Global Warming!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - AnabolicMinds.com - Page 2

Global Warming!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Page 2 of 4 First 1234 Last
  1. NutraPlanet Fanatic
    dsade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Age
    43
    Posts
    21,377
    Rep Power
    770830

    Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation

    I just opened a diet pepsi...yep CARBONATED!!!!!

    /evil...EVIL!!!!
    Evolutionary Muse - Inspire to Evolve
    BPS - Where Body meets Performance
    Flawless Skin Couture - We give you the tools to make you Flawless

  2. Elite Member
    DR.D's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  228 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    6,779
    Rep Power
    307852

    Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by dsade View Post
    I just opened a diet pepsi...yep CARBONATED!!!!!

    /evil...EVIL!!!!
    You always wanna be something noble when you grow up... a doctor or a preacher, or something like that. But now I see, I should have been a lawyer or a tax collector!!
  3. Senior Member
    Bionic's Avatar
    Stats
    6'5"  227 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,685
    Rep Power
    985

    Reputation

    Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas. Are they going to try and reduce that, too?
    •   
       

  4. CDB
    Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2674

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by HardTrainer View Post
    Big energy companies have a lot to gain from arguing that there is no global warming.
    Actually it's big oil and energy companies that have the majority of investments in alternative energy develpment, so they stand the most to gain financially should restrictions raise fossil fuel prices and pour government development money into alternatives.

    What exactly do 'hippies' have to gain from arguing that it does exist?
    Millions in research grants, endowed chairs, trips to Brazil and other tropical locations for Earth Summit day and what not, appointed government positions, not to mention an excuse to advance every hair brained moronic leftist economic agenda they want.

    It may not be as certain a scientific fact as gravity, death or taxes. But when organisations like the American National Academy of Sciences are supporting it, and nobel prizes are being given out for climatology work, you have to admit it's slightly more than speculation and wishful thinking. No?
    No. Because what is not publicized is the rather large and growing portion of scientists who are finally fed up with all the "the debate is over" BS and who are signing off the alarmist sheet and moving to skeptic. Nor can you look to political organizations like the NAS or the IPCC for true science. There are already IPCC reviewers coming out and saying their views were distorted or misrepresented in the released summaries and reports. Many of the 'scientists' involved in climate research, especially those involved in determing past temperatures, are less that open when it comes to their methods and raw data, actively denying to share it with anyone who might be critical. The reasons why are clear; whenever they do or someone finds out and gets the infor public, it's loaded with errors. Michael Mann's hockey stick is one example.

    You should also check out Anthony Watt's work on documenting surface temperature sites. The org that maintains the network, the acronym escapes me, refused to do a review of sites, so Watt did it on his own. He's been finding temperature sensors next to AC condensors, in the middle of blacktop parking lots, mere feet away from car engines, and even hanging above BBQ grills for God's sake. You should also check a recent book on the subject, Red Hot Lies by Christopher Horner. The 'environmentalists' in the NAS panel weren't elected, they snuck in through a technicality and proceeded to dominate NAS panels and appoint like minded people to positions, quashing any and all skeptics they could. It shows how skeptical one must be when 'science' and politics are mixed.

    Point being, until a world wide audit is done on surface stations to ensure they conform to standards or accurate measurement, and then that data is squared with the satelite record, and until all data and methods are released regarding past temperature records for review and replication, and until all computer code is released so people can examine those methods, this 'science' is worth ****. Perhaps NASA can explain why their 'correction' method for UHI almost always seems to lower past temperature and keep constant or even raise current temperatures? Perhaps the dendro climatology community can explain why it continues to use problematic tree ring chronologies after being advised not to? Perhaps Ken Briffa can explain what this anthropomorphic forcing is that allows him to use tree rings as past temperature proxies while completely ignoring their divergence from satelite and surface readings in the present? It's questions like those, to which there may be reasonable answers but which remain unanswered, that properly lead to skepticism.

    Quote Originally Posted by futurepilot View Post
    (Option A)

    Lets say that global warming is real, and we do everything we can to stop it, end result: We've gained a more environmentally aware society that has put R&D money towards something useful, creating a more sustainable lifestyle.

    Lets says its real, we do nothing to stop it, end result: The world falls into utter chaos, due to mass starvation, floods, governmental collapse.

    (Option B)

    Fake, do nothing about it: The world continues to pollute itself, making more and more land/water uninhabitable.

    Fake, and we do everything we can to stop it, end result: We've gained a more environmentally aware society that has put R&D money towards something usefull, creating a more sustainable lifestyle.

    How can we lose by believeing in it?
    Because option A leaves out the several trillion in opportunity costs that go along with believing and 'doing something!' about it. The way you phrase the option entirely begs the question. A more sustainable lifestyle? If it's not true our lifestyle is sustainable as it is. And where does that R&D money come from? Is the government going to just print it or take it directly in taxes? What does that do to the pool of loanable funds backing capital accumulation and increased productivity and wealth for the private sector? You do realize 'doing everything we can to stop it' means ditching your modern lifestyle and wearing a loin cloth and living in a cave, correct? Unless of course the greenies are becoming more friendly with nuclear power and continuing fossil fuel use, because both are necessary to fuel our economy if we are to bring solar, wind, and other alternatives into play. That doesn't just happen over night, and it doesn't happen period if we cripple our current structure of production which is exactly what nitwits like Al Gore are suggesting. Many times its not the global warming hysteria that's the problem. Assume it's true for a moment. That still leaves the plans to 'do something!' about it for review, most of which read like they were pulled directly out of the Communist manifesto, or at the very least as if they are being proposed by people who never got past high school economics class, and didn't do to good in that one to boot.

    Quote Originally Posted by JudoJosh View Post
    undermine the foundation of society??? Why i think that is a stretch there.. okay let me try and re-explain my view on this..
    It's not a stretch, it's reality. It's very much the way the PATRIOT Act passed here in the US. Interest groups like the cops and FBI and what not who were begging for expanded powers for years capitalized on the panic of 9/11 and got an abomination passed. Similarly radical lefties like Paul Ehrlic who have been predicting one disaster after another for the last forty years and, despite being constantly proven wrong, using those dire predictions to try and push through the same tired old socialist policies that they've always wanted in place are now using global warming, the ultimate buggaboo, to try and push their same old agenda.

    okay both those facts are cool with me, I didnt kno that before, but how does that negate the fact that our pollution is contributing to this effect?? Are there studies that carbon pollution has 0 effect on our enviroment? the carbon emmisions has 0 effect on our bodies?
    Bodies I don't know about. Environment yeah. If you parse through the bull**** in the IPCC reports all the dire predictions are based on positive feedback mechanisms existing and dominating the climate, with actual contribution of CO2 being relatively negligible. The problem is assuming a long term stable system like the climate is dominated by positive feedback mechanisms is, in a word, stupid, because such a system does not lend itself to stability. A system dominated by negative feedbacks does. So what they are essentially arguing is that a system dominated by positive feedback mechanisms has just barely managed to stay stable for Christ knows how many millions of years, and it's our miniscule contribution to CO2 and other GHGs which is barely noticable next to the naturally occurring amounts, that's going to finally engage those positive feedbacks to the tipping point and send our climate spiralling out of control. Or, if you would, imagine a cat sleeping in the center of a room filled with set mouse traps. What they are saying is that even though nature has trotted elephants through the place and not woken up the cat, one little human fart is going to send kitty sky high and when he comes down all hell is going to break loose.

    why is it bad to reduce something that is harmful?
    Because harm can only be judged in comparrison to gain, and can only be eliminated at a cost which might not be worth it in the end.

    socialism??? wow that is a stretch there.. how did you get it there, im interested in ur reasoning for that?'
    Socialism is collective ownership of the means of production. The ultimate means of production is energy. Cap and trade policies are basically government rationing of energy resources. Hence: socialism, more along the Nazi model than outright direct nationalization of the businesses. It's also doomed to fail because of the Prisoner's Dilema. The scheme only works if everyone plays by the rules, but the incentive is to inflate the number of pollution permits and this will happen until, as it has every time it's been tried, the market for permits simply collapses because they have no real value anymore.
  5. Registered User
    RobInKuwait's Avatar
    Stats
    6'4"  269 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    2,272
    Rep Power
    1264

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    I will pimpsmack you hippies!
    Rock on CDB!
  6. Senior Member
    futurepilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    2,217
    Rep Power
    1286

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    You do realize 'doing everything we can to stop it' means ditching your modern lifestyle and wearing a loin cloth and living in a cave, correct?
    "Resident Paranoid Extremist"
  7. Elite Member
    DR.D's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  228 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    6,779
    Rep Power
    307852

    Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation

    Finally, the TRUTH about global warming!!

    YouTube - George Bush on Global Warming - Spoof by Will Ferrell
  8. New Member
    AJC408's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    37
    Rep Power
    92

    Reputation

    CDB thanks for the post... so i didnt have to do it
  9. DT5
    New Member
    DT5's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  210 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    292
    Rep Power
    218

    Reputation

    most of the worlds climatologists agree that we have a detrimental effect on temperature...and even if we didnt, error on the side of caution. i cant think of a single reason to NOT act, even if it isnt a true phenomenon. the only things that would come from changing how we power the world, would all be positive. the only people who would have a problem are christian nut jobs who love oil (for some wierd reason, i still cant figure out)
  10. New Member
    AJC408's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    37
    Rep Power
    92

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by DT5 View Post
    most of the worlds climatologists agree that we have a detrimental effect on temperature...and even if we didnt, error on the side of caution. i cant think of a single reason to NOT act, even if it isnt a true phenomenon. the only things that would come from changing how we power the world, would all be positive. the only people who would have a problem are christian nut jobs who love oil (for some wierd reason, i still cant figure out)
    You should start from the beginning of this thread and read what's been said. It's clear that reacting is going to be detrimental to the economy and could even take a hold of our freedom.
  11. CDB
    Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2674

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by DT5 View Post
    most of the worlds climatologists agree that we have a detrimental effect on temperature...
    Really? According to who? From Red Hot Lies, "Professor Dennis Bray of Germany and Hans von Storch polled climate scientists to rate the statement, 'To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes?' … They received responses from 530 climate scientists in 27 countries, of whom 44 percent were either neutral or disagreed with the statement..."

    And according to a recently released report, article and original report are linked here, over 650 scientists, ranging from climatologists to astro physicists, disagree with or are skeptical of anthropogenic global warming.

    So where is this consensus? Unless of course by 'most scientists' you only mean the ones who agree with the theory, conveniently dismissing the many who don't. Which has basically been the approach to this consensus all along on this subject: except for everyone who disagrees, we all agree...

    and even if we didnt, error on the side of caution. i cant think of a single reason to NOT act, even if it isnt a true phenomenon.
    Then you are economically illiterate and should go back to school. All the 'actions' proposed will do nothing but cripple our productive capacity, consign massive portions of the third world and some of the first to abject and possibly perpetual poverty, and in the end do nothing to halt the process of warming while doing everything to make sure resources are misallocated and wasted throughout the global economy so they can't be used efficiently to fight the problem if it does exist.

    The base claim of the Do Something! crowd is that by giving the government mass control over energy resources and industry planning we can somehow achieve greater efficiency. Unfortunately we have ****loads of real world data to suggest that this approach, otherwise known as socialism, doesn't work even under normal circumstances and will work even worse under stressful ones. So if you want economic collapse and environmentalism of the type that lead to the poisoned triangle in the old USSR by all means keep backing the idea of Doing Something! at all costs.

    Fortunately the world is full of scientists and especially economists who aren't so thick, and who understand that resources allocated to one sector mean shortfalls in others; otherwise known as opportunity cost. Which is why the people with some sense on this issue say something along the lines of, "We need to know what specifically about it is true, and then we can go over the most cost effective ways of making a difference in the most critical areas." But a scattershot let's assume it's all true and through as much **** at the wall to see what works approach is sure to destroy a massive amount of wealth, and I for one don't feel like going back to living in a cave and possibly being eaten by some predator.

    the only things that would come from changing how we power the world, would all be positive.
    This is, to be blunt, complete bull****. The oportunity cost alone of using the governments of the world to reallocate the necessary resources to fight this issue, especially with the current 'at all costs' attitude, would cripple the world economy.

    the only people who would have a problem are christian nut jobs who love oil (for some wierd reason, i still cant figure out)
    I'm agnostic and I drive a Honda Fit, so once more, you are flat out wrong. Put bluntly, you should do more than listen to an Al Gore speech on the subject if you truly want to learn about it and what, if it's true and if anything, we can do about it.
  12. Senior Member
    futurepilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    2,217
    Rep Power
    1286

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    I for one don't feel like going back to living in a cave and possibly being eaten by some predator.
    I've heard more rational statements from people coming down off an 8-ball.
  13. CDB
    Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2674

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by futurepilot View Post
    I've heard more rational statements from people coming down off an 8-ball.
    I've heard better arguments from a rusty Ford. Do you have anything but nonsense to add to the discussion?

    Fact: economic activity is, at base, the rearrangement of the material world into combinations more beneficial to mankind than raw resources. The only way for man to stop having an impact on the environment is to totally stop almost all economic activity. I dare to ask a question of one so intelligent, but you are of course aware that everything man does from the fuels we burn to provide energy for our current standard of living to the way we zone and use land will affect the environment, right? And the only way to truly minimize our impact on that environment is to stop the recombination of resources except at the most basic levels.

    More specifically, this means greenies want us to give up our very capital structure which is based on fossil fuel before we can utilize it to build and perfect more efficient/less impacting power sources such as solar and wind. As of right now our whole way of life is based largely on burning fossil fuel and we cannot advance beyond that capital structure while crippling it at the same time, or to put it another way, 'conserving' without first making gains in efficiency to offset the loss of resources. Which leads to higher prices, increased costs of living, and in extreme cases rationing of goods and services.
  14. Senior Member
    futurepilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    2,217
    Rep Power
    1286

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    As of right now our whole way of life is based largely on burning fossil fuel and we cannot advance beyond that capital structure while crippling it at the same time, or to put it another way, 'conserving' without first making gains in efficiency to offset the loss of resources. Which leads to higher prices, increased costs of living, and in extreme cases rationing of goods and services.

    The 2 are not mutually exclusive. We can have both a fuel based economy, and a budget surplus. The issue is merely what the fuel is, and how we choose to structure our economy.

    See iceland, see denmark, see france, see greece. Little things like having roof mounted water heaters to take advantage of warm weather would drastically reduce costs/emissions.

    I dont think anyone is under the illusion that we can go back to the 1500's and live off the land entirely, but small steps can be made that add up to big change.

    It doesnt matter whether you believe in global warming, global cooling, or global free blowjobs and beer. The fact of the matter is, we are destroying our forrests and oceans at a rate that will affect us in our lifetime.
  15. CDB
    Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2674

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by futurepilot View Post
    The 2 are not mutually exclusive. We can have both a fuel based economy, and a budget surplus. The issue is merely what the fuel is, and how we choose to structure our economy.
    Incorrect. Errors are the following: how the economy is structured is not a choice. It is a spontaneous order that arises over time based on demand, individual trades, and capital accumulation. We also can not have a budget surplus so long as the government spends more than it takes in, unless of course it doesn't count debt and inflation in its book keeping. Also, the fuel of choice isn't arrived at randomly or through a committee, it is chosen on a marginal basis. And the plain fact of the matter is no fuel source existing right now can compete on a marginal basis with oil/gas and won't until people are forced to economize and voluntarily choose alternatives.

    See iceland, see denmark, see france, see greece. Little things like having roof mounted water heaters to take advantage of warm weather would drastically reduce costs/emissions.
    Some of which are practical, other measures of which are government sibsidized and thus require a loss be taken elsewhere. As a hypothetical example take the rooftop water heaters. They may be practical in some locations and not in others for various reasons. Mandating their use in an area for which they are unfit means people will end up losing wealth, not gaining it as they would in a mutually beneficial and agreed upon exhchange. The only true way to know what is beneficial for one person vs another in any given situation is to let them choose among various solutions, not to force government mandates down their throats. I'm not saying the options you see in other countries are not workable here, but which ones would serve whose interests best is not a choice to be made centrally by some bureacracy totally removed from the situation.

    I dont think anyone is under the illusion that we can go back to the 1500's and live off the land entirely, but small steps can be made that add up to big change.
    As a point of fact we never stopped living off the land, we just got a hell of a lot better at doing it through specialization and the division of labor. The economy you see around you is not something we inherret without any strings attach, it is due to years of advancement in specialization, division of labor, and capital accumulation over time.

    It doesnt matter whether you believe in global warming, global cooling, or global free blowjobs and beer. The fact of the matter is, we are destroying our forrests and oceans at a rate that will affect us in our lifetime.
    And even taken at face value we are not doing so gratuitously, we are doing so for a reason, or in other words the changes we are causing there are because of other beneficial changes we are getting elsewhere. Now let us trust the government to change things. Except, in point of fact, the government is the problem and is generally causing these issues. You don't see over logging in private forrests, you do see it in government controlled forrests where logging rights are leased but no one owns the forrest. You don't see dumping in private waterways but you do see it in government waterways and in the commons, the ocean, where no one is allowed to stake out property and demand payment for use or to exclude users.

    Put simply you only see overuse and dumping in areas where for various reasons, usually involving heavy government intervention, property rights have not been allowed to work and in fact have been actively stifled. This is where an economics education comes in handy, because resources that are owned and this rationally priced on the market do not become over used. The commons do become over used because they are perpetually under priced.
  16. Advanced Member
    Mjolnir's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  195 lbs.
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Age
    29
    Posts
    522
    Rep Power
    11193

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by JudoJosh View Post
    wow.. never heard that before.. I take it your a loose change fan?

    and as far as global warning I think presidential canidate sarah palin said it best "I'm not going to solely blame all of man's activities on changes in climate because the world's weather patterns are cyclical, and over history we have seen changes there. But it kinda doesn't matter at this point in the debate what caused it. The point is it's real; we need to do something about it."

    it doesnt matter what caused it as long as we get rid of it and pray it doesnt come back ...

    Nah Global Warming is bullsheet, at least in the sense its been portrayed recently, the world will continue to vary in temperature for all time and nothing that is done will affect it either way. It is what it is, literally. The world has been around for awhile and we havnt burned to death or frozen over yet that and there hasnt been factual scientific proof that the world will either go into a new ice age or just burn up.
  17. Advanced Member
    Mjolnir's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  195 lbs.
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Age
    29
    Posts
    522
    Rep Power
    11193

    Reputation

    And we already have a fuel source better than solar or wind which is mostly a waste of time....Nuclear energy.
  18. CDB
    Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2674

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by Mjolnir View Post
    And we already have a fuel source better than solar or wind which is mostly a waste of time....Nuclear energy.
    Indeed, but if you look at the general greenie agenda they are mostly opposed to nuclear. They are, at base, opposed to human advancement and even existence in some cases. For them the world has inherrent value separate from what use it can be to us. Of course that they can only ponder that 'inherrent value' thanks to centuries if not millenia of economic advancement that has lead to us having so much leisure time usually escapes them.

    Now, to build more nuclear plants we'd need to... burn more oil and coal to get the energy and materials to build them. As they came online they could take over and enhance our energy infrastructure and available supply, eventually to the point where the fossil fuel gets allocated to serving a smaller and smaller, more increasingly specialized segment of the market. But that we have to continue to burn those fuels and indeed increase our use of them to make this possible is what gets greenies right where they live.

    People who are born into a world of market provided plenty often don't see or understand the lattice work of production pipelines that have been cultivated and directed over time to producing all this plenty they're used to. They think it's a matter nature or default that they have ipods and laptops and heated homes. It doesn't occur to them that artificially redirecting a significant portion of that capital, for any reason, seriously alters the structure of production and ends up with a lot of wasted resources and lost wealth on the part of the people.
  19. Senior Member
    futurepilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    2,217
    Rep Power
    1286

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    It is a spontaneous order that arises over time based on demand, individual trades, and capital accumulation.

    They may be practical in some locations and not in others for various reasons.
    Our economy has been groomed by leaders/businessmen to become what it is, its not some sort of big bang theory.

    Of course a place like seattle would not be suitable for rooftop heaters, while it would be good for using rainwater purification centers too offset using mountain runoff. While nevada is more dependant on aquifers, but would be an ideal candidate for heaters.

    Basically, that second statement is correct, but thats not an arguement against trying these things, its merely a fact.
  20. CDB
    Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2674

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by futurepilot View Post
    Our economy has been groomed by leaders/businessmen to become what it is, its not some sort of big bang theory.
    Actually, it is, and the fact that you don't know that shows how much you have to learn about it. The economy is an example of a bottom up spontaneous order, similar to other systems such as language. That governments in collusion with some business leaders attempt to impose order from the top down doesn't change this. In fact, it is those attempts to interfere with and direct the market that usually end up leading to recessions and/or wars.

    Of course a place like seattle would not be suitable for rooftop heaters, while it would be good for using rainwater purification centers too offset using mountain runoff. While nevada is more dependant on aquifers, but would be an ideal candidate for heaters.
    The problem is if you leave the decision up to the government the result will be political, not marginal. Hence if a congressman from Seattle has a brother in law who makes such rooftop heaters, you can bet your ass that all of a sudden they'll become ideally suited for homes in Seattle.

    Basically, that second statement is correct, but thats not an arguement against trying these things, its merely a fact.
    It is an argument agains the government trying these things, because the government is not subject to a profit loss test. Hence anything they do gets paid for through tax funds, there is no chance to find out if it was really desired, works well, or works better than alternatives.
  21. NutraPlanet Fanatic
    dsade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Age
    43
    Posts
    21,377
    Rep Power
    770830

    Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    Indeed, but if you look at the general greenie agenda they are mostly opposed to nuclear. They are, at base, opposed to human advancement and even existence in some cases. For them the world has inherrent value separate from what use it can be to us. Of course that they can only ponder that 'inherrent value' thanks to centuries if not millenia of economic advancement that has lead to us having so much leisure time usually escapes them.

    Now, to build more nuclear plants we'd need to... burn more oil and coal to get the energy and materials to build them. As they came online they could take over and enhance our energy infrastructure and available supply, eventually to the point where the fossil fuel gets allocated to serving a smaller and smaller, more increasingly specialized segment of the market. But that we have to continue to burn those fuels and indeed increase our use of them to make this possible is what gets greenies right where they live.

    People who are born into a world of market provided plenty often don't see or understand the lattice work of production pipelines that have been cultivated and directed over time to producing all this plenty they're used to. They think it's a matter nature or default that they have ipods and laptops and heated homes. It doesn't occur to them that artificially redirecting a significant portion of that capital, for any reason, seriously alters the structure of production and ends up with a lot of wasted resources and lost wealth on the part of the people.
    I would like to subscribe to your newsletter, sir.

    It is a pleasure to see rational thought in action.
    Evolutionary Muse - Inspire to Evolve
    BPS - Where Body meets Performance
    Flawless Skin Couture - We give you the tools to make you Flawless
  22. lutherblsstt
    Guest
    lutherblsstt's Avatar

    Climate change deniers: failsafe tips on how to spot them

    Denialism blog has identified five tactics for spotting climate deniers that should set pseudo-science alarm bells ringing


    It's that time of year again, when the Heartland Institute gathers together climate naysayers http://www.heartland.org/events/NewY...newyork09.html to deny the reality of global climate change.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...change-deniers

    In a previous post on this blog, James Randerson recognised the similarity between creationists and climate change denialists and their tactics of sowing confusion and doubt about established science.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...stopher-booker

    But the similarities are not just with creationists. The same tactics are used by those who deny the link between HIV and Aids and those who subscribe to any number of bizarre conspiracy theories from 9/11 conspiracies to lizard people.

    At denialism blog we have identified five routine tactics that should set your pseudo-science alarm bells ringing. Spotting them doesn't guarantee an argument is incorrect – you can argue for true things badly – but when these are the arguments you hear, be on your guard.

    • First is the assertion of a conspiracy to suppress the truth. http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/20...conspiracy.php This conspiracy invariably fails to address or explain the data or observation but only generates more unexplained questions.

    But let us think about such conspiracies for a moment. Do they stand up to even a cursory evaluation? Is it really possible to make thousands of scientists, from over 100 countries, and every national academy of every country toe the same line, falsify data, and suppress this alleged dissent? I certainly didn't get the memo. At the heart of all denialism are these absurd conspiracy theories that require a superhuman level of control of individuals that simply defies reality.

    • The second tactic is selectivity, or cherry-picking the data http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/20..._picking_1.php . Creationists classically would quote scientists out of context to suggest they disagreed with evolution. Global warming denialists similarly engage in this tactic, harping on about long discredited theories and the medieval warming period ad nauseum. But these instances are too numerous and tedious to go into in depth.

    • Instead, let's talk about the third tactic, the use of fake experts http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/20...ke_experts.php , where both creationists and global warming denialists truly shine. Creationists have their Dissent from Darwin list of questionable provenance. Similarly, global warming denialist extraordinaire has his list of climate scientists who disagree with global warming. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...b-bd9faf4dcdb7

    But don't look too close http://www.desmogblog.com/400-promin...l-warming-bunk ! Lots of his big names are the same hacks who used to deny that cigarettes cause cancer for the tobacco companies, others are scientists who are wrongly included because they said something that was quoted out of context, others simply have no credibility as experts on climate like TV weathermen. But the desire of denialists to gain legitimacy by the numbers of scientists (or whoever they can find with letters after their name) used remains despite their contempt for the science they disagree with.

    • The fourth tactic – moving goalposts or impossible expectations http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/20...ons_and_mo.php – is the tendency to refuse to accept when denialists' challenges to the science have been addressed. Instead, they just come up with new challenges for you to prove before they say they'll believe the theory. Worse, they just repeat their challenges over and over again ad nauseum.

    This may be their most frustrating tactic because every time you think you've satisfied a challenge, they just invent a new one. The joke in evolutionary biology is that every time you find a transitional fossil all you do is create two new gaps on the fossil record, one on either side of the discovery. Similarly with global warming denialism, there is no end to the challenges that denialists claim they need to have satisfied before they'll come on board.

    It's important to recognise that you shouldn't play their game. They'll never be satisfied because they simply don't want to believe the science – for ideological reasons. In the US, global warming denialism usually stems from free-market fundamentalism that is terrified of regulation and any suggestion there should be control of business.

    • Finally, the fifth tactic is the catch-all of logical fallacies http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/20..._fallacies.php . You know you've heard them. Al Gore is fat! His house uses lots of energy! Evolutionary biologists are mean! God of the gaps, reasoning by analogy, ad hominem, you name it, these arguments, while emotionally appealing, have no impact on the validity of the science.

    It is important to filter information so that scientific discourse and debate can stay within the confines of rational argument and reason. Otherwise we get sidetracked and paralysed by denialists who are not honest brokers in a debate. Their goal isn't to promote science, or truth, or human knowledge, but to delay and deny.

    • Mark Hoofnagle has a PhD in physiology from the University of Virginia and contributes to denialism blog. http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/
  23. CDB
    Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2674

    Reputation

    Climate Alarmist Nuts, one universally valid way to identify them: They're lying ****suckers who can't abide by their own standards.

    • First is the assertion of a conspiracy to suppress the truth. http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/20...conspiracy.php This conspiracy invariably fails to address or explain the data or observation but only generates more unexplained questions.
    No one ever claimed a 'conspiracy', just plain old activist assininity, plentifully demonstrated in the leaked emails from Hadley. But of course, if ExxonMobile gives an honorarium for someone's speech or paper, that proof positive nothing they say can be trusted because they're a part of the conspiracy of BIG OIL to destroy the planet. Oil executives presumably being immortals and so not having kids who would be harmed by such actions, are free to engage in such comic book planet destruction. However when leaked emails show a group of scientists routinely and actually conspiring to refuse legal FOIA requests, control peer review to keep skeptics out of publication even when they admit the skeptics have valid points, and systemic mention of temperature adjusments to make the data fit their trend... Well, that's 'science'.

    • The second tactic is selectivity, or cherry-picking the data http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/20..._picking_1.php . Creationists classically would quote scientists out of context to suggest they disagreed with evolution. Global warming denialists similarly engage in this tactic, harping on about long discredited theories and the medieval warming period ad nauseum. But these instances are too numerous and tedious to go into in depth.
    Laughable coming from climate scientists, the greatest Texas sharp shooters of the modern day.

    • Instead, let's talk about the third tactic, the use of fake experts http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/20...ke_experts.php
    No, instead let's talk about the Alarmist tactic of denigrating anyone who disagrees with them regardless of credentials. You know, "mere physicists" like Freeman Dyson and credentialed climatologists, meteorologists, statisticians, engineers, etc., all of whom are qualified and smart enough to comment of part or all of the body of research in question, but who lack the magic key to gaining acceptance to the temple of Qualified Reviewers by the likes of Gavin **** and lying frauds like Phil Jones and Michael Mann.

    • The fourth tactic – moving goalposts or impossible expectations http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/20...ons_and_mo.php
    Because expecting someone to track and preserve their data and release it for purposes of checking methods and results, especially when we're talking about publicly funded 'scientists' doing publicly funded research with data gathered from publicly funded stations, the results of which have massive public policy implications, well that's just too much to expect of them.

    One of the more wonderful lies told by Hadley and GISS ****tards is, "Oh, the data has been released..." Which makes one wonder why if all the data has been released, and after the **** hit the fan thanks to their own emails at Hadley, did Hadley agree to release all its data? 'Cause you see, it's either released or it isn't, and if it isn't you can't say it is, and if it is released already, you can't ****ing agree to release it all... again.

    is the tendency to refuse to accept when denialists' challenges to the science have been addressed.
    Addressed meaning setting up strawmen and taking them down so as to avoid the real questions they can't answer. Another lie, perfectly addressed here.

    • Finally, the fifth tactic is the catch-all of logical fallacies http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/20..._fallacies.php . You know you've heard them. Al Gore is fat! His house uses lots of energy! Evolutionary biologists are mean! God of the gaps, reasoning by analogy, ad hominem, you name it, these arguments, while emotionally appealing, have no impact on the validity of the science.
    Unfortunately for the ******* who wrote this statement, not only are Ad hominem statements not limited to any particular group, this is another strawman. It is perfectly legitimate to point out that Al Gore is not qualified to speak on any aspect of climate change, and that as a former politician who stood to gain power from legislation based on this research, and who now owns a company that's poised to make a bundle selling carbon offsets and other such scams, that he stands to profit from such research and the resulting policies.

    It also might be nice for these ****ing idiots and their activist buddies to go back to school for a bit and review a couple things, like: one, what peer review is; two, how it's supposed to work. It's not a Good housekeeping type seal of ultimate truth as any perusal of the NIH databases will tell you, nor is it supposed to be meddled with by the likes of Phil Jones to keep scilent his critics.
  24. Board Sponsor
    DAdams91982's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Age
    32
    Posts
    7,413
    Rep Power
    700735

    Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation

    Strong post to throw up when all the emails came out saying they falsified the data. Keep smoking that HOPE-IUM.
    The Historic PES Legend
  25. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,911
    Rep Power
    7016

    Reputation

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgPUpIBWGp8"]YouTube- Jon Stewart Talks Climategate[/ame]
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  26. Senior Member
    Bionic's Avatar
    Stats
    6'5"  227 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,685
    Rep Power
    985

    Reputation

    I think we should take Gore's Nobel Prize and give it to CDB.
  27. CDB
    Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2674

    Reputation

    Oh sweet, sweet, sweet irony...

    Quote Originally Posted by Telegraph.co.uk
    This just in. The Institute for Scriptural Geology in Waco, Texas, today offered “unswerving support and fervent prayers” for the scientists caught up in Climategate. Professor Elmer Moody, director of the institute, told a press conference: “We know what it’s like to have the integrity of our research questioned by unbelievers, so our hearts go out to those good folks at the East Anglican University.
  28. Diamond Member
    Jayhawkk's Avatar
    Stats
    5'8"  230 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Age
    39
    Posts
    12,790
    Rep Power
    11680

    Reputation

    HAHAHAAHAHAHA
  29. lutherblsstt
    Guest
    lutherblsstt's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982 View Post
    Strong post to throw up when all the emails came out saying they falsified the data. Keep smoking that HOPE-IUM.
    Basically people are making a big deal about a few (like less than ten) off-hand comments out of tens of thousands of emails.

    For example, the one comment about using a "trick" to "hide" a decline. People key on those words but don't look beyond it to see that what is being talked about is a commonly known statistical issue that has been discussed publicly in the peer-reviewed literature since 1995.

    There is considerable evidence based on volumes of information that has been publicly available for well over a decade. So called skeptics cling to ever possible shred they can.

    A month and a half ago it was the idiotic and unsupportable assertion that we've been experiencing cooling for the last decade.

    This month it is cherry picking a sentence out of thousands of emails. As mentioned "hiding the decline" is a sloppy reference to a statistical issue that has been known since 94 or 95.
  30. lutherblsstt
    Guest
    lutherblsstt's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    Climate Alarmist Nuts, one universally valid way to identify them: They're lying ****suckers who can't abide by their own standards.



    No one ever claimed a 'conspiracy', just plain old activist assininity, plentifully demonstrated in the leaked emails from Hadley. But of course, if ExxonMobile gives an honorarium for someone's speech or paper, that proof positive nothing they say can be trusted because they're a part of the conspiracy of BIG OIL to destroy the planet. Oil executives presumably being immortals and so not having kids who would be harmed by such actions, are free to engage in such comic book planet destruction. However when leaked emails show a group of scientists routinely and actually conspiring to refuse legal FOIA requests, control peer review to keep skeptics out of publication even when they admit the skeptics have valid points, and systemic mention of temperature adjusments to make the data fit their trend... Well, that's 'science'.



    Laughable coming from climate scientists, the greatest Texas sharp shooters of the modern day.



    No, instead let's talk about the Alarmist tactic of denigrating anyone who disagrees with them regardless of credentials. You know, "mere physicists" like Freeman Dyson and credentialed climatologists, meteorologists, statisticians, engineers, etc., all of whom are qualified and smart enough to comment of part or all of the body of research in question, but who lack the magic key to gaining acceptance to the temple of Qualified Reviewers by the likes of Gavin **** and lying frauds like Phil Jones and Michael Mann.



    Because expecting someone to track and preserve their data and release it for purposes of checking methods and results, especially when we're talking about publicly funded 'scientists' doing publicly funded research with data gathered from publicly funded stations, the results of which have massive public policy implications, well that's just too much to expect of them.

    One of the more wonderful lies told by Hadley and GISS ****tards is, "Oh, the data has been released..." Which makes one wonder why if all the data has been released, and after the **** hit the fan thanks to their own emails at Hadley, did Hadley agree to release all its data? 'Cause you see, it's either released or it isn't, and if it isn't you can't say it is, and if it is released already, you can't ****ing agree to release it all... again.



    Addressed meaning setting up strawmen and taking them down so as to avoid the real questions they can't answer. Another lie, perfectly addressed here.



    Unfortunately for the ******* who wrote this statement, not only are Ad hominem statements not limited to any particular group, this is another strawman. It is perfectly legitimate to point out that Al Gore is not qualified to speak on any aspect of climate change, and that as a former politician who stood to gain power from legislation based on this research, and who now owns a company that's poised to make a bundle selling carbon offsets and other such scams, that he stands to profit from such research and the resulting policies.

    It also might be nice for these ****ing idiots and their activist buddies to go back to school for a bit and review a couple things, like: one, what peer review is; two, how it's supposed to work. It's not a Good housekeeping type seal of ultimate truth as any perusal of the NIH databases will tell you, nor is it supposed to be meddled with by the likes of Phil Jones to keep scilent his critics.
    Co2 traps heat. The more CO2 in the atmosphere the more that atmosphere traps heat. We pump billions of CO2 intot he atmosphere every year by burning fossile fuels.

    Its really that simple - it doesnt matter if you find a million corrupt scientists these are basic scientific facts.

    I find the attempt to discredit really elementary basic science worrying.

    Its obvious people dont want to believe this so they are scraping the bottom of the barrel to find reasons to discredit climate scientists.

    For once I actually agree the governments of the world are doing the right thing and now everyone else is going on about conspiricies ! Its like 911 - in reverse.

    I give up.
  31. Board Sponsor
    DAdams91982's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Age
    32
    Posts
    7,413
    Rep Power
    700735

    Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by lutherblsstt View Post
    Basically people are making a big deal about a few (like less than ten) off-hand comments out of tens of thousands of emails.

    For example, the one comment about using a "trick" to "hide" a decline. People key on those words but don't look beyond it to see that what is being talked about is a commonly known statistical issue that has been discussed publicly in the peer-reviewed literature since 1995.

    There is considerable evidence based on volumes of information that has been publicly available for well over a decade. So called skeptics cling to ever possible shred they can.

    A month and a half ago it was the idiotic and unsupportable assertion that we've been experiencing cooling for the last decade.

    This month it is cherry picking a sentence out of thousands of emails. As mentioned "hiding the decline" is a sloppy reference to a statistical issue that has been known since 94 or 95.
    Time and time and time again scientist have come out saying it's a sham. In the 80s it was cooling, then global warming, now climate change. There is ONLY one common element here, and that is earth it self. Weather is cyclical and unpredictable. Now was the ice age's caused by human burning fossil fuels? Now, THAT science is seemingly ignored in the sensational BS that is put out today. Lets not forget the ocean floor is covered in Co2 eating plant life, and that takes up over 75% of the world.

    Climate change is just more buzz words as you put it. But they are words used to tax the world and make few the money. It's a way to industrialize environmentalism.
    The Historic PES Legend
  32. CDB
    Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2674

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by lutherblsstt View Post
    Co2 traps heat. The more CO2 in the atmosphere the more that atmosphere traps heat. We pump billions of CO2 intot he atmosphere every year by burning fossile fuels.
    Another way to know the Alarmist when you speak with him: playing a shell game with settled science when the discussion is over unsettled science.

    Yes, Luther. Very, very good. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. You may be surprised to realize NO ONE IS ****ING DISPUTING THAT. Most skeptics do not even dispute that the Earth has warmed and that CO2 likely played a role. Now, pay close attention. What IS being disputed are the catastrophic scenarios which are ENTIRELY based on completely ****ed computer models and the very, very shaky, totally unproven, and self contradictory ASSUMPTION that the Earth's climate is dominated by long term positive feedbacks. Specifically the charge is the climate was marvelously stable until we started burning fossil fuels. However, any jackass with even a passing knowledge of how feedback works knows that systems dominated by long term positive feedbacks tend toward volatility, NOT stability.

    But please, continue to set up strawmen and avoiding the actual issues so you can continue being a mouth piece for the ****suckers at GISS.

    Its really that simple - it doesnt matter if you find a million corrupt scientists these are basic scientific facts.
    a

    No, it's a basic scientific fact that you are trying to substitute for a complex unsettled analysis of the equillibrium achieved in a complex chaotic open ended system like the climate. Once more, if you had clue ****ing one about what you were talking about, you would know that a first order change in one or even a few such variables in such a system DOES NOT lead to long or even short term predictable results, even if you know how the feedbacks work and can model them accurately, which we don't and which we can't, as admitted in the very emails you call 'scraping the bottom of the barrel' below.

    I find the attempt to discredit really elementary basic science worrying.
    Then maybe you should actually READ the skeptics, such as the link I posted in my first response. Because, once more and read carefully, NO ONE IS DISPUTING THAT CO2 IS A GREENHOUSE GAS. No go run along and read some more.

    Its obvious people dont want to believe this so they are scraping the bottom of the barrel to find reasons to discredit climate scientists.
    If you think those emails are 'scraping the bottom of the barrel', then quite frankly you don't have a clue what you're talking about. That kind of crap coming out of a medical trial for a new drug would not only discredit the drug and the company/scientists studying it, it would likely result in serious criminal charges. Sloppy and quick might be good enough for climate 'science', in other fields of science these guys would have already been sent scuttling home with their balls in their hip pockets and an ass cheek in each hand. Jesus Christ, I have to maintain higher standards when we're measuring and validating the performance of my company's ****ing call center.

    If you're going to engage in this debate, here or elsewhere, I'd suggest you drop out of your usual remedial mode of cutting and pasting uncritically the positions of others. You're going to have your ass handed to you right quick if you do that and justifiably so.
  33. New Member
    phL8Tme's Avatar
    Stats
    5'6"  171 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    236
    Rep Power
    182

    Reputation

    I'm 900+ feet above sea level, 300 miles south of the Canadian border. I love palm trees.


    Bring it on I say!

    Hang on a sac. they can't get the weather right 12 hrs before it's supposed to happen. Why trust 110 yrs of past records? Specially when the scientists that claim global warming is real were caught fudging the facts?
  34. lutherblsstt
    Guest
    lutherblsstt's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    Climate Alarmist Nuts, one universally valid way to identify them: They're lying ****suckers who can't abide by their own standards.



    No one ever claimed a 'conspiracy', just plain old activist assininity, plentifully demonstrated in the leaked emails from Hadley. But of course, if ExxonMobile gives an honorarium for someone's speech or paper, that proof positive nothing they say can be trusted because they're a part of the conspiracy of BIG OIL to destroy the planet. Oil executives presumably being immortals and so not having kids who would be harmed by such actions, are free to engage in such comic book planet destruction. However when leaked emails show a group of scientists routinely and actually conspiring to refuse legal FOIA requests, control peer review to keep skeptics out of publication even when they admit the skeptics have valid points, and systemic mention of temperature adjusments to make the data fit their trend... Well, that's 'science'.



    Laughable coming from climate scientists, the greatest Texas sharp shooters of the modern day.



    No, instead let's talk about the Alarmist tactic of denigrating anyone who disagrees with them regardless of credentials. You know, "mere physicists" like Freeman Dyson and credentialed climatologists, meteorologists, statisticians, engineers, etc., all of whom are qualified and smart enough to comment of part or all of the body of research in question, but who lack the magic key to gaining acceptance to the temple of Qualified Reviewers by the likes of Gavin **** and lying frauds like Phil Jones and Michael Mann.



    Because expecting someone to track and preserve their data and release it for purposes of checking methods and results, especially when we're talking about publicly funded 'scientists' doing publicly funded research with data gathered from publicly funded stations, the results of which have massive public policy implications, well that's just too much to expect of them.

    One of the more wonderful lies told by Hadley and GISS ****tards is, "Oh, the data has been released..." Which makes one wonder why if all the data has been released, and after the **** hit the fan thanks to their own emails at Hadley, did Hadley agree to release all its data? 'Cause you see, it's either released or it isn't, and if it isn't you can't say it is, and if it is released already, you can't ****ing agree to release it all... again.



    Addressed meaning setting up strawmen and taking them down so as to avoid the real questions they can't answer. Another lie, perfectly addressed here.



    Unfortunately for the ******* who wrote this statement, not only are Ad hominem statements not limited to any particular group, this is another strawman. It is perfectly legitimate to point out that Al Gore is not qualified to speak on any aspect of climate change, and that as a former politician who stood to gain power from legislation based on this research, and who now owns a company that's poised to make a bundle selling carbon offsets and other such scams, that he stands to profit from such research and the resulting policies.

    It also might be nice for these ****ing idiots and their activist buddies to go back to school for a bit and review a couple things, like: one, what peer review is; two, how it's supposed to work. It's not a Good housekeeping type seal of ultimate truth as any perusal of the NIH databases will tell you, nor is it supposed to be meddled with by the likes of Phil Jones to keep scilent his critics.
    I'm well aware of what peer review is and how it is supposed to work.

    It is funny, the comment in one of the emails about redefining what peer review means has been taken as some egregious overstep when in reality it comes down to well known problems with one journal. In that case a horrible paper got pushed through a prestigious journal by a single editor ("skeptic").

    Within a month the paper had several rebuttals published in regards to it. It severely tarnished the reputation of the journal that such bad science got published and resulted in several editors resigning because they were embarrassed to be associated with the journal. Of course "skeptics" keep pointing to that article while ignoring that it has been dismissed as bad science.

    As for the FOIA stuff, they should have released the data to McIntyre. Most of the data was publicly available already but they didn't want to help him in particular.

    What would you would think if Jim Hansen made strongly declarative statements contradicting the general consensus of nuclear physicists.

    Put that in the context of Dyson and climate change.

    This quote from Dyson (found on Wikipedia) I think sums things up well:

    "My objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it’s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have."

    He's admitting ignorance, but yeah, great example.
  35. lutherblsstt
    Guest
    lutherblsstt's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    Climate Alarmist Nuts, one universally valid way to identify them: They're lying ****suckers who can't abide by their own standards.



    No one ever claimed a 'conspiracy', just plain old activist assininity, plentifully demonstrated in the leaked emails from Hadley. But of course, if ExxonMobile gives an honorarium for someone's speech or paper, that proof positive nothing they say can be trusted because they're a part of the conspiracy of BIG OIL to destroy the planet. Oil executives presumably being immortals and so not having kids who would be harmed by such actions, are free to engage in such comic book planet destruction. However when leaked emails show a group of scientists routinely and actually conspiring to refuse legal FOIA requests, control peer review to keep skeptics out of publication even when they admit the skeptics have valid points, and systemic mention of temperature adjusments to make the data fit their trend... Well, that's 'science'.
    Firstly business is business. The oil industry is probably the richest on the planet and oil is currently the lifelblood of our society. Like any business when threatened by a competitior it moves to protect itself. It is a FACT that exxon Mobil paid scientists to support their case it even offered $10000 to anyone who would write papers which dispute the ~UNs climate study. He can read abouit it here :

    http://www.democrats.com/ExxonMobil-...6;10000-Bribes

    Is it really hard to believe that a huge business would play dirty to protect its own business interests or that it would be short sighted and not consider the consequences on their own grandchildren ? Humans behave like this all the time.

    For the record some oil giants are changing the way they operate and I admire them for this. Exxon are not one of them.






    No, instead let's talk about the Alarmist tactic of denigrating anyone who disagrees with them regardless of credentials. You know, "mere physicists" like Freeman Dyson and credentialed climatologists, meteorologists, statisticians, engineers, etc., all of whom are qualified and smart enough to comment of part or all of the body of research in question, but who lack the magic key to gaining acceptance to the temple of Qualified Reviewers by the likes of Gavin **** and lying frauds like Phil Jones and Michael Mann.
    Ok you are quoting a handfull of scientists - 99 % of the climate science world agree that anthropogenic climate change is a problem. If you are sincere then do some research - how many climate scientists (not physisists, molecular biologists etc - people who are focussed on climate science are the people we should listen to with regard to climate science) agree and how many dont.

    I think you will find the vbast majority agree AGW is a problem .
    In fact please give me a couple examples of people who have not been able to get their papers reviewed by established journals and we can discuss them.

    Some people may be turned down for review because ther papers are totally unscientific - some people are know to have received money form oil companies etc etc but Id like to see some specific examples rather than just generalised accusations.

    As for the scientist you mention - five minutes on google reveal :

    Freeman Dyson is a particle physisits not a climate scientist so his opinion is not relevant if it disagrees with the majority of climate scientists anymore than the opinion of a climate scientist that the theory of relativity is incorrect should be taken over the majority of physisists. Besides Dyson doesnt even disagree that human CO2 emmisions are a problem.
    Please feel free to name any other scientists you feel relevant to the argument and we can discuss them.



    Because expecting someone to track and preserve their data and release it for purposes of checking methods and results, especially when we're talking about publicly funded 'scientists' doing publicly funded research with data gathered from publicly funded stations, the results of which have massive public policy implications, well that's just too much to expect of them.

    It is perfectly legitimate to point out that Al Gore is not qualified to speak on any aspect of climate change, and that as a former politician who stood to gain power from legislation based on this research, and who now owns a company that's poised to make a bundle selling carbon offsets and other such scams, that he stands to profit from such research and the resulting policies.
    The only people who are qualified to talk on climate change are climate scientists which is why I say we should listen to what the majority of them are saying to us, stop trying to discredit them because we simply dont want to believe what they are saying, stop arguing and make the changes necessary before it is too late. People will make money out of anything they can - Id rather they made mopney out of clean renewable energy than dirty destructive fossil fuels.


    It also might be nice for these ****ing idiots and their activist buddies to go back to school for a bit and review a couple things, like: one, what peer review is; two, how it's supposed to work.
    For some reason people who disagree with AGW like to resort to insults rather than facts - no doubt as a result of frustration due to a lack of a factual or reasoned basis to their arguments. I know what a peer review is and the vast majority of peer reviewed papers on climate science show an overwhelming consensus amongst climate scientists that anthopogenic CO2 emmisions are causing the planet to warm.


    It's not a Good housekeeping type seal of ultimate truth as any perusal of the NIH databases will tell you, nor is it supposed to be meddled with by the likes of Phil Jones to keep scilent his critics.
    Scientists have had to put up with bribery to discredit their findings, they have found their names on petitions they did not sign presented to congress disputing AGW and a plethora of other dirty tricks to try and discredit them . It does not suprise me at all if they try and hide data from a people who will grasp at any straw possible to bundermine basic climate science and thus influence governments to stop takin the actions that we need to take.

    At the end of the day of course climate scientists may be wrong. Even they can say with only 90 percent probability what will happen if we dont reduce CO2 emmisiions.

    So you have a choice :

    if they are wrong and we listen to them we end up with cleaner fuel sources.

    If they are right and we ignore them it could result in a total disaster.

    Neither of us are climate scientists so I suggest we stop moaning and listen to the people that are.
  36. Board Sponsor
    DAdams91982's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Age
    32
    Posts
    7,413
    Rep Power
    700735

    Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by lutherblsstt View Post
    So you have a choice :

    if they are wrong and we listen to them we end up with cleaner fuel sources.
    At what price? You are effectively missing the point that taking over the energy sector is taking over an insurmountable amount of power. Just like health care.

    If this administration wanted to push for cleaner energy, then they would have taken that crap TARP money and started building Nuclear Power Plants all over the US, putting Americans to work, with an end game to cleaner energy. Not to mention the energy companies would be able to start paying back the money to build said plants immediately upon turning it on.

    Cap n Trade is nothing more than a power grab and a way to tax the hell out of everyone in America.
    The Historic PES Legend
  37. CDB
    Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2674

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by lutherblsstt View Post
    I'm well aware of what peer review is and how it is supposed to work.
    Then I'm sure you'll denounce the attempts of those at Hadley, Mann, Schmidt, et al, to butt **** the process.

    It is funny, the comment in one of the emails about redefining what peer review means has been taken as some egregious overstep when in reality it comes down to well known problems with one journal. In that case a horrible paper got pushed through a prestigious journal by a single editor ("skeptic").
    Actually the quote you are referring to about "redefining" is about redefining what the "peer reviewed literature is", not the one about freezing out a "troublesome" editor. Once more, get your ****ing facts straight. By redefining what the "peer reviewed literature is" Jones was threatening to exclude already reviewed and published papers from finding their way into the IPCC report.

    Within a month the paper had several rebuttals published in regards to it.
    Pray tell, which paper are you referring to?

    As for the FOIA stuff, they should have released the data to McIntyre. Most of the data was publicly available already but they didn't want to help him in particular.
    You don't get to pick and choose who has access to an FOI request. Trying to do so is called a federal crime.

    What would you would think if Jim Hansen made strongly declarative statements contradicting the general consensus of nuclear physicists.
    Had I not known before what a devious lying **** he is, I'd listen/read his opinion respectfully. However, you do not need to be a client 'scientist' to understand statistics. You do not need to be a climate 'scientist' to understand tree rings. You do not need to be a climate 'scientist' to understand that manual, arbitrary 'adjustments' to get rid of 'blips' you can't explain in the data aren't acceptable. In fact the NAS report and Wegman's input specifically said these *******s should open their doors a bit with regard to statisticians, since I don't think one of them has managed to reference a standard work on the subject once, and they only had one ****ing statistician working with them.

    This quote from Dyson (found on Wikipedia) I think sums things up well:

    "My objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it’s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have."

    He's admitting ignorance, but yeah, great example.
    That's a quote from Wikipedia, dipstick. Which, incidentally, the climate 'scientists' keep a close watch on because anything remotely skeptical of AGW theory gets editted within hours of being posted with Real Climate Speak word for word 'refutations'. See the original article about Dyson for more. And your **** out of luck anyway, because the behavior of those people is the one thing as a respected scientist himself that he is undisputably qualified to judge.

    Firstly business is business. The oil industry is probably the richest on the planet and oil is currently the lifelblood of our society. Like any business when threatened by a competitior it moves to protect itself. It is a FACT that exxon Mobil paid scientists to support their case it even offered $10000 to anyone who would write papers which dispute the ~UNs climate study. He can read abouit it here :

    http://www.democrats.com/ExxonMobil-...6;10000-Bribes
    Of course, when Exxon Mobile gives money to people it's bribes. When politicians do it, it's grants. Hundreds of billions of dollars has no corrupting influence of any kind on any of the proponents, they are all angels who float above mere fripperies such as having to earn a living and feed their kids. However a few mil from Exxon is the end of the world. And of course those oil executives are immortal and impervious to UV rays and excessive heat, and they don't have any kids of their own or any reason at all to want to do anything but murder the whole planet.

    Money currupts period. If it corrupts the skeptics, it corrupts the proponents too. You don't get to level a criticism at one side and then claim your side is immune to the very same human trait. And the lion's share of the funding is on the proponents side. There's no money to be gained beyond what's already being gained in proving AGW wrong. However Al Gore and many governments of the world and their leeches stand to gain billions if not trillions with the enactment of cap and trade and other such legislation. Thank God those climate 'scientists' are such trustworthy, pure, stain free, angelic types who wouldn't in the farthest reaches of the most corrupt world even be for a milisecond tempted by such stunning amounts of money, by nice tax payer subsidized trips to Rio and the like for Earth Conferences, for the prestige of being known and quoted by world leaders, etc., etc., etc. Thank God for it.

    For the record some oil giants are changing the way they operate and I admire them for this. Exxon are not one of them.
    Then your gullible as hell and the most uncritical thinker on this Earth. Why don't you check the 'investments' these companies like Shell and BP have made into 'alternative' energy sources, and what an assload of tax payer money will be heading their way thanks to their 'change of heart' you so admire them for.

    But I'm sure that payday had nothing to do with their decisions.

    Ok you are quoting a handfull of scientists - 99 % of the climate science world agree that anthropogenic climate change is a problem. If you are sincere then do some research - how many climate scientists (not physisists, molecular biologists etc - people who are focussed on climate science are the people we should listen to with regard to climate science) agree and how many dont.
    I don't know and I don't give a ****, because unlike the ignorant of which you are a part I know that consensus on any level is not now nor has it ever been a criterion to judge science by. Data and methods that are robust enough to produce results that stand the test of time are what lead to eventualy consensus by default. Unfortuntately for you and lucky for me, the data and methods are exactly what's in dispute here, and apparently the results are so finicky that unless you let the 'scientists' massage that data and those methods just right, you'll never duplicate their results.

    I don't give a **** about consensus because unlike you I actually understand the scientific process and know damn well consensus not only does not matter, it must be assiduously ignored or knowledge would never advance past what everyone thought we already knew for sure.

    Thank God someone had the balls to stand up to the consensus that the Earth was flat.

    Thank God someone had the balls to stand up to the consensus that it was the middle of the universe.

    Thank God someone had the balls to stand up to the consensus that bleeding patients helped them.

    Thank God someone had the balls to stand up to the consensus that the Earth was only a few thousand years old and we came from a garden that an angry sky fairy kicked us out of for eating too much fruit and ****ting on His creation.

    Freeman Dyson is a particle physisits not a climate scientist so his opinion is not relevant if it disagrees with the majority of climate scientists anymore than the opinion of a climate scientist that the theory of relativity is incorrect should be taken over the majority of physisists. Besides Dyson doesnt even disagree that human CO2 emmisions are a problem.
    Please feel free to name any other scientists you feel relevant to the argument and we can discuss them.
    I'm looking for the rule in the Science Rule Book that says you get to pick and choose your own critics. Can't find it. Mcintyre is a man who made his living - meaning actual accountability for his work - analyzing statistics specifically to ferret out exagerated claims in mining which means more than a passing familiarity with geology. Whether you, Gavid ****, Jones, or Mann like it or not, he IS qualified to speak on work that is highly statistical in nature. I know it's a crime to have earned a living in the private sector amongst your type, but the rest of us do it every day and think it's worth while.

    Watt is a meteorologist who knows more than a bit about where to stick temperature measuring equipment. And you don't have to be a climate 'scientist' anyway to know that sticking a thermometer up the ass end of a rutting mule or right above a ****ing BBQ might affect the readings.

    For some reason people who disagree with AGW like to resort to insults rather than facts - no doubt as a result of frustration due to a lack of a factual or reasoned basis to their arguments. I know what a peer review is and the vast majority of peer reviewed papers on climate science show an overwhelming consensus amongst climate scientists that anthopogenic CO2 emmisions are causing the planet to warm.
    You apparently don't know what peer review is nor what it is for, because as has been pointed out a few billion times to date by all those horrible skeptics, those 'indepdent' papers which validate each other's findings rely on 80-90% of the same exact data and are often written/reviewed by the same group of ten ****ing people. Pielke did a nice review of the 'peer reviewed' literature not too long ago, looks like the IPCC was ignoring the massive chunk of it that contradicted it's desired results. Oh, yeah, there are several hundred peer reviewed papers all of which show a massive warming in the middle ages. You know, the warming period your favorite climate 'scientists' want to erase and tried. And wow, how good of Keith Briffa to replicate the hockey stick graph using such robust and sound data... a single ****ing tree to cover nine years of temperature data. Even though a stand nearby of more than 30 didn't show any such pattern.

    Scientists have had to put up with bribery to discredit their findings, they have found their names on petitions they did not sign presented to congress disputing AGW and a plethora of other dirty tricks to try and discredit them . It does not suprise me at all if they try and hide data from a people who will grasp at any straw possible to bundermine basic climate science and thus influence governments to stop takin the actions that we need to take.
    That's called "Begging the Question." And I don't give two flying ****s what they've had to endure. Their work is going to cost the world trillions in jobs and force a significant amount of people either to or below the poverty line. Releasing their data isn't an option. You don't get to keep it secret because you just know someone's going to try to discredit you. The way to avoid getting discredited is to do a good job in your ****ing research, not hack it together and make lame excuses as to why you can't let anyone know how you did it or with what data.

    if they are wrong and we listen to them we end up with cleaner fuel sources.

    If they are right and we ignore them it could result in a total disaster.

    Neither of us are climate scientists so I suggest we stop moaning and listen to the people that are.
    This is what's called a "False Dilema". For one so up on science and logic you do seem to commit a whole ****load of fallacies. Not only are your two 'options' not the only ones, you conveniently ignore the massive costs associated with each. 'Cleaner' fuels don't just drop out of your ass, they have to be developed. And the bottom line of the whole issue is no matter whether their research is sound, their economic knowledge is nonexistent. So I]ll tell you what,, once those pricks start respecting my science, I'll start respecting theirs. Because I may not be qualified to speak to their science, I am definitely qualified to speak to their proposed 'solutions', and there's not a one of them that isn't completely and totally ****ed.
  38. Elite Member
    DR.D's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  228 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    6,779
    Rep Power
    307852

    Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    Come on man, don't post that crap. I will hunt you down, cut your power, and do you with the lights off next time.
  39. Elite Member
    DR.D's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  228 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    6,779
    Rep Power
    307852

    Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by lutherblsstt View Post
    ...99 % of the climate science world agree that anthropogenic climate change is a problem. ...
    Luther, why do you think you have this all figured out? You're setting yourself up to be just another fanatic following the most current 'winner'. There is more to consider than just the numbers and tangibles. Be silent and dwell on all this in prayer, then form a thought of your own with Spiritual insight, there is no place for all this prejudice and preconception you possess.
  40. lutherblsstt
    Guest
    lutherblsstt's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    Another way to know the Alarmist when you speak with him: playing a shell game with settled science when the discussion is over unsettled science.

    Yes, Luther. Very, very good. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. You may be surprised to realize NO ONE IS ****ING DISPUTING THAT.
    Actually yes they are – one of the most common arguments from climate skeptics is that CO2 cannot contribute to global warming because CO2 levels increase after the warming.


    Most skeptics do not even dispute that the Earth has warmed and that CO2 likely played a role. Now, pay close attention. What IS being disputed are the catastrophic scenarios which are ENTIRELY based on completely ****ed computer models and the very, very shaky, totally unproven,
    Of course they could get their predictions wrong, but climate scientists are the people best placed to make these predictions as they and assess the risk as they , well, study climate science for a living. The vast majority of them have predicted that it is likely there will be big problems for us as a result of our CO2 emissions.

    So who are “most sceptics” are they fully qualified climate scientists working in their field ? What is the proportion of climate scientists who believe AGW is not likely to be a big problem and what is the proportion who dont ? I would like you to try and answer this question honestly .

    If you find “the vast majority “ of experts who actually do know what they are talking about agree AGW is a big problem that needs to be addressed why you think that you should ignore their advice for the advice of a very small handful of scientists who disagree ? Are you really saying that you are qualified to criticise the scientific method used in detailed climate research and of so what are your qualifications ?




    and self contradictory ASSUMPTION that the Earth's climate is dominated by long term positive feedbacks.
    The Earths long term atmosphere has never been influenced by humans burning billions of tons of CO2 back into the atmopshere before .
    What they do say is for millions of years CO2 has been taken out of the atmosphere by plants. When these plants and huge forests died they eventually formed coal and oil. All this CO2 is now being being pumped back into the atmosphere (by burning the fossil fuels) in a very short time reverting CO2 levels to back before many of our ecosystems evolved which is obviously dangerous .





    Specifically the charge is the climate was marvelously stable until we started burning fossil fuels.
    No this is not the charge. The charge is that pumping out billions of CO2 into the atmosphere is causing the Earth to warm to a degree that could threaten the stability of our society.

    No climate scientist has ever claimed that the Earths climate was marvellously stable until we started pumping CO2 into it. Quite the reverse actually.

    For example they are usually happy to point out that it was 15 degrees warmed during the time of the dinosaurs or that it was only when bacteria started sequesting CO2 and crapping out oxygen that life was able evolve. What they are saying is that we are contributing significantly to global warming by releasing CO2 into the atmosphere and that we can control the warming to an extent by ceasing to do this . Although some climate change and warming events are out of our control such as warming due to sunspot activity (there is also some evidence that sunspots contribute to some of our present warming but that they cannot account for ALL the warming) we can reduce the effects by capping emissions.





    However, any jackass with even a passing knowledge of how feedback works knows that systems dominated by long term positive feedbacks tend toward volatility, NOT stability.
    I cant really see how that is relevant but our climate when looked at in the long term is definitely not stable and is a constant state of flux.
    Human CO2 emissions could (and climate scientist predict are likely to) lead to several positive feedback situations which although are not “stable” are nonetheless worrying. Namely :

    1.Since the industrial revolution the planet has already warmed sufficiently for the icecaps to recede exposing more dark soil (ice is white and reflects heat darker colours absorb heat). Thus increased darker ground retains more heat , leading to more ice melting etc etc an unstable and unpleasant positive feedback cycle.

    2.Melting ice due to aforementioned warming in point one causes arctic tundra to be exposed . Methane stored in the arctic tundra is now bubbling to the surface and being released into the atmosphere – methane retains heat much more than CO2. About 251 million years ago, at the end of the Permian period, a series of methane burps similar to this came close to wiping out all life on Earth.

    3.As the atmosphere heats the oceans heat. The oceans can hold less CO2 the warmer they get. The more CO2 and other greenhouse gases released form the oceans the warmer it get setc etc another positive feedback situation.

    Whether the original warming is human generated or not is irrelevant – the point is we should do as much as we can not to excaberate the situation by using dirty fuel sources that pump greenhouse gases into the air.
    If you want an example of a long term positive feedback system in which CO2 levels spiralled out of control and then created a stable , burning hot atmosphere – look at venus.

    Although sunspots may be contributing to our present warming the fact the fact that temperatures have risen on an almost identical trajectory with CO2 emissions since the industrial revolution is a fact Id also like you to explain .


    But please, continue to set up strawmen and avoiding the actual issues so you can continue being a mouth piece for the ****suckers at GISS.

    Who are GISS ? Until you actually come up with some reasonable arguments and facts for me to change my mind why should I ignore the opinion of the vast majority of climate scientists and instead adopt yours ?

    I assure you if you can actually prove me wrong with a logical argument I will admit I am wrong and change my opinion but the only way to do that is with facts and reason not “hot air”.




    Once more, if you had clue ****ing one about what you were talking about, you would know that a first order change in one or even a few such variables in such a system DOES NOT lead to long or even short term predictable results,
    Once more climate scientists are telling us what they think will happen to the best of their ability. They may be wrong they are doing their best, and they certainly a lot more about it than you do.

    I just think its ridiculous that so many people who are not climate scientists feel they are qualified to dispute what the the vast majority of climate scientists. You wouldnt start ranting at particle physisists and hacking into their computer systems to prove that the search for higgs bosen is futile - yet because cliamte science is going to cost people money and the largest industry on the planet is threatened everyone suddewnly feels qualified to argue with them .

    You can huff and puff as much as you like but at the end of the day I will trust what the majority of experts say over you or a handful of scientists say any day of the week. If the vast majority of scientists suddenly said – look we got it wrong everything will be OK AGW is nothing to worry about then I would listen to them .

    This does not mean I cannot think for myself it simply means that I respect the years of hard work, discipline and study that these people have put in to become experts in their field and realise that I cannot hope to compete with that without doing the same.

    The fact of the matter is that climate scientists do know what they are talking about compared to untrained people like you and me .

    I am sure climate scientists are aware of feedback systems , unpredictable climate complexities and the fact that their models are inadequate to predict the weather with absolute certainty . However despite this , due to the warming properties of CO2 and a wealth of other evidence which links warmer temperatures and CO2, they have still decided to warn us that the level of CO2 we are pumping into the atmosphere is very likely to cause a serious threat to us.

    Of course there are possibilities they are wrong and disputed areas of climate science like there are in any branch of science. They can only say what is likely to happen however this does invalidate their warnings. However you dont find people disputing the theory of relativity in the same way even though AGW has a greater scientific consensus than relativity. Why ? Because there are no direct economic consequences to the findings of their research.

    Again I ask you who are these numerous climate scientists who dispute human CO2 emmisions could pose a serious threat to us ?




    Because, once more and read carefully, NO ONE IS DISPUTING THAT CO2 IS A GREENHOUSE GAS.
    I find it strange that you admit CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that we are pumping billions of tons of it into the atmosphere yet you believe we should ignore the warning of the majority of climate scientists that it poses a grave threat to us .

    Well any further responses will have to wait till after the weekend.
  

  
 

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Is global warming true?
    By mrcoolboy15 in forum General Chat
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: 02-16-2007, 10:10 PM
  2. Global Warming Man-Made, Will Continue
    By Jayhawkk in forum News and Articles
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 02-03-2007, 01:07 PM
  3. Global Warming
    By CHAPS in forum General Chat
    Replies: 80
    Last Post: 08-22-2006, 09:02 PM
  4. Global Warming Causes Stronger Hurricanests
    By QUICKRYDE in forum Politics
    Replies: 70
    Last Post: 10-10-2005, 08:49 AM
  5. Debate on the existance of Global Warming
    By kwyckemynd00 in forum Politics
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 09-06-2005, 06:49 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Log in
Log in