livendive

I have no reason to suspect these are illegal. It's a very common practice. Please cite a law that's being broken. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Seems like a funny definition of "secret", insomuch as they're not classified, and they are described in the press. I have five email accounts that I use regularly. One is social, one is used for anyone I think is going to spam me, one is for school (and some job searching), two are strictly work related. With the amount of email I'm sure these folks get, using an alternate email to make the wheat stand out from the chaff seems perfectly logical. I also have 3 email accounts that I rarely use, one for my ISP, one for my hosting service, and one that I'm just sitting on for a future professional use. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Those evil environmental protection advocates and their war on polluters! They're trying to destroy America! FYI - If I was running an organization that was allowed discretion in waiving small fees, I guarantee I'd do so more often for groups that complemented and promoted my mission than groups that opposed it. I would think it would be common sense to not expect many favors from folks that I lambast and oppose at every opportunity, but as they say..."not so common anymore." Got a problem with that? Remove the discretion and charge everyone fees equal to all costs associated with said FOIA requests. I'm fine with that. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Most climate science literature I'm aware of has described such occurrences as more of an eventuality in the future. To date, any changes in frequency or severity of northern hurricanes would likely be too small to distinguish from natural weather patterns. If it matters who is right and who is wrong in the future, just look at temperatures. If you're right, those things will happen without a corresponding increase in global temps. In my opinion, regardless of who is right about the cause, urban development should be sufficiently resilient to withstand such a trend. We can likely agree on that. Of course, if your intent is to set up a future argument such that in 15 years you can say "I told you these were coming, but they have nothing to do with climate change, let's burn moar fossil fuels!", well, that part I'd disagree with. I've yet to hear a convincing argument against further development of renewable energy or decrying any decrease in transportation emissions. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

You'll have to elaborate on your question. Are you asking me whether two observed phenomena both happened? That doesn't sound like a question subject to the whims opinion or interpretation, either they did or they didn't. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

I'm not sure what you tried, but it wasn't answering either of my questions. Debate with you is pointless. It's like we speak completely different languages, but worse. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Agreed. Good outcome notwithstanding, the means are a couple among a thousand cuts. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Word. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

In reply to one thing, you complain about something copmpletely different, followed by "on that note" and something else completely different. What does the equation talk have to do with your dislike for people poinging out "pollution, AGW, and unrestrained consumption of finite resources are all bad"? And what does either one of those have to do with my observation that measured temperatures conflict with the findings of the paper brenthutch posted? (a paper I'm sure you dismiss) Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Question - Lu states that the size of ozone hole, atmospheric ozone concentrations, and global temperatures both peaked in 2002 and have been decreasing since. 2005 was the second warmest year in the meteorological record, 2010 was first, and the trend is still continuing upward, albeit at a flatter rate than suggested by most IPCC models. These facts do not seem consistent with Lu's findings. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Regardless of how this study pans out under greater scrutiny, I found this to be a fun article comparing the skeptic approaches used in both the CFC and AGW debates. Blues, Dave Oh So you dismiss, offhandedly I might add, the info he posted and go off on your own rant Sweet What part of "seems like a well researched argument" strikes you as dismissing it (offhandedly, you might add, though I'm not sure why you would)? Then again, the above also isn't a rant, so I guess I should just compliment you on your complete and utter reading fail and move on. . Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

The funny part is that the same groups of people used the same tactics on CFCs and CO2, but will now likely jump on the CFC bandwagon (already banned despite their loud protests, so they have nothing else to lose) in order to emit CO2 without restraint. Irony may not be the right word, but it's certainly close. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Regardless of how this study pans out under greater scrutiny, I found this to be a fun article comparing the skeptic approaches used in both the CFC and AGW debates. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

If whistleblowing was his goal, he should have followed 10 USC 1034 If he tried all that and was ignored, he might have an argument that going to the public was his only remaining option, but going to wikileaks first...not so much. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

This. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

You do realize that the post you made said "10 tons" which if I'm not mistaken is 20,000 pounds. I have a 32' express cruiser with a 12' beam. Two engines, full head, galley, two queen beds, holds 150 gallons of fuel. I'm supposed to pull an oversize load permit to tow it. Fully loaded with fuel, water, etc, the total load is a little shy of 15k lbs. Blues Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

I'll give credit where it's due. Although the article was last revised earlier this month, it's reasonable to assume that any changes were likely trivial. I did find an older copy of it (from last October) here. In a fairly brief (1 hour) skim, I found a few nits such as the misunderstanding of CO2 lagging deglaciation by hundreds of years, but for the most part it looks like a pretty compelling argument that anthropogenic climate change is quite real but far more affected by atmospheric CFCs than CO2. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

I don't have a subscription to International Journal of Modern Physics B, so I can't say whether that's true or not. Both of your statements above are made in the abstract, but even assuming you do have such a subscription and have read the report, your misinterpretation of the data in the first article in this thread leaves me hesitant to accept your opinion of this study's findings. I bet Kallend has access to this journal. I look forward to his review of the full report. Until then, welcome to the fold of people who acknowledge the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Better late than never. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

lol - I can't believe I missed that, given it was published yesterday and I don't have access to the article. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

I can only get to the abstract, both through your link and through my school's library (which is weird...I accustomed to having full access group membership in any database that pulls up in our search engine). The abstract states that they find anthropogenic global warming is real but hinges on CFC's rather than CO2. This could be a valid argument, but I don't have the access necessary to form an opinion. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

One 150 years of pumping CO2 into the atmosphere - large amounts of it - having not resulted in devastation but instead in an environment so good for people that human population and societal development has skyrocketed. Note: looking at the past in making predictions about the future is pretty time honored. I see the future. And it is much like the present. Only longer. I've seen no evidence that 150 years of pumping CO2 into the atmosphere has created such a great environment. Rather, science, technology, and improved understanding of the nature of reality has. Pumping CO2 into the atmosphere has been a negative side effect. We have now advanced our understanding to the point that we realize this, and it's within our power to reduce that aspect, but for some reason you think this is a bad idea. Sure, there are winners and losers in a warmer global climate...farmers in Minnesota will probably love it, while farmers in Florida probably won't. As for using the past to make predictions about the future, well, we've seen that increasing CO2 results in warmer temperatures. I'm aware of no credible study that suggests a limit on this correlation, where further emissions no longer have such an effect. Devastation? That depends on who you ask. The residents of Seattle will likely be able to adapt fairly easily. The entire population of Maldives? Not so much. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Wow More condescension I thought we were discussing opinions I guess I am glad you think you got it all figured out Makes you feel free to talk down your nose to those who disagree with and display your self proclaimed superior positions I was going to post a thanks to you Fuck that now I should have known better Which part do you consider condescending? You are free to include data, analysis, or supporting studies and choose not to. Pointing that out is not condescending, it's merely a statement of fact. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

As I suspected, you offer no supporting research, no data, and no analysis. All you offer is your thoughts and beliefs. Every time I provide supporting information, you ignore it out dismiss it without any credible argument. Believe as you want, we both know you will anyhow. In the meantime, I'll try to effect positive change. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Shhh...let them believe that adaptatation is this scary, economy-wrecking source of death and destruction rather than an ongoing activity that most don't even really notice. I believe it should be accellerated, and made more commonly understood, but apparently people are going to believe what they want rather than what the data indicate. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Agreed. On what basis do you conclude this? Clearly each of the models and scenarios presented by the IPCC and other climate research groups have inherent degrees of uncertainty and inaccuracy, but I'm curious why you think those the project the smallest amounts of change are the most accurate. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)