DanG 1
Recommended Posts
rushmc 23
QuoteQuoteNo, I do not but, I do feel they, and those like you, have a world view that you (and them) feel they need to push on the rest of us.
The end result would be a short of destruction should you fully get your way.
This is the crux of the problem. Environmentalists also think that the other side's worldview is flawed and will lead to destruction. The answer will have to lie somewhere in the middle.
Not really
One side is forcing their life style on others
You can live as you want to
But leave the rest of us alone
That said, I still support a level of oversite to keep things clean and informed
But this chicken little tactic of the AWG crowd is way over the top
Thank goodness more and more people are learning this
"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
Quoteso it is a mystery to me why it keeps geetting repeating without at least mentioning that there might be some wee problem with the original paper
Because have you EVER heard of an editor publishing a paper and then, instead of the normal exchange of letters, e-mails and phone calls to improve a paper as is the normal case, publicly resigns with a manifesto against a paper?
The paper had problems. As does almost every paper. The science gets improved and papers get improved again and again over days, months and years. That's the process, isn't it? And yet an editor decided to TRUMP that process publically.
It is indeed unfortunate that it transpired this way because at least one of the CRU hack e-mails suggested that they would seek to get rid of editors who published unfriendly papers. And note the criticisms of the paper are mainly ad hominem.
I like middle ground. I think the paper was overly hyped by the skpetics and I found that the behavior of the alarmists was fucking disgusting and juvenile. Take a look at this piece of tripe from generally respectable scientists.
http://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2011/09/spencer-faulty-science
So tell me where the criticisms are of the science of the paper. That's right - there ARE no criticisms. This is MY problem.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
DanG 1
QuoteNot really
One side is forcing their life style on others
You can live as you want to
But leave the rest of us alone
I'm not an enviro nut, but I'm trying to get you to see the other side. In the enviro mind, polluters are also forcing their lifestyle on others. They are doing by polluting the air and water that others breathe and drink. Polluters can't just live their life without affecting others because we all share the same planet. Both sides want to force the other to live a different lifestyle because no matter how you look at it, we all affect each other.
- Dan G
billvon 3,120
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>I will take a shot here. No, I do not . . .
Good! I applaud you for not falling prey to the worst of the political extremism here.
>I do feel they, and those like you, have a world view that you (and them) feel they
>need to push on the rest of us. The end result would be a short of destruction should
>you fully get your way.
We've been hearing this for 40 years.
Lee Iacocca: If the “EPA does not suspend the catalytic converter rule, it will cause Ford to shut down.” (1972)
Chrysler VP: Fuel economy standards might “outlaw a number of engine lines and car models including most full-size sedans and station wagons. It would restrict the industry to producing subcompact size cars—or even smaller ones—within five years.” (1974)
Ford executive: If CAFE becomes law, the move could result “in a Ford product line consisting either of all sub-Pinto sized vehicles…” (late 1970's)
Today we have CAFE, the EPA, CARB, and catalytic converters. All those horrible things that the car companies warned us about (just as you are warning us now) have come to pass. Take a look at the street next time you're driving somewhere. Is Ford gone? Are SUV's gone? Are all vehicles "smaller than subcompacts?"
Nope. For 40 years people have been saying "the EPA will DESTROY American industry if they get their way!" And for 40 years they've gotten their way - and industry has done just fine. We now have bigger cars, and more cars, than anyone else on the planet. We are between 50% and 90% cleaner than we were 40 years ago. We are generating about 40% more power than we did 40 years ago.
Not a bad thing to look forward to, eh?
Good! I applaud you for not falling prey to the worst of the political extremism here.
>I do feel they, and those like you, have a world view that you (and them) feel they
>need to push on the rest of us. The end result would be a short of destruction should
>you fully get your way.
We've been hearing this for 40 years.
Lee Iacocca: If the “EPA does not suspend the catalytic converter rule, it will cause Ford to shut down.” (1972)
Chrysler VP: Fuel economy standards might “outlaw a number of engine lines and car models including most full-size sedans and station wagons. It would restrict the industry to producing subcompact size cars—or even smaller ones—within five years.” (1974)
Ford executive: If CAFE becomes law, the move could result “in a Ford product line consisting either of all sub-Pinto sized vehicles…” (late 1970's)
Today we have CAFE, the EPA, CARB, and catalytic converters. All those horrible things that the car companies warned us about (just as you are warning us now) have come to pass. Take a look at the street next time you're driving somewhere. Is Ford gone? Are SUV's gone? Are all vehicles "smaller than subcompacts?"
Nope. For 40 years people have been saying "the EPA will DESTROY American industry if they get their way!" And for 40 years they've gotten their way - and industry has done just fine. We now have bigger cars, and more cars, than anyone else on the planet. We are between 50% and 90% cleaner than we were 40 years ago. We are generating about 40% more power than we did 40 years ago.
Not a bad thing to look forward to, eh?
And for 25 years people have been saying that we'll have oceans inundating the coasts, snow will be a thing of the past, bigger-stronger-more intense-more-damaging-more-frequent hurricanes will pound our shores, etc, from AGW. Meanwhile, sea levels may be dropping (which we're told is also consistent), blizzards are whacking (which they now tell us they've predicted all along) and a hurricane hasn't made landfall in the US since September 2008 (Hurricane Ike) - that's 1130 days now. Katrina was the last "strong hurricane" to hit, and Hurricane Andrew was the last category 5 to hit (meaning they are temporarily getting smaller, weaker, less intense and less frequent.
The track record is about the same, bill. Plenty of us can recognize hyperbole when we see it. AGW alarmism is the same as automaker alarmism. I think it's fair to question both.
Note: Irene did not record winds of 74mph when it made landfall in the US. It was a tropical storm. It was a WET tropical storm and caused significant damage due to flooding from heavy rain. Unfortunately, the flooding risk from tropical storm wasn't really explained as storm surges and heavy winds were considered to be the big threat - not flooding from the northwest portion of a tropical storm.
That's my problem, too - focusing on what makes good newsbite images of ocean waves rolling over houses and wind blowing off roofs. Not something so subtle as a bunch of rain. Shoot, how many people when from the coast (which did relatively well) to the inland areas that got clobbered?
My wife is hotter than your wife.
The track record is about the same, bill. Plenty of us can recognize hyperbole when we see it. AGW alarmism is the same as automaker alarmism. I think it's fair to question both.
Note: Irene did not record winds of 74mph when it made landfall in the US. It was a tropical storm. It was a WET tropical storm and caused significant damage due to flooding from heavy rain. Unfortunately, the flooding risk from tropical storm wasn't really explained as storm surges and heavy winds were considered to be the big threat - not flooding from the northwest portion of a tropical storm.
That's my problem, too - focusing on what makes good newsbite images of ocean waves rolling over houses and wind blowing off roofs. Not something so subtle as a bunch of rain. Shoot, how many people when from the coast (which did relatively well) to the inland areas that got clobbered?
My wife is hotter than your wife.
rushmc 23
QuoteQuoteNot really
One side is forcing their life style on others
You can live as you want to
But leave the rest of us alone
I'm not an enviro nut, but I'm trying to get you to see the other side. In the enviro mind, polluters are also forcing their lifestyle on others. They are doing by polluting the air and water that others breathe and drink. Polluters can't just live their life without affecting others because we all share the same planet. Both sides want to force the other to live a different lifestyle because no matter how you look at it, we all affect each other.
I see the other side
I was on the other side
Then the bs started to stink
Oh
and you are and enviro nut IMO
Oh
and of course I want my kids and grand kids to choke on polluted air and get the drizzilin shits from polluted water.
Thats just the way I am
"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
billvon 3,120
>And for 25 years people have been saying that we'll have oceans inundating the
>coasts, snow will be a thing of the past, bigger-stronger-more intense-more-damaging-
>more-frequent hurricanes will pound our shores, etc, from AGW.
No serious scientist has been saying that, within 25 years, oceans would "inundate the coasts."
No serious scientist has been saying that, within 25 years, snow would be a "thing of the past."
>Plenty of us can recognize hyperbole when we see it.
Yep. I see a bit of it in your first paragraph.
>coasts, snow will be a thing of the past, bigger-stronger-more intense-more-damaging-
>more-frequent hurricanes will pound our shores, etc, from AGW.
No serious scientist has been saying that, within 25 years, oceans would "inundate the coasts."
No serious scientist has been saying that, within 25 years, snow would be a "thing of the past."
>Plenty of us can recognize hyperbole when we see it.
Yep. I see a bit of it in your first paragraph.
brenthutch 444
Great Bill than you agree with me that the people that espouse AGW are in the same league as the folks who believe in the Easter bunny.
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuote>And for 25 years people have been saying that we'll have oceans inundating the
>coasts, snow will be a thing of the past, bigger-stronger-more intense-more-damaging-
>more-frequent hurricanes will pound our shores, etc, from AGW.
No serious scientist has been saying that, within 25 years, oceans would "inundate the coasts."
He didn't claim that oceans would 'inundate the coast in 25 years', he said that people have been claiming FOR 25 years that the oceans would inundate the coasts.
And regarding that...
Paleoclimate Implications for Human-Made Climate Change
James E. Hansen and Makiko Sato, January 2011
"Gravity satellite data, although too brief to be conclusive, are consistent with a doubling time of 10 years or less, implying the possibility of multi-meter sea level rise this century."
QuoteNo serious scientist has been saying that, within 25 years, snow would be a "thing of the past."
I refer you again to the difference between "within 25 years" and "for 25 years"
As to the other.... link.
"According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".
"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said."
QuoteQuote>Plenty of us can recognize hyperbole when we see it.
Yep. I see a bit of it in your first paragraph.
Sure about that?
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
This is the crux of the problem. Environmentalists also think that the other side's worldview is flawed and will lead to destruction. The answer will have to lie somewhere in the middle.
- Dan G
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites