kallend 2,147
rushmc 23
QuoteQuoteCO2 is not a toxin
Arguable, But i'm not going down that road.
CO2 is not the only pollutant billowed out by human beings into the atmosphere for the sake of making money.
This (co2 is not a pollutant) argument will be used by selfish non caring neo cons like you, to continue driving behemouth vehicles, throw away plastic and polystyrene containers, pour you paint waste down the drain and go and fill the ground with lead at the skeet range...
Little by little (or alot by alot) we are destroying our fragile environment, that has taken millions of years to find a reasonably balanced existantance.
We could fuck it all up in a matter of a coupe of hundred years if we wish, or we could give a shit and move towards a sustainable and resectful co-existance.
You choose the former, and unfortunately it is the easy option, so therefore the majority does also.
Then you had better stop breathing.
the rest of your "points" are the same kool aid drink the rest of them imbibe.
But then i want a dirty planet in which my grandchildren choke and get rashes. Water should be rancid and black with coal tar. I want wild life to die or deform. Trees should be burned and open wild spaces bulldozed down and mega malls and oil refineries built. Pulpmills should be built and open cut coal mining should be trippled in size. We should open up forest areas to dump toxic cemicals cause that will help evil companies make more money and make the share holders richer.
Ya, fuck the fragile enviromment
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
rushmc 23
By the way, being called a "neo con" by somebody with your beliefs I take as a high compliment. Thank You
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
QuoteFind any post in which I've given credibility to climate predictions. I have linked to a lot of raw and analyzed data from independent organizations like NOAA and NSIDC.
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2655955#2655955
You certainly gave a sarcastic response. You definitely gave attacked the poster and gave credibility to the IPCC personnel.
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And I choose not to place much credibility in the messengers who are paid to give a particular message.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This means that you don't look at the science, then. Which proves that this is, to you, not about science but about politics and popularity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incorrect conclusion.
Okay. So you look at the science and don't trust it? What was the point in your perception of the credibility of the scientist? How is that important when looking at data, etc.? Or is it the spin, i.e., "CO2 is irrelevant." I can see that, but not even the scientist said it.
QuoteThat Lindzen takes money from big oil and coal is not in dispute.
Indeed. I do not dispute it. But let's take a look at something like the 2000 US National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change. And about the scientists on that panel that created it - The National Assessment Synthesis Team.
Dr. Jerry M. Melillo (Co-Chair) (B.A. Wesleyan University, CT; Ph.D. Yale University) was in his twenty-fifth year as a research scientist at The Ecosystems Center of the Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole. He was and still is a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists - the group that in 1997 published the "Call to Action" to support the Kyoto Protocol. Also in 1997, he wrote "Human Domination of the Earth’s Ecosystems.” He's on the most recent one, too, saying "We can act now to avoid the worst [climate] impacts."
Anthony C. Janetos (Co-Chair) was Sr. Vice President for Program at the World Resources Institute, an independent policy research institute located in Washington, DC. In 1998 he published "Protecting Our Planet, Securing Our Future: Linkages Among Global Environmental Issues and Human Needs."
Tom Karl (Co-Chair) was Director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center within NOAA's National Environmental Satellite and Data Information Service. He has been a lead author on each of the IPCC's assessments of climate change since 1990 - a very prominent guy in the IPCC. Karl is one of the kings of climate science. Tom Karl in the most recent report stated that sea level rising is already a non-reversible tipping point. Of course, Tom Karl said in 1999 that 1998's hot year "may" be the "tipping point" to accellerated global warming. (He likes "tipping point" and, oh, how wrong he was.")
Eric Barron was the Director of the Environment Institute in the Earth and Mineral Sciences college at Pennsylvania State University, where he is also Distinguished Professor of Geosciences . His areas of specialization include global change, numerical models of the climate system, and study of climate change throughout Earth history. He was one of the big modelers and was the first to link reef collapses to warming. In 1995 he wrote "Global Climate Changes, Human Intervention."
Virginia Burkett was chief of the Forest Ecology Branch at the National Wetlands Research Center of the US Geological Survey (USGS), US Department of Interior. A wetlands expert and climatologist. In 2008, "Dr. Burkett noted that until the present, temperature consistently rose when carbon dioxide increased. Change in temperature was noted as accelerating over the past 15 years. ."
Tom Cecich was Vice President of Environmental Safety for Glaxo Wellcome, where he has been employed for 15 years. He's an engineer for a drug company. Not much on him other than his statement that they tried to keep politics out.
Robert Corell was Senior Fellow at the Atmospheric Policy Program of the American Meteorological Society and Senior Research Fellow in the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. Now Director of the Global Change Program at The H. John Heinz III Center (to which Melillo was a trustee.) Another bigwig of doom and gloom.
Okay. Those were the first seven.
Now, this National Assessment Synthesis Team was under the National Science & Technology Council - a cabinet level department established in 1993. Chaired by the President. Next is the Vice President, the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, Cabinet members, etc. Namely, Al Gore and Jack Gibbons. Gibbons published "Energy: the Conservation Revolution" in 1981. his points in the book?
Quote
-Influential energy demand studies have seriously overestimated future U.S. energy requirements (understated)
-The basic factors of energy demand are changing, and these changes all point to diminished growth in energy demand (wrong)
-Economic growth is possible without growth in energy demand (I'll concede).
-The price of energy can only go higher.(it didn't. See "SUV")
-United States oil consumption hampers Third World development and is a threat to world peace. (explain China)
-Energy price controls harm mostly the poor, cause unnecessary environmental damage, forfeit national security and ultimately lead to higher energy costs. (Concur)
-Environmental protection policies should not be relaxed to foster energy production (oops!)
-Industrial energy conservation requires institutional as well as technical innovation. (see "cap and trade")
-The 1980's will be difficult (but not in the way you thought)
Okay, John. Tell me - you've got Al Gore and Jack Gibbons leading the selection of the National Assessment Synthesis Team. Put another way, you've got Al Gore and Jack Gibbons vetting the members of the National Assessment Synthesis Team. Put another way, you've got Al Gore with his known position on climate selecting who it is that will make the assessment.
Why not have Dick Cheney and Bill O'Reilly select who will be peforming the National Terror Threat Assessment?
Hence, you'll find that the primary models utilized for the first Assessment were by the Hadley Center (rainfall) and the Canadian Centre for Climate Modeling and Analysis.
Wait - is that the same Canadian Centre that I mentioned was the model that showed a nonlinear increase in temperature? Instead it showed acceleration.
So, do you think that people might get positions on the basis of their pre-existing positions? I think it's laughable to suggest that political appointees do not.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
kallend 2,147
Fascinatingly irrelevant, I don't believe Al Gore makes appointments to NASA, NOAA, NSIDC, the UK Met Office, The Scott Polar Institute, or other scientific establishments.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
rushmc 23
QuoteFascinatingly irrelevant, I don't believe Al Gore makes appointments to NASA, NOAA, NSIDC, the UK Met Office, The Scott Polar Institute, or other scientific establishments.
With this reply you should consider your ass kicked!
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
QuoteThus, show me a damned model that predicted a ten year lull in global temperature increase.
Show me a model that demonstrates that the data matches (or even comes somewhat close) to what we see here.
Show me a model that doesn't predict a steady linear increase in temperature. There is one - from the Canadian Climate Center, which shows an INCREASING rate of warming.
Show me a model that predicts withing .15 degrees the temperature in 2009 from the observed data.
No takers.
I am starting to conclude that as a rule, climate models are wrong. They can be useful analytic tools and educational tools. They can lead to greater insight.
But their usefulness as a prediction? They are so consistently wrong (one the warm end) that I am almost of the opinion that "climate model" means, "yet another alarmist prediction."
Okay. There. I said it.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
QuoteFascinatingly irrelevant, I don't believe Al Gore makes appointments to NASA, NOAA, NSIDC, the UK Met Office, The Scott Polar Institute, or other scientific establishments.
NOAA
"White House Sounds Alarm On Climate Change." such was the CBS News headline on the release of the latest National Assessment in June, 2009. Said Lubchenco, "This report provides the concrete scientific information that says unequivocally that climate change is happening now and it’s happening in our own backyards and it affects the kind of things people care about.”
Though I suspect Gore had much to do with the appointment of D. James Baker. to head NOAA in the day and an early proponent of mankind's destruction of the planet.
Lubchenco is another dyed-in-the-wool alarmist. But nothing like our next subject...
NASA-GISS
Administrated by admitted alarmist liar Dr. James "Hatch Act" Hansen! Turns out that his attacks on the Bush Administration had a price of about $700k, which he received from the Open Society Institute. From their "Politization of Science Fund." Okay, so he didn't receive it all in cash, merely in legal assistance and public relations.
Hansen actually received more cash from the Heinz Foundation - $250k. Or the million dollars he split with a pair in a Dan David PRize. Perhaps Lindzen should simply receive "prizes" for his work.
Also note: "A key objective of GISS research is prediction of atmospheric and climate changes in the 21st century." Nice. Back in 2000, you predicted a .2 degree increase in mean global temperatures this decade. In 1988, you said we be between 5. and 1.1 degrees higher than the mean you used. We're at .1.
This is the prognostication that we reward with lots of money on the side and heading governmental agencies.
UK Met and Scott Polar Research Institute
Those are English. Of course Gore hasn't much to do with it.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
kallend 2,147
You have of course, got it backwards (not surprisingly). And I don't believe Gore had anything to do with any of those appointments.
Winning a prize is not exactly the same as being a paid "consultant". Not that you would know that.
Winning a prize is not exactly the same as being a paid "consultant". Not that you would know that.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Quote
You have of course, got it backwards (not surprisingly). And I don't believe Gore had anything to do with any of those appointments.
Winning a prize is not exactly the same as being a paid "consultant". Not that you would know that.
Gore may not have. Then again, he may have. Anything having to do with climate during the Clinton admin had Gore all over it.
And with regard to prizes, yeah, there is a difference. It's Soros's money. If he wants to spend $720k on legal and PR blitz on Hansen's behalf, let him. I just think things like that should be disclosed.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
kallend 2,147
QuoteQuote
You have of course, got it backwards (not surprisingly). And I don't believe Gore had anything to do with any of those appointments.
Winning a prize is not exactly the same as being a paid "consultant". Not that you would know that.
Gore may not have. Then again, he may have. Anything having to do with climate during the Clinton admin had Gore all over it.
And with regard to prizes, yeah, there is a difference. It's Soros's money. If he wants to spend $720k on legal and PR blitz on Hansen's behalf, let him. I just think things like that should be disclosed.
You haven't provided one iota of proof that any climate scientist in NOAA, NASA, NSIDC, SPRI, The Met Office or any other reputable organization collecting climate data is is being paid for their opinion by "Big AGW".
Are you next going to claim that the Nobel Prize committee is a secret cabal being paid by Big AGW"?
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
mnealtx 0
QuoteYou haven't provided one iota of proof that any climate scientist in NOAA, NASA, NSIDC, SPRI, The Met Office or any other reputable organization collecting climate data is is being paid for their opinion by "Big AGW".
And YOU haven't provided one iota of proof that Lindzen's data is not valid...just accusations of a lack of impartiality.
Of course, he's not part of the 'consensus' so ANY data he provides is automatically suspect, isn't it?
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
No. No more than "Big Denier" pays Lindzen for his. Come to think of it, isn't there a reward out there for scientists?
And, actually, Hansen was paid for his opinion by Soros. Sure, it was his opinion that he is being silenced, but such an opinion is even more useful.
And since Hansen received his prizes for admittedly lying, what does that say? Winning an Ignobel Prize? Yeah. Climate models seem to be the essence of improbable research.
Come on, John. We have allowed this thread to drift.
Rise to the challenge. Show me a model that predicted the last ten years.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
And, actually, Hansen was paid for his opinion by Soros. Sure, it was his opinion that he is being silenced, but such an opinion is even more useful.
And since Hansen received his prizes for admittedly lying, what does that say? Winning an Ignobel Prize? Yeah. Climate models seem to be the essence of improbable research.
Come on, John. We have allowed this thread to drift.
Rise to the challenge. Show me a model that predicted the last ten years.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
kallend 2,147
Quote
Come on, John. We have allowed this thread to drift.
Rise to the challenge. Show me a model that predicted the last ten years.
In terms of time scale, 10 years is as absurd a request as 10 days since el Nino events aren't predictable.
You know that perfectly well, and your continued harping on it shows that you are not concerned with truth, just with posturing like a plaintiff's attorney.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
mnealtx 0
QuoteYou know that perfectly well, and your continued harping on it shows that you are not concerned with truth, just with posturing like a plaintiff's attorney.
Motes/beams, perfesser. ALL you have done in this thread is attack the messenger.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
A decade of inaccuracy? What's the point of modeling if they cannot be trusted?
And what are you talking about with El Nino? You know, they had an El Nino back in 2002-2003. Hasn't caused warming.
Take a look at the Canadian Model. You know it modeled backwards as well, showing a warming in the US in the 20th century of 1.5 degrees? MEanwhile, warming was only .5 degrees. It missed the past - by 300%.
But, since 10, 20, 50 years is not enough time, there is no such thing as a validated computer model. Thus, computer models are junk science for the time being since they are incapable of being verified. At least not for another arbitrary length of time.
Tell me, Doc, do you consider computer models to be hypotheses or data? Personally, I subscribe to the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics, in which there are infinite universes and each possibility is actually its reality. Thus, in a quantum sense of anything is possible and everything will happen an infinite number of times in an infinite universe (hence, somewhere out there, in infinite places, I banged Dr. Amy Mainzer.)
So a model is fact, depending on your universe. Whether it will bear out in this universe, however, is a different thing. (Man - perhaps the warming has happened but canceled by an anti-universe universe - let's call it a +/- multiverse).
But since Planck's constant is so small, the odds of such quantum events occurring in this universe are limited. So having no evidence of quantum warming, I think it is prudent to disregard it.
For evidence, quantum theory means that there is a possibility that I can jump through a brick wall. The odds are small but with infinite attempts to slam myself through it I will make it through once. In a quantum sense, we may be able to actually see warming of the kinds described by the alarmists! The science is there, John. Just like the science is there for future/past/present space-time couple of Dr. Lawrocket and Dr. Mainzer-Rocket, who haven't left a bedroom since late 2008.
p.s. - you should see defense attorneys posture!
My wife is hotter than your wife.
And what are you talking about with El Nino? You know, they had an El Nino back in 2002-2003. Hasn't caused warming.
Take a look at the Canadian Model. You know it modeled backwards as well, showing a warming in the US in the 20th century of 1.5 degrees? MEanwhile, warming was only .5 degrees. It missed the past - by 300%.
But, since 10, 20, 50 years is not enough time, there is no such thing as a validated computer model. Thus, computer models are junk science for the time being since they are incapable of being verified. At least not for another arbitrary length of time.
Tell me, Doc, do you consider computer models to be hypotheses or data? Personally, I subscribe to the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics, in which there are infinite universes and each possibility is actually its reality. Thus, in a quantum sense of anything is possible and everything will happen an infinite number of times in an infinite universe (hence, somewhere out there, in infinite places, I banged Dr. Amy Mainzer.)
So a model is fact, depending on your universe. Whether it will bear out in this universe, however, is a different thing. (Man - perhaps the warming has happened but canceled by an anti-universe universe - let's call it a +/- multiverse).
But since Planck's constant is so small, the odds of such quantum events occurring in this universe are limited. So having no evidence of quantum warming, I think it is prudent to disregard it.
For evidence, quantum theory means that there is a possibility that I can jump through a brick wall. The odds are small but with infinite attempts to slam myself through it I will make it through once. In a quantum sense, we may be able to actually see warming of the kinds described by the alarmists! The science is there, John. Just like the science is there for future/past/present space-time couple of Dr. Lawrocket and Dr. Mainzer-Rocket, who haven't left a bedroom since late 2008.
p.s. - you should see defense attorneys posture!
My wife is hotter than your wife.
rushmc 23
QuoteQuote
Come on, John. We have allowed this thread to drift.
Rise to the challenge. Show me a model that predicted the last ten years.
In terms of time scale, 10 years is as absurd a request as 10 days since el Nino events aren't predictable.
You know that perfectly well, and your continued harping on it shows that you are not concerned with truth, just with posturing like a plaintiff's attorney.
And this post indicates that you think only you and those like thinking know the truth. Damn disgusting and arrogant professor. It must be nice to be so blessed in your universe.
Now, care to take on the data?
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Yes. I tend to treat raw data with more credibility than predictions. You give credibility to people whose predictions have been wrong. Nostradamus arguably has a better record.
Find any post in which I've given credibility to climate predictions. I have linked to a lot of raw and analyzed data from independent organizations like NOAA and NSIDC.
Incorrect conclusion.
What sort of proof do you want? I see a reverse correlation to yours. I think that Lindzen is not paid to put forth his claims, but rather is paid because of his claims.
But please go take a look at the National Assessments for climate. I'll put some more stuff out there when I'm at my office and have the chance.
The "proof" I have won't be "proof" any more than your "proof" of Lindzen. Rather, the discussions are about competing inferences.
That Lindzen takes money from big oil and coal is not in dispute.
Good advice.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.