Edit: Here's the main point of it if you don't want to click
"There are several causes of an urban heat island (UHI). The principal reason for the nighttime warming is that buildings block surface heat from radiating into the relatively cold night sky. Two other reasons are changes in the thermal properties of surface materials and lack of evapotranspiration in urban areas. Materials commonly used in urban areas, such as concrete and asphalt, have significantly different thermal bulk properties (including heat capacity and thermal conductivity) and surface radiative properties (albedo and emissivity) than the surrounding rural areas. This causes a change in the energy balance of the urban area, often leading to higher temperatures than surrounding rural areas. The energy balance is also affected by the lack of vegetation in urban areas, which inhibits cooling by evapotranspiration."
Pretty standard application of "no duh" science. Which is hotter? Grass or Asphalt? Is Asphalt hotter than grass after the sun has gone down? Just puts some numbers to the natural observation
Thanks, but I was really looking for the data saying that there had been no temperature increase in rural areas.
As you said, it's kind of a "no duh" that urban areas are hotter.
I am a big fan of Apple products, but I find this move to quit the US Chamber of Commerce by Apple a bogus, hypocritical, publicity stunt. What exactly is Apple's "carbon footprint" in the United States? Not very much for a company of their size. Apple has moved or outsourced all of it's manufacturing overseas - a lot of it to China, a country that does not have the greatest environmental record. What does Apple have here in the US? Some office buildings in Cupertino and a few other locations around the country, along with all the Apple stores. When I see Apple getting tough on its suppliers and manufacturing partners about how they treat the environment and how they treat their employees, then I might respect Apple for "taking a stance on the environment".
The measurement of footprint includes that of each product ... a global footprint, not just in the U.S. Apple explains it and their environmental efforts here. They don't dispute that more is requred, particularly in the manufacturing supply chain. Where, with the evolving nature of our understanding of environmental impact, would it be considered complete? The supplied link also includes the Supplier Code of Conduct, and the Supplier Progress Report (both PDFs) and Historical Reports. Temporarily set aside your cynicism ... you may find that their current program, considerations, and commitment is more comprehensive than you presume ... and certainly not driven merely by publicity considerations. After reading all the materials, ask yourself what technology company is doing more.
Jobs is on record (print and Youtube) in moving admiration of the global contributions of Gates' Foundation. Though he's been active in environmental concerns for over a decade, I suspect his recent health concerns has prompted elevated environmental activity. Along with how his innovation benefits our lives in a variety of fields, my impression is that he genuinely wants benefits for the environment as an enduring part of his legacy and for his family (personal and global). Subjectively speaking, a brutal confrontation with one's mortality tends to heighten one's values.
Steve Jobs car = Mercedes SL55 AMG = 14 mile per gallon
Steve Jobs plane = Gulfstream V = Burns 2000 gals per hour, or about 3.6 gallons per mile.
And Al Gore is no better. By some estimates his house consumes 20x the national average house uses in energy. And he flies private jets wherever goes.
When Steve Jobs drives a Prius to Apple headquarters (and parks it in the handicapped spot as usual) then I will start to take him seriously about his stance on global warming.
EDIT 2: Crap - ... "On the scientific evidence so far, according to Dr Kusano, the IPCC assertion that atmospheric temperatures are likely to increase continuously and steadily "should be perceived as an unprovable hypothesis"."
Since you brought up the subject of "Crap", I suppose one can expect you to utilize it as fodder for your positions. So typical of the denyosphere to grab anything you don't understand, but hope something will stick when thrown against the wall. Here's something, on the "report", the person, the agency, the long-debunked points, to clean up after yourself.
And Al Gore is no better. By some estimates his house consumes 20x the national average house uses in energy.
Isn't that weird?
And yet, as I've repeatedly posted on this very site, when he came into possession of the house in 2002 it was in pretty bad shape, but he has worked steadily to properly restore the historic residence and make it energy efficient. In fact the house is one of only 14 residences in the US to receive a LEED Gold rating from the Green Building Council (meaning his house is actually known to be *extremely* efficient.)
Steve Jobs car = Mercedes SL55 AMG = 14 mile per gallon
Steve Jobs plane = Gulfstream V = Burns 2000 gals per hour, or about 3.6 gallons per mile.
And Al Gore is no better. By some estimates his house consumes 20x the national average house uses in energy. And he flies private jets wherever goes.
When Steve Jobs drives a Prius to Apple headquarters (and parks it in the handicapped spot as usual) then I will start to take him seriously about his stance on global warming.
Which falls under the category of "impossible expectations."
Quote:
llusory "free-thinkers" employ denialism through rhetorical tactics (conspiracy, selectivity, false experts, impossible expectations, moving goalposts, argument from metaphor, violations of informal logic) to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none.
If the lack of perfection in one's behavior is sufficient to deny their contributions ... imagine what kind of parent that would make you? (or boss, or friend, or partner, or citizen ... take your pick)
Steve Jobs car = Mercedes SL55 AMG = 14 mile per gallon
Steve Jobs plane = Gulfstream V = Burns 2000 gals per hour, or about 3.6 gallons per mile.
And Al Gore is no better. By some estimates his house consumes 20x the national average house uses in energy. And he flies private jets wherever goes.
When Steve Jobs drives a Prius to Apple headquarters (and parks it in the handicapped spot as usual) then I will start to take him seriously about his stance on global warming.
Heard of verified, audited "offsets?" And, heard of the fact that it really doesn't matter, from the standpoint of the global warming potential of CO2e, whether the emissions happen in Cupertino or Shenzen? And, that what matters is net, not gross emissions?
There is no GPH fuel consumption figure for the the jet, but
Maximum fuel weight: 41,300 lb (18,772 kg)
Range: 5,800 nautical miles (10,742 km)
Capacity: 14-19 passengers (I doubt this jet is ever "crowded" though)
jetA weighs 6.84 lb/G
41,300 lb/(6.84 lb/G) = 6,038 G of jetA to go 5,800 (nautical) miles
or slightly over 1 (nautical) mile per gallon (your milage may vary.)
My back of the envelope calculation may be slightly less than perfect, but at least i don't just repeat faulty information as truth as it appears you have done repeatedly (and gosh his jet, if loaded with passengers, does better than an SUV!)
Heard of verified, audited "offsets?" And, heard of the fact that it really doesn't matter, from the standpoint of the global warming potential of CO2e, whether the emissions happen in Cupertino or Shenzen? And, that what matters is net, not gross emissions?
In truth I would bet his offsets are purchased on the basis of "miles" rather than "Gallons of jet fuel consumed" which does not offset carbon consumption when flying in a private jet, but I can't say for sure.
Put another way, past experience indicates that severing your aorta will result in a rather quick death, and most of the medical community will assure you of the same.
I trust my doctor far more then the weatherman.
Then again, they do call it practicing medicine...
Climate change is too important an issue to take chances. We must act to protect the planet, for our children's sake, whether you believe the scientists, or not, we cannot take the chance of inaction.
Yes, think of the children!
Never mind the proponents of global warming are benefiting financially and bankrupting our childrens future with economic policies that haven't shown to affect global warming one bit.
Good practices towards keeping our environment good is the way to go.
Global warming is a farce being forced on us. Redistribution of wealth is the real truth. There's so much junk science we'll never know the real truth.
Read Atlas Shrugged for a little enlightenment.
Do you have clue-one about objectivism and Ayn Rand? Capitalism IS the redistribution of wealth!! At least it is as much as progressive taxation and regulation. The key is that both need to be balanced.
Ayn Rand was not balanced and Atlas Shrugged is a peculiar kind of mythology. A couple dozen CEO's live in a valley in Colorado protected by a cloaking ray gun, some how build their own city with a power plant run by a super special engine that can sense your emotions and intention and blow itself up into minute dust particles if it doesn't like you. Two guys can run an entire copper mine and with help from corporate MacGivers, Biff and Buffy, design and build complex machinery without pollution or any economic capital except the gold they steal from the outside world that actually created that wealth ... and then, and this is great ... when they aren't going after each others wives ... and when one of them is captured by evil, yet incompetent government officials, the very same bunch of CEO's in perfect A-Team fashion, get into their private airplanes (which they all can flawlessly fly) and burst into a guarded installation and win a shoot out against US security forces, free their leader and return to Colorado without a trace. Kind of like a mix of Flash Gordon and Days of Our Lives for Wall Street Hedgefund managers or MBA's who got punked in World of Warcraft!
Anyway as long as you are honest and consistent in being an objectivist, I don't have any problem with your comments - just realize that putting money and yourself above all others and all things has been tried before, and it doesn't work for very long ... and in the end is rejected or controlled by every society in history.
For example you can't hold Atlas Shrugged in one hand and the Bible in the other.
Objectivism only sounds good when you narrow your perspective to yourself and your bank account. In any society with children or villages bigger than 100 people it can't work, kind of like true communism and libertarianism ... nice in theory, but lousy in practice.
Never mind the proponents of global warming are benefiting financially and bankrupting our childrens future with economic policies that haven't shown to affect global warming one bit.
But at least the children will be able to breathe
And opponents of global warming are not benefitting financially and bankrupting the ecological capital of their children's future with economic policies? Your grasp of economics, much less science ad much, MUCH less morality, is wafer thin.
Few scientists or policy wonks make much money touting global warming warnings. They would make far more creating insolvent hedge funds or running coal plants. Are you willing to pay for half of Vanuatu sinking beneath the waves? Are you willing to ignore Vanuatu and feel no personal responsibility for your own actions?
Problem with either far left or far right idealogues is that whining about other people's irresponsibility is so much more fun than being honest about your own. (See Glenn Beck)
Steve Jobs car = Mercedes SL55 AMG = 14 mile per gallon
Steve Jobs plane = Gulfstream V = Burns 2000 gals per hour, or about 3.6 gallons per mile.
And Al Gore is no better. By some estimates his house consumes 20x the national average house uses in energy. And he flies private jets wherever goes.
When Steve Jobs drives a Prius to Apple headquarters (and parks it in the handicapped spot as usual) then I will start to take him seriously about his stance on global warming.
What do the life styles of Al Gore or Steve Jobs have to do with the science behind the physical modification of the Earth's atmosphere? Do you understand the ramifications of an "ad hominem" argument? You were a child left behind.
Like it or not the "nutjobs" have a strong track record of getting to run the show....
Don't know where they are, but where I'm at taxes, fees, etc. never go down and continue to rise above inflation. When all added up it's over 50% now. More government never solved anything.
First, taxation policy is a separate issue from the regulation of the "free" market. They work synergistically and affect each other, but they have different drivers and models.
A fair and stable tax structure is always important, but should not drive your view of an ecological issue ... it significantly affects how we approach an issue, but should not define it. I don't want my taxes or your taxes or Bill Gates taxes to be oppressive or continually going up, but come up with a plan beyond "cut taxes" simpleton-ness.
So being skeptical of the government is great and American and even liberal in the Jeffersonian sense. However to say "more government never solved anything" is typical neo-con b.s. bumper sticker philosophy, not something an educated adult should use as an argument.
How much tax should you pay and why?
How much personal responsibility for our ecological resources are you willing to take and what responsibility do producers and polluters have for their waste products?
Should we really let the "free" market decide and define what "clean air," "clean water" and "global climate change" mean to the point where ethics and morality have no role?
Like it or not the "nutjobs" have a strong track record of getting to More government never solved anything.
This is just a blanket statement repeated over and over again that government is the problem. It's not a matter of all government control or all anarchy, but a mix of private and public participation on various issues.
The biggest "government" program is the military who protect our freedom under the Constitution. How about our state and local police? Do you want to abolish the military and police forces and let everyone defend themselves with their Colt 45?
ooo, busted. You didn't read my links, bad bad bad. The consensus you refer to was conducted in 1992, as I'm sure you're aware was quite a while ago and a lot of new scientific data has become available. As such you now have thousands upon thousands of scientists coming out saying, wait not so fast. I'm not saying there wasn't a percieved consensus in 1992. Given the data we had at the time it's completely understandable but give a whole decade and a half of new data many scientists are starting to think maybe we should, ya know, do our jobs and continue to evaluate what's going on. (here's 31k more dissenters http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...0-deniers.aspx) (that's not on Curtis' list of "junk science" either, sorry C)
Um, your link is to an opinion piece in a pro-business, anti-gov website. Its author runs a blog called Energy Probe with a very specific and targeted perspective. That doesn't make him wrong, just makes him suspect and his facts not necessarily "junk science" but in need of real citations.
So if the "thousands" of "scientists" can really be confirmed and that the survey really asks for their objective opinions in a way that isn't skewed ... then it needs to be weighed against the many more thousands of scientists who feel the opposite ... then we need to decide, what do we do?
At that point it is a political decision, not a scientific one. Otherwise we can spend the next several decades trying to be 98% right, just as we lose our ability to do something about the problem. Sometimes you have to make an ethical judgement call when you are only 79% sure.
Um, your link is to an opinion piece in a pro-business, anti-gov website. Its author runs a blog called Energy Probe with a very specific and targeted perspective. That doesn't make him wrong, just makes him suspect and his facts not necessarily "junk science" but in need of real citations.
So if the "thousands" of "scientists" can really be confirmed and that the survey really asks for their objective opinions in a way that isn't skewed ... then it needs to be weighed against the many more thousands of scientists who feel the opposite ... then we need to decide, what do we do?
At that point it is a political decision, not a scientific one. Otherwise we can spend the next several decades trying to be 98% right, just as we lose our ability to do something about the problem. Sometimes you have to make an ethical judgement call when you are only 79% sure.
Very salient points.
Background for those interested:
The first week of October, 2007 a deceptive scientist petition, the "survey", was mailed out, an exhortation to sign a petition demanding that the US not sign the Kyoto Protocol. It was from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and was an attempt to re-invigorate the highly criticised 1999 “Oregon Petition“.
The article itself was just an update of the original article, minus an author (Baliunas), with a switch of Robinson children (Zachary’s out, Noah is in), but with a large number of similar errors and language. As in the previous case, this paper too, was not peer reviewed. This was a rehash of the previous discredited paper plus a few more cherry-picked statistics of dubious relevance.
In reviewing motives, it might be useful to consider that the collaborator on the "survey", Frederick Seitz is a condensed matter physicist, and has never been a climate scientist. Seitz has been working for special interest groups for 40 years. Despite his impressive credentials, the last time that he held an active research position was in 1968. Furthermore, his work involved solid state physics, not atmospheric dynamics.
Seitz is a former Chair of the George C. Marshall Institute; is Chairman of the Science and Environmental Policy Project; is on the Board of Academic and Scientific Advisors of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, and has been a Science Advisor to The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition. All four organizations actively lobby against any measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, all four are well known for publishing disinformation concerning science in order to achieve this objective; and all four are funded by sections of the fossil fuel industry.
Seitz has also worked as a consultant to the tobacco industry, and was described in an internal memo by Phillip Morris Co. in 1989 as “quite elderly and not sufficiently rational to offer advice.”
Seitz was instrumental in organizing the original “petition project” of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine or OISM: a petition that led the National Academy of Sciences to take unprecedented step of issuing a statement disassociating itself from the project and from its former president. In particular, it admonished publishing a report that was deceptively designed to look like an official NAS journal article.
Seitz is also known for a highly disingenuous article that he published in the Wall Street journal in 1996, purporting to criticise the IPCC review process, and implying he was privy to this process, without revealing that he has never had any involvement with the IPCC and has never been a climate scientist (see also here).
One might say that Fred Seitz’s politics is irrelevant and that he should be judged by his published work. Fair enough. Search for his work published in peer-reviewed science journals on the subject of climate change … [crickets chirping].
The petition, despite being frequently cited by global warming critics as showing that thousands of scientists disagree with the consensus on global warming, contains a distinct minority with relevant expertise; and its vetting was so lax that it included fictional signatories such as Star Wars characters and a member of the Spice Girls. Some have stated that they requested their names removed after learning later what the petition was actually about (they had quickly signed it after briefly scanning, assuming it was supporting action towards global warming). The petition was mailed to engineers, biologists, computer scientists and geologists. It went to sociologists, M.D.s, physicists, generically to members the “Communications/Humanities/Fine Arts” and graduate students in the "Science/Technology" departments. Suffice it to say, the subtleties of a medical paper would be lost on a climate scientist, and the reverse is true.
Comments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island
Edit: Here's the main point of it if you don't want to click
"There are several causes of an urban heat island (UHI). The principal reason for the nighttime warming is that buildings block surface heat from radiating into the relatively cold night sky. Two other reasons are changes in the thermal properties of surface materials and lack of evapotranspiration in urban areas. Materials commonly used in urban areas, such as concrete and asphalt, have significantly different thermal bulk properties (including heat capacity and thermal conductivity) and surface radiative properties (albedo and emissivity) than the surrounding rural areas. This causes a change in the energy balance of the urban area, often leading to higher temperatures than surrounding rural areas. The energy balance is also affected by the lack of vegetation in urban areas, which inhibits cooling by evapotranspiration."
Pretty standard application of "no duh" science. Which is hotter? Grass or Asphalt? Is Asphalt hotter than grass after the sun has gone down? Just puts some numbers to the natural observation
Thanks, but I was really looking for the data saying that there had been no temperature increase in rural areas.
As you said, it's kind of a "no duh" that urban areas are hotter.
I am a big fan of Apple products, but I find this move to quit the US Chamber of Commerce by Apple a bogus, hypocritical, publicity stunt. What exactly is Apple's "carbon footprint" in the United States? Not very much for a company of their size. Apple has moved or outsourced all of it's manufacturing overseas - a lot of it to China, a country that does not have the greatest environmental record. What does Apple have here in the US? Some office buildings in Cupertino and a few other locations around the country, along with all the Apple stores. When I see Apple getting tough on its suppliers and manufacturing partners about how they treat the environment and how they treat their employees, then I might respect Apple for "taking a stance on the environment".
The measurement of footprint includes that of each product ... a global footprint, not just in the U.S. Apple explains it and their environmental efforts here. They don't dispute that more is requred, particularly in the manufacturing supply chain. Where, with the evolving nature of our understanding of environmental impact, would it be considered complete? The supplied link also includes the Supplier Code of Conduct, and the Supplier Progress Report (both PDFs) and Historical Reports. Temporarily set aside your cynicism ... you may find that their current program, considerations, and commitment is more comprehensive than you presume ... and certainly not driven merely by publicity considerations. After reading all the materials, ask yourself what technology company is doing more.
Jobs is on record (print and Youtube) in moving admiration of the global contributions of Gates' Foundation. Though he's been active in environmental concerns for over a decade, I suspect his recent health concerns has prompted elevated environmental activity. Along with how his innovation benefits our lives in a variety of fields, my impression is that he genuinely wants benefits for the environment as an enduring part of his legacy and for his family (personal and global). Subjectively speaking, a brutal confrontation with one's mortality tends to heighten one's values.
Steve Jobs plane = Gulfstream V = Burns 2000 gals per hour, or about 3.6 gallons per mile.
And Al Gore is no better. By some estimates his house consumes 20x the national average house uses in energy. And he flies private jets wherever goes.
When Steve Jobs drives a Prius to Apple headquarters (and parks it in the handicapped spot as usual) then I will start to take him seriously about his stance on global warming.
...
EDIT 2: Crap - ... "On the scientific evidence so far, according to Dr Kusano, the IPCC assertion that atmospheric temperatures are likely to increase continuously and steadily "should be perceived as an unprovable hypothesis"."
Since you brought up the subject of "Crap", I suppose one can expect you to utilize it as fodder for your positions. So typical of the denyosphere to grab anything you don't understand, but hope something will stick when thrown against the wall. Here's something, on the "report", the person, the agency, the long-debunked points, to clean up after yourself.
And Al Gore is no better. By some estimates his house consumes 20x the national average house uses in energy.
Isn't that weird?
And yet, as I've repeatedly posted on this very site, when he came into possession of the house in 2002 it was in pretty bad shape, but he has worked steadily to properly restore the historic residence and make it energy efficient. In fact the house is one of only 14 residences in the US to receive a LEED Gold rating from the Green Building Council (meaning his house is actually known to be *extremely* efficient.)
http://current.com/items/88793568_al...ur-country.htm
So does this make you a liar, ignorant of the facts, a mindless parroter of things you heard on FOX News, or all three?
Steve Jobs car = Mercedes SL55 AMG = 14 mile per gallon
Steve Jobs plane = Gulfstream V = Burns 2000 gals per hour, or about 3.6 gallons per mile.
And Al Gore is no better. By some estimates his house consumes 20x the national average house uses in energy. And he flies private jets wherever goes.
When Steve Jobs drives a Prius to Apple headquarters (and parks it in the handicapped spot as usual) then I will start to take him seriously about his stance on global warming.
Which falls under the category of "impossible expectations."
llusory "free-thinkers" employ denialism through rhetorical tactics (conspiracy, selectivity, false experts, impossible expectations, moving goalposts, argument from metaphor, violations of informal logic) to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none.
If the lack of perfection in one's behavior is sufficient to deny their contributions ... imagine what kind of parent that would make you? (or boss, or friend, or partner, or citizen ... take your pick)
Steve Jobs car = Mercedes SL55 AMG = 14 mile per gallon
Steve Jobs plane = Gulfstream V = Burns 2000 gals per hour, or about 3.6 gallons per mile.
And Al Gore is no better. By some estimates his house consumes 20x the national average house uses in energy. And he flies private jets wherever goes.
When Steve Jobs drives a Prius to Apple headquarters (and parks it in the handicapped spot as usual) then I will start to take him seriously about his stance on global warming.
Heard of verified, audited "offsets?" And, heard of the fact that it really doesn't matter, from the standpoint of the global warming potential of CO2e, whether the emissions happen in Cupertino or Shenzen? And, that what matters is net, not gross emissions?
Steve Jobs plane = Gulfstream V = Burns 2000 gals per hour, or about 3.6 gallons per mile.
BTW your math is off by a factor of 4
as you can see here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulfstr...Specifications
There is no GPH fuel consumption figure for the the jet, but
Maximum fuel weight: 41,300 lb (18,772 kg)
Range: 5,800 nautical miles (10,742 km)
Capacity: 14-19 passengers (I doubt this jet is ever "crowded" though)
jetA weighs 6.84 lb/G
41,300 lb/(6.84 lb/G) = 6,038 G of jetA to go 5,800 (nautical) miles
or slightly over 1 (nautical) mile per gallon (your milage may vary.)
My back of the envelope calculation may be slightly less than perfect, but at least i don't just repeat faulty information as truth as it appears you have done repeatedly (and gosh his jet, if loaded with passengers, does better than an SUV!)
Heard of verified, audited "offsets?" And, heard of the fact that it really doesn't matter, from the standpoint of the global warming potential of CO2e, whether the emissions happen in Cupertino or Shenzen? And, that what matters is net, not gross emissions?
In truth I would bet his offsets are purchased on the basis of "miles" rather than "Gallons of jet fuel consumed" which does not offset carbon consumption when flying in a private jet, but I can't say for sure.
Put another way, past experience indicates that severing your aorta will result in a rather quick death, and most of the medical community will assure you of the same.
I trust my doctor far more then the weatherman.
Then again, they do call it practicing medicine...
Climate change is too important an issue to take chances. We must act to protect the planet, for our children's sake, whether you believe the scientists, or not, we cannot take the chance of inaction.
Yes, think of the children!
Never mind the proponents of global warming are benefiting financially and bankrupting our childrens future with economic policies that haven't shown to affect global warming one bit.
But at least the children will be able to breathe
Good practices towards keeping our environment good is the way to go.
Global warming is a farce being forced on us. Redistribution of wealth is the real truth. There's so much junk science we'll never know the real truth.
Read Atlas Shrugged for a little enlightenment.
Do you have clue-one about objectivism and Ayn Rand? Capitalism IS the redistribution of wealth!! At least it is as much as progressive taxation and regulation. The key is that both need to be balanced.
Ayn Rand was not balanced and Atlas Shrugged is a peculiar kind of mythology. A couple dozen CEO's live in a valley in Colorado protected by a cloaking ray gun, some how build their own city with a power plant run by a super special engine that can sense your emotions and intention and blow itself up into minute dust particles if it doesn't like you. Two guys can run an entire copper mine and with help from corporate MacGivers, Biff and Buffy, design and build complex machinery without pollution or any economic capital except the gold they steal from the outside world that actually created that wealth ... and then, and this is great ... when they aren't going after each others wives ... and when one of them is captured by evil, yet incompetent government officials, the very same bunch of CEO's in perfect A-Team fashion, get into their private airplanes (which they all can flawlessly fly) and burst into a guarded installation and win a shoot out against US security forces, free their leader and return to Colorado without a trace. Kind of like a mix of Flash Gordon and Days of Our Lives for Wall Street Hedgefund managers or MBA's who got punked in World of Warcraft!
Anyway as long as you are honest and consistent in being an objectivist, I don't have any problem with your comments - just realize that putting money and yourself above all others and all things has been tried before, and it doesn't work for very long ... and in the end is rejected or controlled by every society in history.
For example you can't hold Atlas Shrugged in one hand and the Bible in the other.
Objectivism only sounds good when you narrow your perspective to yourself and your bank account. In any society with children or villages bigger than 100 people it can't work, kind of like true communism and libertarianism ... nice in theory, but lousy in practice.
Yes, think of the children!
Never mind the proponents of global warming are benefiting financially and bankrupting our childrens future with economic policies that haven't shown to affect global warming one bit.
But at least the children will be able to breathe
And opponents of global warming are not benefitting financially and bankrupting the ecological capital of their children's future with economic policies? Your grasp of economics, much less science ad much, MUCH less morality, is wafer thin.
Few scientists or policy wonks make much money touting global warming warnings. They would make far more creating insolvent hedge funds or running coal plants. Are you willing to pay for half of Vanuatu sinking beneath the waves? Are you willing to ignore Vanuatu and feel no personal responsibility for your own actions?
Problem with either far left or far right idealogues is that whining about other people's irresponsibility is so much more fun than being honest about your own. (See Glenn Beck)
Global Warming "science" has shown to be faulty, especially that presented by the U.N.:
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=262
Apple had best get a clue before listening to Al Gore:
http://www.heartland.org/full/26066/...l_Warming.html
libertyforall ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? Nice name except being egocentric and irresponsible isn't liberating, its middle school!
Do you actually know anything about science?
Steve Jobs car = Mercedes SL55 AMG = 14 mile per gallon
Steve Jobs plane = Gulfstream V = Burns 2000 gals per hour, or about 3.6 gallons per mile.
And Al Gore is no better. By some estimates his house consumes 20x the national average house uses in energy. And he flies private jets wherever goes.
When Steve Jobs drives a Prius to Apple headquarters (and parks it in the handicapped spot as usual) then I will start to take him seriously about his stance on global warming.
What do the life styles of Al Gore or Steve Jobs have to do with the science behind the physical modification of the Earth's atmosphere? Do you understand the ramifications of an "ad hominem" argument?
Like it or not the "nutjobs" have a strong track record of getting to run the show....
Don't know where they are, but where I'm at taxes, fees, etc. never go down and continue to rise above inflation. When all added up it's over 50% now. More government never solved anything.
First, taxation policy is a separate issue from the regulation of the "free" market. They work synergistically and affect each other, but they have different drivers and models.
A fair and stable tax structure is always important, but should not drive your view of an ecological issue ... it significantly affects how we approach an issue, but should not define it. I don't want my taxes or your taxes or Bill Gates taxes to be oppressive or continually going up, but come up with a plan beyond "cut taxes" simpleton-ness.
So being skeptical of the government is great and American and even liberal in the Jeffersonian sense. However to say "more government never solved anything" is typical neo-con b.s. bumper sticker philosophy, not something an educated adult should use as an argument.
How much tax should you pay and why?
How much personal responsibility for our ecological resources are you willing to take and what responsibility do producers and polluters have for their waste products?
Should we really let the "free" market decide and define what "clean air," "clean water" and "global climate change" mean to the point where ethics and morality have no role?
Like it or not the "nutjobs" have a strong track record of getting to More government never solved anything.
This is just a blanket statement repeated over and over again that government is the problem. It's not a matter of all government control or all anarchy, but a mix of private and public participation on various issues.
The biggest "government" program is the military who protect our freedom under the Constitution. How about our state and local police? Do you want to abolish the military and police forces and let everyone defend themselves with their Colt 45?
ooo, busted. You didn't read my links, bad bad bad. The consensus you refer to was conducted in 1992, as I'm sure you're aware was quite a while ago and a lot of new scientific data has become available. As such you now have thousands upon thousands of scientists coming out saying, wait not so fast. I'm not saying there wasn't a percieved consensus in 1992. Given the data we had at the time it's completely understandable but give a whole decade and a half of new data many scientists are starting to think maybe we should, ya know, do our jobs and continue to evaluate what's going on. (here's 31k more dissenters http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...0-deniers.aspx) (that's not on Curtis' list of "junk science" either, sorry C)
Um, your link is to an opinion piece in a pro-business, anti-gov website. Its author runs a blog called Energy Probe with a very specific and targeted perspective. That doesn't make him wrong, just makes him suspect and his facts not necessarily "junk science" but in need of real citations.
So if the "thousands" of "scientists" can really be confirmed and that the survey really asks for their objective opinions in a way that isn't skewed ... then it needs to be weighed against the many more thousands of scientists who feel the opposite ... then we need to decide, what do we do?
At that point it is a political decision, not a scientific one. Otherwise we can spend the next several decades trying to be 98% right, just as we lose our ability to do something about the problem. Sometimes you have to make an ethical judgement call when you are only 79% sure.
Um, your link is to an opinion piece in a pro-business, anti-gov website. Its author runs a blog called Energy Probe with a very specific and targeted perspective. That doesn't make him wrong, just makes him suspect and his facts not necessarily "junk science" but in need of real citations.
So if the "thousands" of "scientists" can really be confirmed and that the survey really asks for their objective opinions in a way that isn't skewed ... then it needs to be weighed against the many more thousands of scientists who feel the opposite ... then we need to decide, what do we do?
At that point it is a political decision, not a scientific one. Otherwise we can spend the next several decades trying to be 98% right, just as we lose our ability to do something about the problem. Sometimes you have to make an ethical judgement call when you are only 79% sure.
Very salient points.
Background for those interested:
The first week of October, 2007 a deceptive scientist petition, the "survey", was mailed out, an exhortation to sign a petition demanding that the US not sign the Kyoto Protocol. It was from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and was an attempt to re-invigorate the highly criticised 1999 “Oregon Petition“.
The article itself was just an update of the original article, minus an author (Baliunas), with a switch of Robinson children (Zachary’s out, Noah is in), but with a large number of similar errors and language. As in the previous case, this paper too, was not peer reviewed. This was a rehash of the previous discredited paper plus a few more cherry-picked statistics of dubious relevance.
In reviewing motives, it might be useful to consider that the collaborator on the "survey", Frederick Seitz is a condensed matter physicist, and has never been a climate scientist. Seitz has been working for special interest groups for 40 years. Despite his impressive credentials, the last time that he held an active research position was in 1968. Furthermore, his work involved solid state physics, not atmospheric dynamics.
Seitz is a former Chair of the George C. Marshall Institute; is Chairman of the Science and Environmental Policy Project; is on the Board of Academic and Scientific Advisors of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, and has been a Science Advisor to The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition. All four organizations actively lobby against any measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, all four are well known for publishing disinformation concerning science in order to achieve this objective; and all four are funded by sections of the fossil fuel industry.
Seitz has also worked as a consultant to the tobacco industry, and was described in an internal memo by Phillip Morris Co. in 1989 as “quite elderly and not sufficiently rational to offer advice.”
Seitz was instrumental in organizing the original “petition project” of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine or OISM: a petition that led the National Academy of Sciences to take unprecedented step of issuing a statement disassociating itself from the project and from its former president. In particular, it admonished publishing a report that was deceptively designed to look like an official NAS journal article.
Seitz is also known for a highly disingenuous article that he published in the Wall Street journal in 1996, purporting to criticise the IPCC review process, and implying he was privy to this process, without revealing that he has never had any involvement with the IPCC and has never been a climate scientist (see also here).
One might say that Fred Seitz’s politics is irrelevant and that he should be judged by his published work. Fair enough. Search for his work published in peer-reviewed science journals on the subject of climate change … [crickets chirping].
The petition, despite being frequently cited by global warming critics as showing that thousands of scientists disagree with the consensus on global warming, contains a distinct minority with relevant expertise; and its vetting was so lax that it included fictional signatories such as Star Wars characters and a member of the Spice Girls. Some have stated that they requested their names removed after learning later what the petition was actually about (they had quickly signed it after briefly scanning, assuming it was supporting action towards global warming). The petition was mailed to engineers, biologists, computer scientists and geologists. It went to sociologists, M.D.s, physicists, generically to members the “Communications/Humanities/Fine Arts” and graduate students in the "Science/Technology" departments. Suffice it to say, the subtleties of a medical paper would be lost on a climate scientist, and the reverse is true.