A Global Warming voice of reason?

[shropshire 0]

And that Bill, is the biggest problem... What evidence there is, is Span and skwed.

But my biggest problem is governments setting policy and collecting my money but not spending it wisely and when people (Deniers, if you like) try to speak up they are made to feel like Surt, the Destroyer of Worlds.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Prove to me that the GW is happening.

Like Lindsay, I have to rely on the knowledge of those who understand the science. From all I have seen, those claiming global warming to be real and caused (in significant part) by man have published their studies in respected, peer reviewed scientific journals. On the other hand, those claiming that man is not a significant contributor to global warming, as well as those who claim that global warming is not even real, do not base their argument on such peer reviewed work. To me, that gives the first group much more credibility than the second group.

Quote

How do you measure the temperature of the Earth?
Do you do it at a number of descrete points? - How many, How far apart, How often? What level of accuracy will you accept?

How long is England's coastline? Is it even possible to know? I would argue that it is not possible to know the length with much accuracy or precision. It can always be examined on a smaller scale, at least down to the molecular level, at which point, tides, erosion and deposits occurring in real time make any attempts of measurement futile. Does that mean we can't know anything about the length of England's coastline?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1782/

Quote

From his article, I read that his main concern is in the stiffeling of debate and loudly denouncing anyone who would dare to put forward a counter agrument.. And that surpresses all of our freedoms of speech.

Given that this morning there have been links posted to
(1) Article from UK’s The Telegraph – a major UK newspaper, &
(2) A report from the former Chair of the US Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee, as part of a blog that lists challenges to climate change policy (along the left-hand side) ...

Come on guys …
Who exactly is being stifled?

We hear about Gray, Courtney, etc.
We hear about Congressional Testimony.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute files suit against any regulation, including those signed by President Bush (& gets written up in the NY Times – ya may not like the article’s conclusion but ya can’t say CEI isn’t getting press).
Even the Pope has had his say.

This has got to be the least effective stifling of speech in the history of ... well ... something.

I (& others) have challenged the shakier, contrived science & politics behind missile defense, but it continues to be funded over $100B thus far.
Is my free speech being stifled?
(Actually w/r/t Prof Ted Postol, MIT & former S&T Advisor to the Chief of Naval Operations, one can build a strong argument that there were attempts to stifle his free speech; he had to sue the Clinton administration w/r/t fraud by MIT-LL & BMDO (the precursor to MDA)).

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[shropshire 0]

So, the margin for error is enormous and yet we're s'posed to set great store by it.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

So, the margin for error is enormous and yet we're s'posed to set great store by it.

I think you may have missed my point.

In many cases, measurements do not need to be exact in order to obtain useful information. In fact, I'm not aware of any measurement that could be considered exact, with the possible exception of electric charge, which occurs only in discrete units.

Perhaps one of our resident scientists will correct me by offering an alternate example.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Gore didn't get away with anything, the creators of South Park saw right through him, he got slammed straight off the top rope

Hey you...DENIER!! Man-bear-pig is a real threat!!

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,120]

> So, the margin for error is enormous and yet we're s'posed to set great store by it.

I think you may have missed his point.

Another example. Let's say your child is looking a little run down. You take his temperature orally; it's 101 degrees. An hour later you take his temperature again; it's 101.5 degrees. What can you conclude from this?

1) You've only taken temperature in a single location on his body over the course of an hour! There are dozens of other places to take his temperature, and several days over which to take it. Heck, his toes are probably well below 101.5 degrees, but you didn't even bother to check. Until you can rule out every other possible influence (including the well-known diurnal temperature change and the possibility of errors in the thermometers) you can not make any conclusions at all.

2) Your child's temperature is clearly going up .5 degrees an hour, and he will burst into flame within 53 days when his temperature reaches 741 degrees.

3) Your kid probably has a fever. Might want to do something about that.

1) is the denier position. 2) is the alarmist position. Most people choose 3).

[shropshire 0]

<>
Wouldn't be the first time and won't be the last either, but I try.

4) The kid MAY have a fever... best keep an eye on things. Let's not jump to conclusions and pay for expensive major surgery that may not be needed........ Me.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Gawain 0]

Bill, I believe in responsible use of resources. However, I do not subscribe to the alarmist actions that the followers of "Church of Al Gore" are following.

That environmental movement has blossomed into a religious sect bent on control. Control.

These people do nothing to follow their own advice, only demand that everyone do as they say...while buying excuses for themselves through carbon-credits (biggest scam in the 21st century so far).

You want to see some real leaders and voices of action in environmentalism (in the public eye): I'll submit Ed Begley, Jr. and Darryl Hannah.

Ed Begley was interviewed the other night, and he wasn't shrill about anything, he was simply outlining his own experience, "Start small. Pick the lowest hanging fruit for conserving energy (LED lights, etc)."

Remarkably socially responsible, without the desire to find solutions through government.

In the non-public-eye segment, why not share your first steps as you were becoming "carbon-neutral" per se. What were the first things you did that didn't require a five-figure investment and what were the tangible fruits of the effort? You have more credibility than any of these shrill leftists that demand submission rather than inspire innovation.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Great response... except it's currently only Perceived Science. It's not unequivocal fact (and may never be).

Thank you
What is "perceived science"?

W/r/t climate change science:

On one hand there is data (& as we all know, “data” is the plural form of “datum”): ice cores (trapped gases, isotopes, thickness), ocean sediment (isotopes), tree rings, indirect and direct temperature and gas measurements (e.g., Keeling’s Mauna Loa observatory data), etc.

Otoh, there are models:

Atmosphere general circulation models (AGCMs), 3-D representation of the atmosphere coupled to the land surface and cryosphere,

Ocean general circulation models (OGCM),

Carbon cycle models, describe climate feedbacks on CO2 concentration, for instance fertilization of plant growth by CO2 and uptake or out gassing of CO2 by the oceans,

Atmospheric chemistry models, which calculate chemical reactions that determine the production or destruction of important species such as ozone and methane,

Coupled atmosphere-ocean general circulation models (AOGCMs),

Sulfur aerosol

The major uncertainties in the models are the completeness of the data (input into models) & the impact of future policy choices.

Btw: Climate change is not new science:

1827 Fourier hypothesizes greenhouse effect

1860 Tyndal identifies CO2 and water vapor as heat trapping gases

1896 Arrenhius calculates earth warming from gases and predicts future warming from doubling and quadrupling CO2

1930 Calandar shows correlation of temperature and CO2

---- --- ----

And then there's a completely 'nother beastie (!) - how science informs policy decisions.

How the science gets applied (or mis-applied) to policy or how the science/pseudo-science is politicized. Science is a process that generates data/information/results that can be used for good or for bad, depending on how the human (politician, lobbyist, pundit, corporate shill, venture capitalist, start-up CEO) uses it.

More importantly to me, I'm on the side of informed debate by a larger portion of the citizenry: people aren't stupid and democracy works best when folks have access to information to make decisions. I love it when folks introduce primary data here and start pulling apart the methods and interpretations.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[billvon 3,120]

>The kid MAY have a fever... best keep an eye on things. Let's not jump
> to conclusions and pay for expensive major surgery that may not be
>needed.

Agreed. Better to do what the doctor suggests (i.e. keep him home from school, bed rest, fluids etc) - even if some very loud and persistent alternative medicine doctors claim that fevers "are all a bunch of hooey."

Indeed, such minor (but perhaps inconvenient) actions taken today might prevent that expensive hospital stay you mentioned!

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

“…carbon-credits (biggest scam in the 21st century so far).”

Ya caught my attention.

I honestly don’t have any particular candidate in mind for that dubious title (of the last 7 years or so).

By what metrics are you measuring that?

Who are the major advocates of carbon credits domestically and internationally?
My understanding is that it's the business marketplace – economics & trade. Correct me if, I’m wrong there.

To be explicit, I'm not an advocate of international carbon trading schemes but for more complicated reasons that “anti” or “pro” climate change policy. It’s an economic scheme. Are there parallels to the sub-prime mortgage debacle, perhaps? Or is it a novel-market-based approach that will create a viable new (interim) market? (If it creates a new beneficial market - yeah!) Or is it re-arranging metaphorical deck chairs?

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Yes!! and that is, what I believe Nigel Lawson is saying too.

From his article, I read that his main concern is in the stiffeling of debate and loudly denouncing anyone who would dare to put forward a counter agrument.. And that surpresses all of our freedoms of speech.

Exactly!
Is man having an effect? I dont think so but I am not possitive and I am open to the topic.

The more I learn the less I believe man is causing this. This is a money thing. And, when I say this retorts include "conspiracy" That is not what I mean.

What I DO KNOW. The GWing proponants do NOT want to debate it. That in and of its self flies the red flag for me

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

rehetoric

I was being pressured by my wife to get out the door

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Here is where you fail with the "majority" or "most" say rhwroeic (your word not mine)

Huh?!? Can you please translate that sentence into English? I'm not sure what rhwroeic means, but I'm sure I didn't use the word in my post.

Yes, I was wondering the same thing. Not just the word "rhwroeic" (Is that Welsh?) but the entire structure of the sentence.

What is rushmc's first language?

PA's and insults.

Got your fill today?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Here is where you fail with the "majority" or "most" say rhwroeic (your word not mine)

Huh?!? Can you please translate that sentence into English? I'm not sure what rhwroeic means, but I'm sure I didn't use the word in my post.

Yes, I was wondering the same thing. Not just the word "rhwroeic" (Is that Welsh?) but the entire structure of the sentence.

What is rushmc's first language?

From my earlier post. And it seems to fit quite well.

Quote

Funny, the "deniers" dont agree with the supporters but they tend to be much more civil in the debate

Now, I await a your next insult or PA. You seem to be quite full of them

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

Again, please link to the peer reviewed scientific studies that debunk global warming and man as a significant contributor thereof. When it comes to science, it is data that counts.

I have before. And when I do it is screamed that the study was funded by big oil. (or some such other bull shit)

I understand why you and yours do not want the bebate. You cant hold up your side

False claims, bad science and insults do not make any side correct in thier poisitons.

YOU CANT PROVE IT. Neither can the opposition. This is my point.

The "preponderance" of the "evidence" is not there either.

So, the side talking out both sides of their ass is not Lord Lawson, it is those trying to shut him up.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Funny, the "deniers" dont agree with the supporters but they tend to
>be much more civil in the debate.

You must have overlooked all the personal attacks against Al Gore based on his advocacy for climate change mitigation. A quick forum search will reveal dozens (some even made by you!)

You invoked Al Gore

Now that is funny


He is a quack. Debunked disproved and he should be ashamed.



That is a good one.

Please, use Al Gore any time you want.

It ranks right up there with your CDIF rants

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,120]

>>>Funny, the "deniers" dont agree with the supporters but they tend to
>>>be much more civil in the debate.

>>You must have overlooked all the personal attacks against Al Gore . .

>You invoked Al Gore. Now that is funny. He is a quack.

Once again you have proven my point perfectly.

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

>>You must have overlooked all the personal attacks against Al Gore . .

>You invoked Al Gore. Now that is funny. He is a quack.

Once again you have proven my point perfectly.

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>>>Funny, the "deniers" dont agree with the supporters but they tend to
>>>be much more civil in the debate.

>>You must have overlooked all the personal attacks against Al Gore . .

>You invoked Al Gore. Now that is funny. He is a quack.

Once again you have proven my point perfectly.

If YOU are using Al Gore to make YOUR point, sorry, you have proven mine!!!

Try again

No,

on second thought

please stop

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I have before. And when I do it is screamed that the study was funded by big oil. (or some such other bull shit)

Sorry, I must have missed those posts. Would you mind relinking, please (or linking to your previous posts)? So far the only links I've seen from you regarding global warming have been opinion pieces, and not peer reviewed studies. In science, there is a HUGE difference.

Quote

The "preponderance" of the "evidence" is not there either.

I keep hearing this claim, but haven't yet seen the peer reviewed studies supporting the assertion.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>>>Funny, the "deniers" dont agree with the supporters but they tend to
>>>be much more civil in the debate.

>>You must have overlooked all the personal attacks against Al Gore . .

>You invoked Al Gore. Now that is funny. He is a quack.

Once again you have proven my point perfectly.

On a serious note billvon.

If you really are trying to use Al Gore as some kind of credible figure to make a point you are loosing it.

You have shot down more credible sources to defend your possition but you use Al Gore as some kind of credible global warming source? And as such you cherry pick the comments about him as a counter to a point in this thread????????????

nuf said

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

I have before. And when I do it is screamed that the study was funded by big oil. (or some such other bull shit)

Sorry, I must have missed those posts. Would you mind relinking, please (or linking to your previous posts)? So far the only links I've seen from you regarding global warming have been opinion pieces, and not peer reviewed studies. In science, there is a HUGE difference.

Quote

The "preponderance" of the "evidence" is not there either.

I keep hearing this claim, but haven't yet seen the peer reviewed studies supporting the assertion.

I am not surprised.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jakee 1,596]

Quote

rehetoric

Closer. Much closer.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?