2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

It is about government control of our lives. Governments run by fanatics who think we should live like they think we should live. Doesnt apply to them however. Think Al Gore......

Al Gore is running the government?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

It is about government control of our lives. Governments run by fanatics who think we should live like they think we should live. Doesnt apply to them however. Think Al Gore......

Al Gore is running the government?

You should really keep 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

[Amazon 7]

Quote

But it is more than just jobs. It is about government control of our lives. Governments run by fanatics who think we should live like they think we should live. Doesnt apply to them however.

Think George Bush






We have had more intrusive government meddling the last 8 years.... yet you seem ok with that....but I guess YOU believe that since you believe you are not doing anything wrong.. you have nothing to worry about.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

This is why the recent figure was tossed out that it'll cost 45 trillion to reduce greenhouse emissions in the next 40 years. Al Gore is no research scientist. He is a brilliant entrepeneur.

Until the recent wave of bailouts and loan guarantees, 45T would have seemed like an impossible amount of money, like Dr. Evil's gajillian dollar ransom demands.

[lawrocket 3]

>>>> think George Bush.

Indeed! All of them! Government control of lives! Different leaders merely differ on what aspects to control. Bush is in favor of a trillion here or a trillion there to banks to help them out. Others are in favor of 50 trillion to help the world environment and stop global climate catastrophe.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Thanatos340 1]

Quote

A few months ago I was working on a TV show (working as a camera man, hopefully the show will be aired on Discovery) which touched the climate change issue as well. I recorded some stunning interview with a scientist who's head of this research center. A person from a laboratory which collects weather data for 130 years every single day (!!! that's a lot of data to have good conclusion).

Data.. Much like statistics will show whatever the person paying the Bills wants it to show.

Pollution is bad. That I think everyone agrees on. We Could and we MUST do better to reduce man`s impact on the Environment. I agree 100% with this.

But the Global Warming (And Now typically referred to as "Climate Change" on Funding requests since the "Warming" part is getting harder and harder to prove) craze will soon go the way of the old "Hole in the Ozone/ Chlorofluorocarbons" Scare that researchers seeking funding were so excited about many years ago.

Very soon there will be some new great scare that will take lots of research and funding to scare us all with. And the cycle continues.

In the mean time I am offering Carbon Credits at DEEEEP Discounts. Get yours while they are still hot.

[billvon 3,120]

>Oh, kallend and billvon, their title, not mine.

Cool! You're putting disclaimers in your posts up front, so when they are shown to be incorrect you can say "I already said I didn't believe it." A thoughtful and cautious approach.

I look forward to your 2019 post, "Global warming officially ended in 2018."

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Oh, kallend and billvon, their title, not mine.

Cool! You're putting disclaimers in your posts up front, so when they are shown to be incorrect you can say "I already said I didn't believe it." A thoughtful and cautious approach.

I look forward to your 2019 post, "Global warming officially ended in 2018."

Much like your post that says GWing temp increases will be delayed because of X?

In any event, to correct yet another billvon twist, I only stated it was the title of the article. Not my comment or made up thread title (I know how you and kallend love to distort others posts)

And, if you can show me, in the original post, where I said anything about already not believing it, well, it may help to clarify your point


I do need to go back to your pre-emtive post about el nino (or something like that) It is fun to see what some use to acusse, use for their own agenda.

Oh, and thanks for shoring up MY points in the OP.

"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]

> I only stated it was the title of the article.

Yep - thus, when it is shown to be untrue (like "there's only one problem with global warming - it stopped in 1998!") you can say "hey, I was just posting the title of the article; I wasn't stating it as a fact." I see that as learning from past mistakes, which is a good thing.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

It is more than about just funding research. It is about funding the applied technologies, providing tax breaks, etc.

Reasonable hypothesis. Can you provide data to support that hypothesis?

Applied technology is generally engineering and development. Most tax breaks similarly go to the engineering and development side (through private companies), not to basic science.

And please don't interpret that statement as disfavoring taxbreaks for companies doing innovative "R&D" ... it's just recogntion that since the era of Bell Labs ended, very little big "R" research is done in private companies (both small and large).

Quote

My point is that this research gets put out to get this money.

Again, a hypothesis to investigate. I suspect I would disagree with what I think you mean ... it's hard to be certain tho' cauuse it's fairly vague.

Do you mean research programs (i.e., funding programs by federal and State agencies)? Or do you mean scientists intentionally generate data and interpret results in a certain way to get money?

Scientific investigations of atmospheric chemistry (i.e., climate change) go back to the late 1800s.

Quote

Want to invade Iraq but don't have the facts to get public support for it? Point to data that suggests WMDs, ignore all other data, and spin it so as to generate sufficient fear to get the public response you need.

Perhaps better example for that scenario are missile defense, biodefense, and nuclear detection. One can argue which of the three are legitimate research investments. I would argue in essentially reverse order from which I lilsted them (which is also reverse order of funding level). My argument would be based on science, threat assessments (vulnerability, capability, & motivation) for US strategic interests, and US foreign policy implications. That's policy not science. It's only science policy if I'm proposing/acting on science/RDTE programs. Policy has to prioritize; sometimes the factors that go into those priorities have nothing or little to do with science. And, at times, that's okay or even preferable, imo.

If your hypothesis is true, one would have expected an increase in climate change research, yes?
What has been observed? 23% decline in federal funding since 2003.

Quote

This is why the recent figure was tossed out that it'll cost 45 trillion to reduce greenhouse emissions in the next 40 years.

Since I don't follow climate change ... perhaps, ironically, it's mostly through discussions/debates here that I find out the latest secondary and tertiary-reported policies and predictions ... would you or someone provide a link to that claim?

I suspect that figure includes a lot more than just tax breaks, basic science funding, etc. to actuarial calculations of rise in insurance premiums (very similar to the projections associated with healtcare, e.g., $2.4T over ten years, 34% of GDP by 2050, ... the costs alone for dealing with strokes are expected to exceed $2.2T in 40 years).

Quote

Al Gore is no research scientist.

Concur. I've never suggested he was one.

Quote

I am willing to agree that there are areas in which the concept applies more accurately. This backs up my point that science is often put forth for other reasons, which is why events like the Medieval Climate Optimum are ignored.

The problem isn’t the science (or the peer-review system ), it’s 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.

Scientists are actually *really* comfortable with error bars and accustom to dealing with uncertainties (if nothing else limitations of instrumental resolution).

Policy makers (aka politicians), the media, and large percentages of the voting/pontificating public aren’t. They want black and white answers … sometimes when there aren’t. That applies just as much to climate change as it does to weapons intelligence.

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

> I only stated it was the title of the article.

Yep - thus, when it is shown to be untrue (like "there's only one problem with global warming - it stopped in 1998!") you can say "hey, I was just posting the title of the article; I wasn't stating it as a fact." I see that as learning from past mistakes, which is a good thing.

I love the way you think!
Dont understand it but I love it

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

[SkyDekker 1,465]

You do realize that the article you linked to is from a columnist who has been proven to lie if it helps his opinion?

If you want your opinion to be taken as valid, you may want to link to some better articles. Just like research from the brady institute or the NRA doesn't really prove ,uch in gun debates...

[rushmc 23]

Quote

You do realize that the article you linked to is from a columnist who has been proven to lie if it helps his opinion?

If you want your opinion to be taken as valid, you may want to link to some better articles. Just like research from the brady institute or the NRA doesn't really prove ,uch in gun debates...

Serious question.

Of all the posts make on this subject on this site. How many are scientific or credible?

"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]

Hey, let me answer this for you.

Very few. There were some early on but, I will ask you. In all cases what was the response?

Similar to those in this one maybe?

So, if the (very) few posts I have made with credible scientist opions (not research papers), and then much less credible links are responded to the same, I have to ask why? Got an aswer for this one?

I think I do.

And is makes alot of sense.

"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

Very few. There were some early on but, I will ask you. In all cases what was the response?

Similar to those in this one maybe?

So, if the (very) few posts I have made with credible scientist opions (not research papers), and then much less credible links are responded to the same, I have to ask why? Got an aswer for this one?

Can we get that in English?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Very few. There were some early on but, I will ask you. In all cases what was the response?

Similar to those in this one maybe?

So, if the (very) few posts I have made with credible scientist opions (not research papers), and then much less credible links are responded to the same, I have to ask why? Got an aswer for this one?

Can we get that in English?

Nope

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

[Andy9o8 2]

It is simply idiotic to make a partisan political issue out of a scientific debate.

[LaRusic 0]

this was a pretty intersting read

www.torontosun.com/comment/editorial/2008/12/29/7869571-sun.html

The Altitude above you, the runway behind you, and the fuel not in the plane are totally worthless
Dudeist Skydiver # 10

[billvon 3,120]

>Can we get that in English?

If the very few posts Marc has made that include the opinons of credible scientists are replied to by less credible people, he will ask why.

[jakee 1,596]

Quote

>Can we get that in English?

If the very few posts Marc has made that include the opinons of credible scientists are replied to by less credible people, he will ask why.

Could be, could be.

My first thought was that the whole thing was supposed to be past tense - that he'd posted credible scientific opinions before and all he got in response was hack journalism like the link he posted this time. But it couldn't have been that, because it's obviously not true

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

It is simply idiotic to make a partisan political issue out of a scientific debate.

Exactly correct. One only needs to understand which side of the debate is politically motivated not dont they...

Is this not where the debate should be decided?

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

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It is more than about just funding research. It is about funding the applied technologies, providing tax breaks, etc.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Reasonable hypothesis. Can you provide data to support that hypothesis?

Not data, but examples. Things like SDI are frequently seen. SDI is applied science and technology. The russian who wrote the paper stealth technology was based on had pure science on his mind.

Quote

Applied technology is generally engineering and development.

I've always differentiated between three things: (1) basic science; (2) applied science; and (3) technology.

Basic science is seen in things like CERN - that really cool stuff that really unlocks the basic secrets of the universe. Quantum physics and the like - a scientific backbone that once discovered is released to everybody. Basic science has no money in it, though. They need funding to do it. As libertarian as I am, I believe that the only way basic science can be extensively funded is via governments because nobody is going to make money off of it.

Applied science is a different beast. "Okay. We've been told by basic science that E=MC2. How can we use that?" Hence, Fermi and Szilard (himself discoverer of chain reactions) thought up, "How can we use this? Fissile materials." And then people thought up ways to use that, which applied the science to a use - nuclear power. Or, back to the stealth technology, Ufimtsev's principles and equations were applied to the shape of an aircraft to lower.

Next, there is technology. Technology is where you get the moneymaking because technology is not peer reviewed. Technology is developed to turn basic and applied science into a workable (and profitable) product. So taking Ufintsev's equations, the applicatons were obvious to many. It was simply a matter of having the technological knowhow to make something like that fly. And these technologies are STILL top secret.

So I view "applied technology" as a bit of a mixture of ideas I think are distinct. Of course, I could be wrong. I've made mistakes before - when I thought YOU were wrong, Marg.

Quote

it's just recogntion that since the era of Bell Labs ended, very little big "R" research is done in private companies (both small and large).

Indeed. There's no money in it. That's why Bell issued it's release a few months ago (actuall,y I think it was Lucent who is the parent company) that stated that it was pulling out of basic science to work on more marketable things - technology! Stuff they can patent and make money on. Even Larry Bell of Bell Aircraft (unrelated to Bell Labs), who built the X-1, griped, "The glory is in doing it first but the money is in doing it second."

Quote

Do you mean research programs (i.e., funding programs by federal and State agencies)?

Yes. That's part of it. Much of this research is done for funding. And politicians don't like to disburse funds for projects that are unpopular. Hence, NASA uses massive amounts of money, but even I admit that it's pretty cool! (Though I wish they'd have more freaking re-entries over CONUS so the people can see coolness themselves). Medical research on trypanosomiasis isn't gonna get any DoD funding - we aren't interested in Africa. Cholera? Okay. Do some more research.

Quote

Or do you mean scientists intentionally generate data and interpret results in a certain way to get money?

I'm saying that scientists are human. I'm saying that scientists will enter into a problem with a preconceived idea and seek out the data that backs it up and find reasons to disregard other data. Hence, there will be a data set from tree rings that will not show the Medieval Climate Optimum. Most attorneys are MASTER at taking things that make our clients look bad and minimizing it (or keeping it out altogether) and overblowing stuff that makes the other side look bad.

That's why the "hockey stick" is SO annoying. Yes, your data shows that. YEs, you are forced to make judgments and assumptions about the data to make it workable. They interpret. And there is BOUND to be interpretation that is skewed by the personal subjective opinions of these scientists. Scientists are human!

You don't ignore the Little ice Age and the Medievel Climate Optimum and pronounce warming as unprecented unless you have a point you are intending to make.

Quote

Scientific investigations of atmospheric chemistry (i.e., climate change) go back to the late 1800s.

Indeed! And opinions have changed and will continue to change.

Quote

Perhaps better example for that scenario are missile defense, biodefense, and nuclear detection. One can argue which of the three are legitimate research investments.

Ah! This is technology and applied science. Basic research plays a part, i.e., "How can we turn a persistent malignant chemical agent into a benign agent?" Then it gets into, "What's the best way to remediate aerosol anthrax?" Once "best' gets in there, it becomes "policy."

Quote

My argument would be based on science, threat assessments (vulnerability, capability, & motivation) for US strategic interests, and US foreign policy implications. That's policy not science.

Exactly.

Quote

It's only science policy if I'm proposing/acting on science/RDTE programs.

I concur. It's science policy.

Quote

Policy has to prioritize; sometimes the factors that go into those priorities have nothing or little to do with science. And, at times, that's okay or even preferable, imo.

My concurrence with you means I'm not wrong ALL of the time.

Quote

one would have expected an increase in climate change research, yes?

Yep.

Quote

What has been observed? 23% decline in federal funding since 2003.

Different things. Federal funding has dropped off. What about private funding? We in the business community are prone to "market research." If I have developed bacterial strains that can convert cow droppings into an inert substance that sequesters carbon, then I will generate some research on the CH4 escaping from cow droppings. Or CO2. And I'll have them peer-reviewed. And then I'll have them announce the implications of failure to sequester the carbon. And then I'll announce that my product will alleviate the concerns. And hopefully, I'll talk the UN into buying it.

Quote

would you or someone provide a link to that claim?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/06/study-45-trillion-investm_n_105600.html

And here's what I dislike because it is policy - not science:

Quote

A U.N.-network of scientists concluded last year that emissions have to be cut by at least half by 2050 to avoid an increase in world temperatures of between 3.6 and 4.2 degrees above pre-18th century levels.

Scientists say temperature increases beyond that could trigger devastating effects, such as widespread loss of species, famines and droughts, and swamping of heavily populated coastal areas by rising oceans.

And here's my point about scientists doing "studies" and making "recommendations"

Quote

The scenario for deeper cuts would require massive investment in energy technology development and deployment, a wide-ranging campaign to dramatically increase energy efficiency, and a wholesale shift to renewable sources of energy.

Put another way, it says, "The world needs to wake up. We scientists have studied this. And we conclude that what we need is a massive amount of money directed to scientists. Failure to do so will result in famine, pestilence, and loss of life."

Quote

Scientists are actually *really* comfortable with error bars and accustom to dealing with uncertainties (if nothing else limitations of instrumental resolution)

I agree. But these "uncertainties" become the basis for "certainties" in the public arena.

Quote

Policy makers (aka politicians), the media, and large percentages of the voting/pontificating public aren’t. They want black and white answers … sometimes when there aren’t.

And in that sense, integrity would require them to say that it isn't black and white. Instead of saying, "We don't know what the potential will be" it is stated that such warming, if it happens, "could trigger devastating effects, such as widespread loss of species, famines and droughts, and swamping of heavily populated coastal areas by rising oceans."

It could? Therefore, it could not. It "could" lead to increased food supply due to increasing the amount od arable land with increased warmth. It "could" lead to the development of new species with unique adaptations. It "could" lead to oceans maintaining their present level by increasing precipitation and snow deposits in Antarctica,

And they opt for a black or white answer because they are human, and want to kjeep their jobs.

Let's be human and call it what it is. We are all self-interested in one way or another. Let's look at how it is.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

This has been another disappointing year for global warming alarmists, which is why you haven't heard much about it in the media.

WOW, if this does not say it all.

Thanks for the post.

I will offer myself up as a whipping boy on this topic. At least we are not hearing of the consensus bull shit anymore

Now we can await the vitriol aimed at LORRIE GOLDSTEIN

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

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

It is simply idiotic to make a partisan political issue out of a scientific debate.

But science and policy work hand in hand. Science is being used to direct policy. Policy and science are being mixed and have been for a long time.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,120]

>But science and policy work hand in hand.

Almost. Science should direct policy; political ideology should not drive science. Other countries have tried that. Lysenkoism and eugenics were two results; climate change denial (as implemented in government) is the latest.