/09 at 3:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

How about the reverse as well. When the interviewer begins interrupting two seconds into the answer the interviewee gets to trigger the reverse.

I'd probably opt for shock collars though just because no one would die and it would be funnier.

Wouldn't it be cool to have a mechnasm where if one is talking and the other starts, the collar of the one who interrupts would be activated.

Matthews would be dead and it would be self-inflicted via a non-lethal weapon.

But, if you ask a question and don't get an answer, as an interviewer he has the right to follow up on his original question, not just let the politician answer a different question. That's an important part of being an interviewer, following up to get your questions answered. All too often politicians will say anything not to answer the question, as was embarrassingly evident here.

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #94 of 128
5/6/09 at 3:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_197243.html

No this isn't funny in the least.

It is patheticly sad.

That the R's pander to the non-scientific method of the masses to their own ends.

That clip typifies Matthews at his finest.

Someone cue up that Bachmann clip.
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 #95 of 128
5/6/09 at 4:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

No this isn't funny in the least.

It is patheticly sad.

That the R's pander to the non-scientific method of the masses to their own ends.

That clip typifies Matthews at his finest.

Yup. I personally find it obnoxious. But I find it scary that so many people ignore science because of their religious beliefs and that politicians like him, are so eager to exploit that, to benefit corporations short term profits. That I find sick.

Michele Bachmann on CO₂ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNk--ZXoGVY
Michele Bachmann on anti-American Americans http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_pN2IPAw6E
"" "" on swine flu http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiYYBWFNxKw

Palin's a gas too- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rd3g5...eature=related

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #96 of 128
5/6/09 at 5:11pm
The dissembler dissembles, what else they got?

Nothing.
Reply
Reply
post #97 of 128
5/6/09 at 5:47pm
Matthews seems to like this line of questioning... he used it on Tom Tancredo tonight with similar effect.
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #98 of 128
5/6/09 at 6:24pm
Line of question =/ asking rhetorical questions and answering them yourself while lecturing the interviewee.

"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 #99 of 128
5/6/09 at 6:30pm
The dissembler dissembles, what else they got?

Nothing.
Reply
Reply
post #100 of 128
5/7/09 at 12:26pm
Here's a Ron Paul/ Alex Jones supporter claiming all the planets are warming, not just earth, because the sun is warming them all up, using Mars as an example. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bi4DaaBnb5w

Here's why the the argument, that the sun is causing the current increase in global temperatures, is nonsense. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhHoCb6OBiI

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #101 of 128
5/7/09 at 1:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Here's a Ron Paul/ Alex Jones supporter claiming all the planets are warming, not just earth, because the sun is warming them all up, using Mars as an example. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bi4DaaBnb5w

Here's why the the argument, that the sun is causing the current increase in global temperatures, is nonsense. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhHoCb6OBiI

I'm confused as to why looking at one part of an article while ignore the other parts, focusing on one comment and finally how calling someone a "denier" over and over while noting they can tell a joke, is compelling evidence.

I watched the video and I could read the article right where he darkened it. It stated that this was a hypothesis to explain the change since there are no humans there. It doesn't prove anything and his skepticism is apparently one way since he will accept as fact the hypothesis from "warmers" but treats with complete skepticism the hypothesis from "deniers." The thing that makes this most suspect is one has no greater tools than the other with regard to forming those views. I mean this isn't evolution versus creationism. When someone suggests a source for warming could be the sun it isn't like they are suggesting burning bushes talk to them or nailing people to trees. Since the sun is the source for all energy within this system it should be the first place to investigate.

The very use of the term "denier" is clearly an ad-hom and anyone engaging in such tactics clearly has very weak arguments or else they not need the fallacy in the first place.

"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 #102 of 128
5/7/09 at 1:34pm
Was this thread originally started as a rebuttal of climate change, a character assault on Al Gore, or both?

For me, Al Gore doesn't figure into the picture at all. It is the science that matters. Whether or not he lives what he preaches is an entirely separate concept in my opinion.


And now for a slightly humorous analogy:
Diet books are routinely written by fat people.
(But that doesn't mean that their advice on cutting calories is wrong.)
Reply
Reply
post #103 of 128
5/7/09 at 1:47pm
Very good points dfiler.
+1

"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 #104 of 128
5/7/09 at 2:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I'm confused as to why looking at one part of an article while ignore the other parts, focusing on one comment and finally how calling someone a "denier" over and over while noting they can tell a joke, is compelling evidence.

I watched the video and I could read the article right where he darkened it. It stated that this was a hypothesis to explain the change since there are no humans there. It doesn't prove anything and his skepticism is apparently one way since he will accept as fact the hypothesis from "warmers" but treats with complete skepticism the hypothesis from "deniers." The thing that makes this most suspect is one has no greater tools than the other with regard to forming those views. I mean this isn't evolution versus creationism. When someone suggests a source for warming could be the sun it isn't like they are suggesting burning bushes talk to them or nailing people to trees. Since the sun is the source for all energy within this system it should be the first place to investigate.

The very use of the term "denier" is clearly an ad-hom and anyone engaging in such tactics clearly has very weak arguments or else they not need the fallacy in the first place.

The hypotheses from the deniers are a joke at best, but what's great about them is they don't stand up to scrutiny, even on the most basic levels. I suppose that's why he uses the word deniers, I don't blame him for that. Remember Inhofe and Dr Seitz, cigarrettes are good for you and the environmental movement has no science to back-up their arguements and behave like the Third Reich\

Full article in Times Online. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1720024.ece

He makes a point, a point the article made, so what if it's a hypothesis the article makes. The hypothesis that Mars is warming due to the sun, doesn't include the understanding that's in the article, that there is more at play. So he's adding to the knowledge, not ignoring it as deniers do. I take the inclusion of science over the exclusion of science any day. Wouldn't You?

The Earth's temperature is, obviously, mostly governed by the sun. So the fact that the sun has not been warming the earth more, actually proves the point that the earth is warming due to other factors. Actually helping to prove that AGW is real not unreal.

Solar flare activity has been decreasing for thirty years~
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki...Variations_png

There hasn't been an increasing trend in solar output since 1978~
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic.../SolarConstant

Some articles on why the sun isn't the cause of CC~
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sciencean...te-change.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6290228.stm

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #105 of 128
5/7/09 at 2:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Here's a Ron Paul/ Alex Jones supporter claiming all the planets are warming, not just earth, because the sun is warming them all up, using Mars as an example. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bi4DaaBnb5w

Here's why the the argument, that the sun is causing the current increase in global temperatures, is nonsense. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhHoCb6OBiI

That is old "news".

It's been fully discussed in previous CC/GW/AGW/HIGW PO thread(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 #106 of 128
5/7/09 at 2:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

The very use of the term "denier" is clearly an ad-hom and anyone engaging in such tactics clearly has very weak arguments or else they not need the fallacy in the first place.

Your entitled to your opinion, I'm entitled to the objective data as reported in the highly regarded well respected peer reviewed climate science literature.

They are called Denialists or Contrarians for one simple reason, they do not present their own original research. All they are capable of is critique sans any heavy lifting (climate science research) of their own.

Considering that the fossil fuel club could provide millions of research dollars from their own coffers, for actual climate science research, they do not do so, but hire solely for the purposes of creating confusion and doubt, all while never presenting a shread of climate science research of their own.

Signed,
NWO Dirty Tree Hugging Hippie Liberal Commie Pinko Facist
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 #107 of 128
5/7/09 at 3:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

The hypotheses from the deniers are a joke at best, but what's great about them is they don't stand up to scrutiny, even on the most basic levels. I suppose that's why he uses the word deniers, I don't blame him for that.

I do blame him for it. People claiming a high ground due to science need not resort to tactics I have to stop on the playground between first graders to make their point. The high ground is not claimed with low blows.

The most basic scrutiny with regard to warming would look almost exclusively at the sun for any temp changes due to the fact that even with global warming we are only talking about energy retention. The source that provides all energy is prime to any discussion. To talk about it in construction terms (since those of us concerned about energy conservation look at such things) global warming is claiming we are changing the effectiveness of the insulation around the earth. It lets less heat leak out. The source of the heat should always be prime and anything that doesnt address that or ignores it is where the joke lies.

Quote:
Remember Inhofe and Dr Seitz, cigarrettes are good for you and the environmental movement has no science to back-up their arguements and behave like the Third Reich\

I have no idea what this shorthand means.

Quote:
Full article in Times Online. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1720024.ece

He makes a point, a point the article made, so what if it's a hypothesis the article makes. The hypothesis that Mars is warming due to the sun, doesn't include the understanding that's in the article, that there is more at play. So he's adding to the knowledge, not ignoring it as deniers do. I take the inclusion of science over the exclusion of science any day. Wouldn't You?

The point is that that making a joke about mars warming or noting that the hypothesis requires belief in a more convoluted claim in no form makes one a "denier" when you see two bodies under the influence of the same object and they both suffer the same effect, the simplier and more logical choice is to say it is the one body is the cause. It is harder to claim that each happens to have an identical result, not at all influenced by the shared body but neverless occuring on both identically but from two entirely different causes.

That claim alone should merit skepticism and the burden or proof should be greater.

Quote:
The Earth's temperature is, obviously, mostly governed by the sun. So the fact that the sun has not been warming the earth more, actually proves the point that the earth is warming due to other factors. Actually helping to prove that AGW is real not unreal.

It doesn't prove much because the sample is so small. I mean you link to a chart of data covering 30-40 years and hope we can determine something accurate. Then we go out to 400 years and we already see enough changes to know that it has strongly changed the climate on earth (at least strong by human understanding and experience) but not enough to know whether this is happening again or not, when it will or not, etc. We have perhaps what might be called some good guesses at best. We have several cycles and some may be overlapping or not, we don't know, etc.

Quote:
Solar flare activity has been decreasing for thirty years~
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki...Variations_png

There hasn't been an increasing trend in solar output since 1978~
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic.../SolarConstant

What is 30 years as measured in the total energy output of the sun?

Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

That is old "news".

It's been fully discussed in previous CC/GW/AGW/HIGH PO thread(s).

Welcome to the forum. New people want to discuss things that are new to them.

"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 #108 of 128
5/7/09 at 3:19pm
[QUOTE=franksargent;1414330]Your entitled to your opinion, I'm entitled to the objective data as reported in the highly regarded well respected peer reviewed climate science literature.[QUOTE]

Please prove the claim that the literature was peer reviewed. Also please prove that peer reviewing makes something right and that no peer reviewed hypothesis has never been overturned.

Peer review is a little like capitalism. Most consider it the best we have, but it still has several weeknesses and flaws. Words like respected and regarded are nothing more than opinions as well. It is all just code for consensus and consensus can be very wrong.

Quote:
They are called Denialists or Contrarians for one simple reason, they do not present their own original research. All they are capable of is critique sans any heavy lifting (climate science research) of their own.

So when peers review and find fault, you call them names. That doesn't sound very scientific to me. I guess I missed that part of the process.

Quote:
Considering that the fossil fuel club could provide millions of research dollars from their own coffers, for actual climate science research, they do not do so, but hire solely for the purposes of creating confusion and doubt, all while never presenting a shread of climate science research of their own.

Ad-hominum circumstantial. The research isn't wrong because of the funding source.

"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 #109 of 128
5/7/09 at 3:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

What is 30 years as measured in the total energy output of the sun?

Well since the Sun affects temperature on a daily basis, I'd say 30 years is ~11,000 days. \

Oh, and the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth as a fraction of all solar radiation is ~O(-10). \ \
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 #110 of 128
5/7/09 at 3:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Well since the Sun affects temperature on a daily basis, I'd say 30 years is ~11,000 days. \

So what percent of 4.5 billion YEARS do you think that happens to be? Instead of a sample I wouldn't even call that a rounding error.

"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 #111 of 128
5/7/09 at 3:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

So what percent of 4.5 billion days do you think that happens to be? Instead of a sample I wouldn't even call that a rounding error.

You forgot 365 days/year (assuming the year is a constant over that timespan). \

Oh, you are referring to all that stored carbon that we are currently burning at ~O(6) times as fast as it was originally deposited.
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 #112 of 128
5/7/09 at 3:33pm
[QUOTE=trumptman;1414356][QUOTE=franksargent;1414330]Your entitled to your opinion, I'm entitled to the objective data as reported in the highly regarded well respected peer reviewed climate science literature.
Quote:

Please prove the claim that the literature was peer reviewed. Also please prove that peer reviewing makes something right and that no peer reviewed hypothesis has never been overturned.

Peer review is a little like capitalism. Most consider it the best we have, but it still has several weeknesses and flaws. Words like respected and regarded are nothing more than opinions as well. It is all just code for consensus and consensus can be very wrong.



So when peers review and find fault, you call them names. That doesn't sound very scientific to me. I guess I missed that part of the process.



Ad-hominum circumstantial. The research isn't wrong because of the funding source.

Last sentence grossly misses the point, and that point was doing original research, the source of funding is inmaterial, as long as there is original research being conducted by these people. It is quite obvious that they have never engaged in, or published, original research. Also known as a red herring.

No content. No comment. Except to say that you would have to discredit all of the peer reviewed climate science literature, which numbers ~O(4) to ~O(5) in terms of the number of articles written to date overwhelmingly supporting CC/GW/AGW/HIGW.
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 #113 of 128
5/7/09 at 4:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I do blame him for it. People claiming a high ground due to science need not resort to tactics I have to stop on the playground between first graders to make their point. The high ground is not claimed with low blows.

The most basic scrutiny with regard to warming would look almost exclusively at the sun for any temp changes due to the fact that even with global warming we are only talking about energy retention. The source that provides all energy is prime to any discussion. To talk about it in construction terms (since those of us concerned about energy conservation look at such things) global warming is claiming we are changing the effectiveness of the insulation around the earth. It lets less heat leak out. The source of the heat should always be prime and anything that doesnt address that or ignores it is where the joke lies.



I have no idea what this shorthand means.



The point is that that making a joke about mars warming or noting that the hypothesis requires belief in a more convoluted claim in no form makes one a "denier" when you see two bodies under the influence of the same object and they both suffer the same effect, the simplier and more logical choice is to say it is the one body is the cause. It is harder to claim that each happens to have an identical result, not at all influenced by the shared body but neverless occuring on both identically but from two entirely different causes.

That claim alone should merit skepticism and the burden or proof should be greater.



It doesn't prove much because the sample is so small. I mean you link to a chart of data covering 30-40 years and hope we can determine something accurate. Then we go out to 400 years and we already see enough changes to know that it has strongly changed the climate on earth (at least strong by human understanding and experience) but not enough to know whether this is happening again or not, when it will or not, etc. We have perhaps what might be called some good guesses at best. We have several cycles and some may be overlapping or not, we don't know, etc.



What is 30 years as measured in the total energy output of the sun?



Welcome to the forum. New people want to discuss things that are new to them.

You argue the sun is likely responsible for Earths current warming. It has played a prominent role, in such, over billions of years, so why wouldn't it be responsible for the majority of warming now?
Here's one reason, excluding all the other science~
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sciencean...te-change.html

Resting your argument on "The sun did it all." will leave you out in the cold, scientifically speaking. You'll convince a few with charts covering hundreds, thousands, millions and billions of years, but you won't convince anybody when you get back to what's happening now. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qULSszbA-Ek

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #114 of 128
5/9/09 at 10:37am
Google video, third from top, An Inconvenient Truth http://video.google.com/videosearch?...th&emb=0&aq=f#

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #115 of 128
5/15/09 at 12:47pm
Fill her up! http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/sh...ers---the.html

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #116 of 128
5/15/09 at 4:32pm
Another Inconvenient Truth
http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/14/maga...n=money_latest
Quote:
What if global-warming fears are overblown?
In a Fortune interview, noted climatologist John Christy contends the green crusade to fight climate change is "all cost and no benefit."
Last Updated: May 14, 2009

A veteran climatologist who refuses to accept any research funding from the oil or auto industries, Christy was a lead author of the 2001 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report as well as one of the three authors of the American Geophysical Union's landmark 2003 statement on climate change.
...
During your House Ways and Means testimony, you showed a chart juxtaposing predictions made by NASA's Jim Hansen in 1988 for future temperature increases against the actual recorded temperature increases over the past 20 years. Not only were the actual increases much lower, but they were lower than what Hansen expected if there were drastic cuts in CO2 emissions - which of course there haven't been. [Hansen is a noted scientist who was featured prominently in Al Gore's global warming documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth."] Hansen was at that hearing. Did he say anything to you afterwards?

We really don't communicate. We serve on a committee for NASA together, but it only deals with specific satellite issues. At the Ways and Means hearing, he was sitting two people down from me, but he did not want to engage any of the evidence I presented. And that seems to be the preferred tactic of many in the alarmist camp. Rather than bring up these issues, they simply ignore them.

(Contacted by Fortune, Hansen acknowledges that his 1988 projections were based on a model that "slightly" overstated the warming created by a doubling in CO2 levels. His new model posits a rise of 3 degrees Celsius in global temperatures by 2100, vs. 4.2 degrees in the old one. Says Hansen, "The projections that the public has been hearing about are based on a climate sensitivity that is consistent with the global warming rate of the past few decades." Christy's response: "Hansen at least admits his 1988 forecasts were wrong, but doesn't say they were way wrong, not 'slightly,' as he states." Christy also claims that even Hansen's revised models grossly overestimated the amount of warming that has actually occurred.)
...
I know you think there's been something of a hysteria in the media about melting glaciers. Could you explain?

The fact is that the ice cover is growing in the southern hemisphere even as the ice cover is more or less shrinking in the northern hemisphere. As you and I are talking today, global sea ice coverage is about 400,000 square kilometers above the long-term average - which means that the surplus in the Antarctic is greater than the deficit in the Arctic.
...
What about the better-safe-than-sorry argument? Even if there's a chance Gore and Hansen are wrong, shouldn't we still take action in order to protect ourselves from catastrophe, just in case they're right?

The problem is that the solutions being offered don't provide any detectable relief from this so-called catastrophe. Congress is now discussing an 80% reduction in U.S. greenhouse emissions by 2050. That's basically the equivalent of building 1,000 new nuclear power plants all operating by 2020. Now I'm all in favor of nuclear energy, but that would affect the global temperature by only seven-hundredths of a degree by 2050 and fifteen hundredths by 2100. We wouldn't even notice it.
Reply
Reply
post #117 of 128
5/15/09 at 4:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

Another Inconvenient Truth
http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/14/maga...n=money_latest

"We wouldn't even notice it." indeed, but imagine if the levels of CO2 emissions are not stopped from escalating, then we will notice it.

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #118 of 128
5/15/09 at 5:19pm
"IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report,
Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compellingThe drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position."~AAAS http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #119 of 128
5/15/09 at 5:57pm
A peer reviewed study by Mears and Wentz et al, first of all found John Christy's method for collecting the data was wrong and then found John Christy's projections where wrong too.

"Christy's group estimated the temperature at the exact time they wanted, rather than when the satellite actually was overhead, by looking at temperature measurements the satellite took to the east and west of its position. From this they concluded the troposphere was warming by about 0.09 °C per decade.

Mears and Wentz instead used data generated by a complex model of the atmosphere to adjust the satellite measurements. On doing so, the troposphere suddenly appears to be warming by almost 0.2 °C per decade, in agreement with climate models3."

Wentz et al, also disproved other long standing contrarians on the same lines, as is shown here http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8917093/

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #120 of 128
5/15/09 at 6:19pm
That's what happens when you write what the boss wants to hear.

The bullshit line that he doesn't take money from oil or auto concerns is just that, bullshit.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/per...eet.php?id=903
Quote:
Christy was a contributing writer to "Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths," published by Competitive Enterprise Institute in 2002. He spoke at a June 1998 briefing for congressional staff and media, which was sponsored by the Cooler Heads Coalition.

He's also the guy who said,
Quote:
"It is our great fortune - because we produce so much of it - that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. In simple terms, carbon dioxide is plant food. The green world we see around us would disappear if not for atmospheric carbon dioxide."

"I don't see danger. I see, in some cases, adaptation, and in others something like restrained glee, at the thought of longer growing seasons, warmer winters, and a more fertile atmosphere."

Who are the CEI and CHC?
Part of the same group that takes money from the lobbyists that don't want a cap on C02 emissions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooler_Heads_Coalition
Quote:
The Coalition has been criticized for ties to energy industries that would be affected if the United States enacted any legislation targeted at reducing CO2 emissions.[6] The Coalition has been widely accused of astroturfing.[7][8]For example, writing in October 2004 for The American Prospect, Nicholas Confessore described the Coalition as "an Astroturf group funded by industries opposed to regulation of CO2 emissions."
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › An inconvenient truth