Fear and loathing in DC

[billvon 3,107]

>Wasn't all that long ago the right was being hounded for fear mongering.

Next thing you know the Surgeon General is going to say that smoking can cause cancer. Where the hell do they get off, scaring people like that? That could affect the economy and put thousands of American tobacco workers out of work!

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Next thing you know the Surgeon General is going to say that smoking can cause cancer. Where the hell do they get off, scaring people like that? That could affect the economy and put thousands of American tobacco workers out of work!

In the context of this thread, yet another specious statement on your part. You do seem to specialize in these, billvon, in the course of my years of experience here. There have been many times where I've actually learned something from your thoughtful posts. But, there have been many more times where you can be just another monkey flinging poo at people. Stop that, please. You are better than that.

We are all engines of karma

[turtlespeed 226]

StreetScooby

Quote

Next thing you know the Surgeon General is going to say that smoking can cause cancer. Where the hell do they get off, scaring people like that? That could affect the economy and put thousands of American tobacco workers out of work!

In the context of this thread, yet another specious statement on your part. You do seem to specialize in these, billvon, in the course of my years of experience here. There have been many times where I've actually learned something from your thoughtful posts. But, there have been many more times where you can be just another monkey flinging poo at people. Stop that, please.

Yes . . . John Kallend should be a

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[GeorgiaDon 379]

StreetScooby

Quote

What is your evidence for this?

Where is the bubble for the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?

Right there, beside the bubble of pee.

Seriously, what is your point? That something that is a relatively minor component of the atmosphere can't have an effect? You know better than that. Would you willingly breath air with 1% carbon monoxide? How about 1% mustard gas? It's only 1% after all, how can 1% of anything have an effect.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[billvon 3,107]

>In the context of this thread, yet another specious statement on your part.

Why do you feel that reporting on the potential risks of climate change is fearmongering, but reporting on the potential risks of smoking is not?

[airdvr 210]

billvon

>In the context of this thread, yet another specious statement on your part.

Why do you feel that reporting on the potential risks of climate change is fearmongering, but reporting on the potential risks of smoking is not?

Quote

"This is not some distant problem of the future," Obama told NBC, while John Holdren, who directs the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, said climate change "already is affecting every region of the country and key sectors of the economy."

I'm not seeing too much in here that refers to the 'potential' risks of AGW. In this quote its a foregone conclusion.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[billvon 3,107]

>I'm not seeing too much in here that refers to the 'potential' risks of AGW.

"the dramatic loss of sea ice could tip the Arctic Ocean into a permanent, nearly ice-free state in summer, with repercussions that may extend far beyond the Arctic."

"The meteorological situations that cause heat waves are a natural part of the climate system. Thus the timing and location of individual events may be largely a natural phenomenon."

"Thus, additional extreme rainfall events in summer and fall may not create sufficient runoff for the resulting streamflow to exceed spring flood magnitudes."

This is all fear mongering?

Now let's compare that to the introduction to the latest surgeon general's report on smoking:

==============
For the United States, the epidemic of smoking caused
disease in the twentieth century ranks among the
greatest public health catastrophes of the century, while
the decline of smoking consequent to tobacco control
is surely one of public health’s greatest successes. However,
the current rate of progress in tobacco control is not
fast enough, and much more needs to be done to end the
tobacco epidemic. Unacceptably high levels of smoking attributable
disease and death, and the associated costs,
will persist for decades without changes in our approach
to slowing and even ending the epidemic. If smoking
persists at the current rate among young adults in this
country, 5.6 million of today’s Americans younger than
18 years of age are projected to die prematurely from a
smoking-related illness
============

"epidemic" "millions of children will die" "public health catastrophe" - this is an example of a NON-alarmist report?

[jgoose71 0]

It is fear mongering when we have politicians saying "The science is settled, we must act now."

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[billvon 3,107]

>It is fear mongering when we have politicians saying "The science is settled, we
>must act now."

So from your definition, the surgeon general is fearmongering over smoking.

[airdvr 210]

billvon

>I'm not seeing too much in here that refers to the 'potential' risks of AGW.

"the dramatic loss of sea ice could tip the Arctic Ocean into a permanent, nearly ice-free state in summer, with repercussions that may extend far beyond the Arctic."

"The meteorological situations that cause heat waves are a natural part of the climate system. Thus the timing and location of individual events may be largely a natural phenomenon."

"Thus, additional extreme rainfall events in summer and fall may not create sufficient runoff for the resulting streamflow to exceed spring flood magnitudes."

This is all fear mongering?

Now let's compare that to the introduction to the latest surgeon general's report on smoking:

?

Quote

(CNN) -- A number of themes emerge from the regional reports included in the National Climate Assessment -- things like risks to infrastructure due to rising oceans both benefits and harm to agricultural production because of changing temperature, and new realities for cooling and heating costs.
Find your geographic region below and see how these issues specifically affect where you live, according to the report.
NORTHWEST
If you live in the Northwest, you can appreciate how vital the snow accumulation in the mountains is. It melts in spring to provide water for hydropower plants and irrigation for crops. But as seasonal water patterns change, caused in part by changes in snowmelt, the region's diverse ecology and geography can face challenges.

The impacts of climate change will be strongly felt along the coast -- an area important for the region's economy. People's livelihoods, recreational areas and infrastructure could be affected by rising sea levels. At the same time, wildfires are expected to increase.
White House: Climate change is here, action needed now
Examples from report:
-- "Since around 1950, area-averaged snowpack on April 1 in the Cascade Mountains decreased about 20%, spring snowmelt occurred 0 to 30 days earlier depending on location, late winter/early spring streamflow increases ranged from 0% to greater than 20% as a fraction of annual flow, and summer flow decreased 0% to 15% as a fraction of annual flow, with exceptions in smaller areas and shorter time periods."
-- As sea levels rise, coastal areas of Washington and Oregon will flood more often. Beaches and habitats will probably decline in these areas.
-- "Climate change will alter Northwest forests by increasing wildfire risk and insect and tree disease outbreaks, and by forcing longer-term shifts in forest types and species."
-- Wildfires are a natural part of the forest ecosystem in the Northwest, but warmer and drier conditions have increased the number and extent of such fires.
-- "Projected warming will reduce the availability of irrigation water in snowmelt-fed basins and increase the probability of heat stress to field crops and tree fruit."
-- In the short term, some crops will benefit from a longer growing season, but the long-term consequences are uncertain.

Should I continue? I'll ask again...this time to you Bill; what do we need to do about it and what can guarantee the results we desire?

BTW this is a clever political move by Obama. It pits conservatives against liberals and is designed to make anyone who won't drink the kool-aid look bad.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[jgoose71 0]

billvon

>It is fear mongering when we have politicians saying "The science is settled, we
>must act now."

So from your definition, the surgeon general is fearmongering over smoking.

I'm pretty sure that the science of smoking is settled.

With AGW, until the scientists can come up with a model that can accurately "backcast" global warming trends, you can't really forecast the future. Therefore, you have know idea the effects of humans on the environment.

The UN has issued "tipping point" predictions in 1982 and 1989 and now this. Without an accurate model of the earth natural fluctuations, what makes you think this is going to be different? How do we know the effect of humans on AGW? It's Chicken Little science.

Here is a website with a link to a bunch of scientists that happen to disagree with the doom and gloom. Read some of it. They make some compelling arguments.

http://www.climatedepot.com/

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[kallend 2,146]

jgoose71

It is fear mongering when we have politicians saying "The science is settled, we must act now."

When the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and 97% of climate scientists say the science is settled, it's fair to say that the science is settled.

...

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

[kallend 2,146]

jgoose71

***>It is fear mongering when we have politicians saying "The science is settled, we
>must act now."

So from your definition, the surgeon general is fearmongering over smoking.

I'm pretty sure that the science of smoking is settled.

[/url]

To use your own argument, since doctors can't predict who will get lung cancer or emphysema from smoking, and when they will get it, and can't predict which smokers will live to a ripe old age, how can you say the science of smoking is settled?

...

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

[jgoose71 0]

I see you cherry picked my post. Can you point to a model that has accurately backcasted the global temps so we can see how much of this climate change was actually caused by man?

That really is the key to figuring out climate change.

Unless you can figure out the exact causes, the results could be similar to when we started aerial hunting wolves in Yellowstone. Come to find out, despite all scientific predictions, they were needed.

Until then, you're destroying the U.S. economy on a hunch.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[rushmc 23]

billvon

>It is fear mongering when we have politicians saying "The science is settled, we
>must act now."

So from your definition, the surgeon general is fearmongering over smoking.

I could see it as similar
The smoking industry fought the info because?
It would cost them money
Same for the Alarmist industry
If their story is debunked it will
Cost them money

Now, You could say that the industries debunking the alarmist are spending money too (actualaly the observatins are debunking the claims but, no matter)
and, it can be said that if the alarmist agenda was implimented it would cost them money and this is true
But this money is no where near the federal dollars given to the alarmists

And the alarmist agenda is also related to Obamacare agenda. They both create and claim an emergency to help push their agenda (there was no healthcare emergency and there is no climate emergency)

Both push for expanded roles and size of government

So, they are similar but, you are not reversing the roles as you should be

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

[rhaig 0]

quade

The rest of us can see the handwriting on the wall.

Meaning they won't read the report either

:)

--
Rob

[wayneflorida 0]

I'm going to cut my skydiving 70% to help save the planet.
I will do this by not skydiving during the week. Of course I usually don't skydive during the week but that doesn't matter.

I'm so proud of myself. I can do math as well as Congress.

I do need to improve my writing skills. This post should have been 20 screens long.

[kallend 2,146]

jgoose71

I see you cherry picked my post. Can you point to a model that has accurately backcasted the global temps so we can see how much of this climate change was actually caused by man?

Can you point to a single model that has accurately backcasted when a smoker would die of cancer or emphysema, and which smoker would die of something else?

...

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

[jgoose71 0]

kallend

***I see you cherry picked my post. Can you point to a model that has accurately backcasted the global temps so we can see how much of this climate change was actually caused by man?

Can you point to a single model that has accurately backcasted when a smoker would die of cancer or emphysema, and which smoker would die of something else?

Excellent non-answer in both relevance and content...

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[kallend 2,146]

jgoose71

******I see you cherry picked my post. Can you point to a model that has accurately backcasted the global temps so we can see how much of this climate change was actually caused by man?

Can you point to a single model that has accurately backcasted when a smoker would die of cancer or emphysema, and which smoker would die of something else?

Excellent non-answer in both relevance and content...
Au contraire, it just satirizes your incorrect comments on the scientific consensus.

...

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

[jgoose71 0]

kallend

*********I see you cherry picked my post. Can you point to a model that has accurately backcasted the global temps so we can see how much of this climate change was actually caused by man?

Can you point to a single model that has accurately backcasted when a smoker would die of cancer or emphysema, and which smoker would die of something else?

Excellent non-answer in both relevance and content...
Au contraire, it just satirizes your incorrect comments on the scientific consensus.

If only satire was scientific consensus, then you may have had a valid point....

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[kallend 2,146]

jgoose71

************I see you cherry picked my post. Can you point to a model that has accurately backcasted the global temps so we can see how much of this climate change was actually caused by man?

Can you point to a single model that has accurately backcasted when a smoker would die of cancer or emphysema, and which smoker would die of something else?

Excellent non-answer in both relevance and content...
Au contraire, it just satirizes your incorrect comments on the scientific consensus.

If only satire was scientific consensus, then you may have had a valid point....

When the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and 97% of climate scientists say the science is settled, it's fair to say that there is a consensus. Your opinion is hardly relevant.

...

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

[rushmc 23]

kallend

***************I see you cherry picked my post. Can you point to a model that has accurately backcasted the global temps so we can see how much of this climate change was actually caused by man?

Can you point to a single model that has accurately backcasted when a smoker would die of cancer or emphysema, and which smoker would die of something else?

Excellent non-answer in both relevance and content...
Au contraire, it just satirizes your incorrect comments on the scientific consensus.

If only satire was scientific consensus, then you may have had a valid point....

When the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and 97% of climate scientists say the science is settled, it's fair to say that there is a consensus. Your opinion is hardly relevant.

Consensus is not science. It is a desperate attempt to silence the oposition
If their case was so strong they would simply point to the data and observations which, just to mention, do not support this so called consensus

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

[kallend 2,146]

You're funny.

...

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

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Consensus is a desperate attempt to silence the opposition....

Interesting.