(Close Window)
Topic: New Report on Global Warming
Message: Posted by: Pop Haydn (Sep 27, 2013 01:10PM)
"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in the report that it is “extremely likely” human beings are the main drivers for the rise in temperatures recorded around the world over the last 50 years — the strongest words the panel has used to describe the effect humans are having on the planet.

“Continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further global warming and changes in all components of the climate system,” the IPCC report said. “Limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.”

"More rain could pour down over tropical areas, and monsoon seasons could expand to include larger areas, striking earlier and lasting longer, according to the report. It is “virtually certain” that sea levels will continue to rise through the end of this century and beyond, and they said it is likely that the heat waves have become more frequent across swaths of Europe, Asia, and Australia.

“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia,” the researchers wrote in the report. “The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amount of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased.”

-- http://www.nbcnews.com/science/extremely-likely-top-scientists-blame-mankind-more-clearly-ever-global-8C11274530
Message: Posted by: silvercup (Sep 27, 2013 01:16PM)
Extremely likely. Is that like almost could be true?
Message: Posted by: Marlin1894 (Sep 27, 2013 01:20PM)
On Friday the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change delivers its latest verdict on the state of man-made global warming. Though the details are a secret, one thing is clear: the version of events you will see and hear in much of the media, especially from partis pris organisations like the BBC, will be the opposite of what the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report actually says.

Already we have had a taste of the nonsense to come: a pre-announcement to the effect that “climate scientists” are now “95 per cent certain” that humans are to blame for climate change; an evidence-free declaration by the economist who wrote the discredited Stern Report that the computer models cited by the IPCC “substantially underestimate” the scale of the problem; a statement by the panel’s chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, that “the scientific evidence of… climate change has strengthened year after year”. As an exercise in bravura spin, these claims are up there with Churchill’s attempts to reinvent the British Expeditionary Force’s humiliating retreat from Dunkirk as a victory. In truth, though, the new report offers scant consolation to those many alarmists whose careers depend on talking up the threat. It says not that they are winning the war to persuade the world of the case for catastrophic anthropogenic climate change – but that the battle is all but lost.

At the heart of the problem lie the computer models which, for 25 years, have formed the basis for the IPCC’s scaremongering: they predicted runaway global warming, when the real rise in temperatures has been much more modest. So modest, indeed, that it has fallen outside the lowest parameters of the IPCC’s prediction range. The computer models, in short, are bunk.

To a few distinguished scientists, this will hardly come as news. For years they have insisted that “sensitivity” – the degree to which the climate responds to increases in atmospheric CO₂ – is far lower than the computer models imagined. In the past, their voices have been suppressed by the bluster and skulduggery we saw exposed in the Climategate emails. From grant-hungry science institutions and environmentalist pressure groups to carbon traders, EU commissars, and big businesses with their snouts in the subsidies trough, many vested interests have much to lose should the global warming gravy train be derailed.

This is why the latest Assessment Report is proving such a headache to the IPCC. It’s the first in its history to admit what its critics have said for years: global warming did “pause” unexpectedly in 1998 and shows no sign of resuming. And, other than an ad hoc new theory about the missing heat having been absorbed by the deep ocean, it cannot come up with a convincing explanation why. Coming from a sceptical blog none of this would be surprising. But from the IPCC, it’s dynamite: the equivalent of the Soviet politburo announcing that command economies may not after all be the most efficient way of allocating resources.

Which leaves the IPCC in a dilemma: does it ’fess up and effectively put itself out of business? Or does it brazen it out for a few more years, in the hope that a compliant media and an eco-brainwashed populace will be too stupid to notice? So far, it looks as if it prefers the second option – a high-risk strategy. Gone are the days when all anybody read of its Assessment Reports were the sexed-up “Summary for Policymakers”. Today, thanks to the internet, sceptical inquirers such as Donna Laframboise (who revealed that some 40 per cent of the IPCC’s papers came not from peer-reviewed journals but from Greenpeace and WWF propaganda) will be going through every chapter with a fine tooth comb.

Al Gore’s “consensus” is about to be holed below the water-line – and those still aboard the SS Global Warming are adjusting their positions. Some, such as scientist Judith Curry of Georgia Tech, have abandoned ship. She describes the IPCC’s stance as “incomprehensible”. Others, such as the EU’s Climate Commissioner, Connie Hedegaard, steam on oblivious. Interviewed last week by the Telegraph’s Bruno Waterfield, she said: “Let’s say that science, some decades from now, said: 'We were wrong, it was not about climate’, would it not in any case have been good to do many of the things you have to do in order to combat climate change?” If she means needlessly driving up energy prices, carpeting the countryside with wind turbines and terrifying children about a problem that turns out to have been imaginary, then most of us would probably answer “No”.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100238047/global-warming-believers-are-feeling-the-heat/
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Sep 27, 2013 01:39PM)
The social question has never been about climate change or the importance of energy efficiency to our future, but rather the extent to which a change in our activities can undo unhealthy climate instabilities and what the developing world will use instead of the carbon burning methods used in the prior two centuries. More to the point, if they want to burn oil and coal, what are we willing to do to them to prevent them from putting more carbon into the atmosphere?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Sep 27, 2013 01:46PM)
[quote]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100238047/global-warming-believers-are-feeling-the-heat/
[/quote]

AFAIK James Delingpole has never taken a single university-level course in mathematics or science. He does have a degree in English Literature.

Why in the world would his opinion on mathematical models be worth anything better than lining a birdcage?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 27, 2013 03:36PM)
Well with that degree he is the most qualified to write an interesting version of history! LOL.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Sep 27, 2013 03:38PM)
Why do climate change deniers keep sounding more and more like wacky conspiracy theorists?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 27, 2013 03:46PM)
Seriously? Now name calling is what you have? Seriously? It has sunk that low? Name calling is now the way to go?

First attack the messenger, but Bob says that is bad unless you need to do it for your own argument. Then name calling? All in the first few posts of the page? Wow you guys are losing steam LOL.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Sep 27, 2013 03:52PM)
Yeah, that's why I usually try and avoid these threads. No point in arguing, and there's no fun to be had.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 27, 2013 03:53PM)
NO it doesn't because with the economy being destroyed every passing day there is no room even to implement something even if anyone wanted to.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Sep 27, 2013 04:14PM)
[quote]
On 2013-09-27 16:36, Dannydoyle wrote:
Well with that degree he is the most qualified to write an interesting version of history! LOL.


[/quote]

I figure he could write a sonnet to the polar ice.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 27, 2013 04:16PM)
[quote]
On 2013-09-27 17:14, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-09-27 16:36, Dannydoyle wrote:
Well with that degree he is the most qualified to write an interesting version of history! LOL.


[/quote]

I figure he could write a sonnet to the polar ice.
[/quote]

OHHH THAT was funnier than my post. I am jealous. Nice!
Message: Posted by: Ray Tupper. (Sep 27, 2013 05:57PM)
[quote]
On 2013-09-27 17:14, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-09-27 16:36, Dannydoyle wrote:
Well with that degree he is the most qualified to write an interesting version of history! LOL.


[/quote]

I figure he could write a sonnet to the polar ice.
[/quote]
He could call it..."An ode to an ever expanding mass"....Well, it is bigger this year than the last few.
Don't shoot the messenger John,you know I'm 97% behind the scientists. Bear in mind that they're 95% sure of MMGW..That
means I have more confidence in them than they do of themselves.
No wonder I'm shot to bits.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Sep 27, 2013 07:05PM)
:) Ray. But you are wrong about the polar ice sheets. They are thin and diffuse--the total mass of water continues to decrease.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Sep 27, 2013 09:16PM)
Perhaps when the in coming tide effects traffic patterns in Manhattan we will stop denying that climate change exists. The day that we visit Miami in glass bottom boats is coming and it will be here soon.
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Sep 27, 2013 09:34PM)
[quote]
On 2013-09-27 18:57, Ray Tupper. wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-09-27 17:14, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-09-27 16:36, Dannydoyle wrote:
Well with that degree he is the most qualified to write an interesting version of history! LOL.


[/quote]

I figure he could write a sonnet to the polar ice.
[/quote]
He could call it..."An ode to an ever expanding mass"....Well, it is bigger this year than the last few.
Don't shoot the messenger John,you know I'm 97% behind the scientists. Bear in mind that they're 95% sure of MMGW..That
means I have more confidence in them than they do of themselves.
No wonder I'm shot to bits.
[/quote]

The ice may be "expanding," but is it as thick as it was?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Sep 27, 2013 10:24PM)
No, they're considerably thinner as Magnus already pointed out.

The only "researchers" who deny global warning are those bought and paid for by Big Oil. The world-wide scientific consensus (by ACTUAL scientists) is virtually unanimous. Climate change is real and is significantly the result of human activity.

That's a simple fact.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 27, 2013 10:33PM)
It is also a simple fact that all the hyperbole of Miami under water is BS as well.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 27, 2013 10:57PM)
[quote]
On 2013-09-27 23:24, mastermindreader wrote:
No, they're considerably thinner as Magnus already pointed out.

The only "researchers" who deny global warning are those bought and paid for by Big Oil. The world-wide scientific consensus (by ACTUAL scientists) is virtually unanimous. Climate change is real and is significantly the result of human activity.

That's a simple fact.
[/quote]

Or at least an "extremely (as of today) likely" possibility.
Message: Posted by: Kevin Connolly (Sep 27, 2013 11:01PM)
Hurricane season is very slow again. It must be that Global Warming. Not!
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Sep 27, 2013 11:03PM)
[quote]
On 2013-09-28 00:01, Kevin Connolly wrote:
Hurricane season is very slow again. It must be that Global Warming. Not!
[/quote]

YAWN! Nobody is saying that human activity is the ONLY causal factor.
Message: Posted by: Bob1Dog (Sep 27, 2013 11:25PM)
Yup. :)

Climate change seems inevitable in the course of universal events. For all kinds of reasons acceptable to me. I'm not so arrogant as to portend to believe I know or understand the reason why. Man made? Probably/maybe, contributing (ya'lls can argue that one, I don't really care). God placed us here to use the planet and our minds as He has gifted us, and how do we know the cycles of ice or not aren't part of His plan?

Yup, someday Manhattan may be under water; someday Florida may be under water, and some day my own Delmarva peninsula may be under water. Someday another continent may blow out of the Pacific Ocean. Get over it. Are some of y'all so bold to think you, or better yet governments, can control the planet? Hah. Have fun with [i]that[/i] exercise. :)
Message: Posted by: Chance Wolf (Sep 28, 2013 12:38AM)
Here is my problem with the Global Warming...oops..Climate Change.

If it is truly man made...

No matter how many regulations are passed WITHIN THE USA...
it will make absolutely NO DIFFERENCE.

Why?

Because China, India, Mexico and all the rest of the countries could give a flying rats ass what the Global warming bunch are saying.
They continue to ignore the "facts" or regulations.
And WILL continue no matter how much the activists scream.

American manufacturing is down to level that does not even compete in any fashion compared to the overseas gang.
Our amount of "Greenhouse Gases" are like a drop of water in a very huge pool compared to the BUCKET LOADS poured in by these other countries.

So go ahead and continue to believe that all of your !@#$%ing will make a difference but until good ol Barry and Company put the screws to these countries...
you better prepare for DOOMSDAY...that is if you manage to live for a few more thousand years...or next week depending on who you listen to.

Really think about this point as THAT is what should scare you ( Politicians talking the talk but actually not doing a *** thing to solve the problem)

Anyone out there who can get me a good deal on a HUGE boat??!!
Message: Posted by: Pop Haydn (Sep 28, 2013 01:26AM)
Governments working together were able to effect change on the ozone layer. China and Indonesia and other third world countries may be hardest hit by climate change, and may very well be concerned enough to make international agreements.
Message: Posted by: Pop Haydn (Sep 28, 2013 01:27AM)
Governments working together were able to effect change on the ozone layer. China and Indonesia and other third world countries may be hardest hit by climate change, and may very well be concerned enough to make international agreements.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Sep 28, 2013 02:00AM)
[quote]On 2013-09-27 14:20, Marlin1894 wrote:
. . . sceptical inquirers such as Donna Laframboise . . . .[/quote]
I love this name: Donna the raspberry.

(Not name-calling, Danny. Just translating.)
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 28, 2013 08:02AM)
A fine translation.

I just wish the topic could be discussed and the hyperbole of Miami under water removed and doomsday scenarios gone and the extremes simple thrown out. What do you say to a drone

Problem is that if something MUST BE DONE NOW these are just people who don't care just so it is a big spending program. So where is reason? Again yet another important debate sidetracked by pure ideology. who believes next week you will need a glass bottom boat to visit Miami? There is no discussion to even take place.
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Sep 28, 2013 09:07AM)
[quote]
On 2013-09-27 14:10, Pop Haydn wrote:
"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in the report that it is “extremely likely” human beings are the main drivers for the rise in temperatures recorded around the world over the last 50 years — the strongest words the panel has used to describe the effect humans are having on the planet.

“Continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further global warming and changes in all components of the climate system,” the IPCC report said. “Limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.”

"More rain could pour down over tropical areas, and monsoon seasons could expand to include larger areas, striking earlier and lasting longer, according to the report. It is “virtually certain” that sea levels will continue to rise through the end of this century and beyond, and they said it is likely that the heat waves have become more frequent across swaths of Europe, Asia, and Australia.

“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia,” the researchers wrote in the report. “The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amount of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased.”

-- http://www.nbcnews.com/science/extremely-likely-top-scientists-blame-mankind-more-clearly-ever-global-8C11274530

[/quote]

Thanks Pop.

Ron
:)
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Sep 28, 2013 09:22AM)
The sad thing is that when the Koch brothers OWN STUDY surprisingly confirmed AGW, that did't effect their efforts to undermine the science. They simply DON'T CARE about the effects on the planet - future generations can deal with that. Right now it's all about their profits.
Message: Posted by: Chance Wolf (Sep 28, 2013 09:29AM)
Here is the real truth....
The only "Green" in "Going Green" is MONEY!!!

Ask Al Gore. He got incredibly WEALTHY from his little campaign!
He is a SHAMELESS opportunistic fear mongerer who gets a FREE PASS as a complete hypocrite/Capitalist because he "Cares"...or is a Dem.

Ugh.

The fact is that it about PROFIT no matter what side you are on.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Sep 28, 2013 09:50AM)
[quote]

-- http://www.nbcnews.com/science/extremely-likely-top-scientists-blame-mankind-more-clearly-ever-global-8C11274530

[/quote]

AFAIK Matthew DeLuca has never taken a single university-level course in mathematics or science. He is a staff writer for NBC News.

Why in the world would anything he writes about the IPCC be worth anything better than lining a birdcage?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Sep 28, 2013 09:54AM)
Maybe because he was reporting on the contents of the IPCC report and not on his own research? Kind of obvious, don't you think?

Your post shows more desperation than irony.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Sep 28, 2013 09:58AM)
Bob hit the nail on the head. Big difference between a reporting on the contents of a document and offering critique or commentary.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Sep 28, 2013 09:59AM)
It appears that James Delingpole was also reporting on the contents of the IPCC report. I didn't see anything in the quote that indicated he had done his own research.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Sep 28, 2013 10:01AM)
Delingpole was using his own scientifically uninformed opinion to discredit the report. That is quite different from simply reporting on its content.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Sep 28, 2013 10:05AM)
[quote]
On 2013-09-28 10:59, rockwall wrote:
It appears that James Delingpole was also reporting on the contents of the IPCC report. I didn't see anything in the quote that indicated he had done his own research.
[/quote]

Here are a couple of excerpts from Delingpole:

[quote]At the heart of the problem lie the computer models which, for 25 years, have formed the basis for the IPCC’s scaremongering: they predicted runaway global warming, when the real rise in temperatures has been much more modest. So modest, indeed, that it has fallen outside the lowest parameters of the IPCC’s prediction range. The computer models, in short, are bunk.[/quote]

[quote]global warming did “pause” unexpectedly in 1998 and shows no sign of resuming. And, other than an ad hoc new theory about the missing heat having been absorbed by the deep ocean, it cannot come up with a convincing explanation why.[/quote]

[quote]Which leaves the IPCC in a dilemma: does it ’fess up and effectively put itself out of business? Or does it brazen it out for a few more years, in the hope that a compliant media and an eco-brainwashed populace will be too stupid to notice? So far, it looks as if it prefers the second option – a high-risk strategy. Gone are the days when all anybody read of its Assessment Reports were the sexed-up “Summary for Policymakers”. [/quote]

Delingpole has gone beyond reporting, and has moved to the area of critique. He somehow knows that the models are "bunk"--he never says how he knows that. He accuses IPCC of "ad hoc theory"--but he provides no evidence for this conclusion. He definitely thinks that the IPCC should confess its sins and stop reporting, but again, provides no cogent rationale for this position. In short, he is making scientific conclusions that he (apparently) has no grounds to make.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Sep 28, 2013 10:06AM)
And Matthew DeLuca was using his own scientifically uninformed opinion to only report on the pieces that supported that opinion while avoiding reporting on any of the inconvenient portions within the report.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 28, 2013 10:08AM)
Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz and a whole lot of people on MSNBC do exactly the whole I am going to discredit it by acting smarmy and arrogant and it does not seem to bother liberals.

Is it only a problem when people you disagree with do it?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Sep 28, 2013 10:10AM)
[quote]
On 2013-09-28 11:06, rockwall wrote:
And Matthew DeLuca was using his own scientifically uninformed opinion to only report on the pieces that supported that opinion while avoiding reporting on any of the inconvenient portions within the report.
[/quote]

Where does DeLuca editorialize or offer a scientific opinion?
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Sep 28, 2013 10:21AM)
[quote]
On 2013-09-28 11:10, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-09-28 11:06, rockwall wrote:
And Matthew DeLuca was using his own scientifically uninformed opinion to only report on the pieces that supported that opinion while avoiding reporting on any of the inconvenient portions within the report.
[/quote]

Where does DeLuca editorialize or offer a scientific opinion?
[/quote]

Where did I say that he did?
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Sep 28, 2013 10:25AM)
http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/09/28/mit-climate-scientist-dr-richard-lindzen-rips-un-ipcc-report-the-latest-ipcc-report-has-truly-sunk-to-level-of-hilarious-incoherence-it-is-quite-amazing-to-see-the-contortions-the-ipcc-has/

"I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence. They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase."

"Finally, in attributing warming to man, they fail to point out that the warming has been small, and totally consistent with there being nothing to be alarmed about. It is quite amazing to see the contortions the IPCC has to go through in order to keep the international climate agenda going."

Now, maybe you can tell me why we should have want to do anything other than line our bird cages with anything Dr. Richard Lindzen has to say.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Sep 28, 2013 10:28AM)
Care to comment on the Koch brothers study?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Sep 28, 2013 10:30AM)
Danny-

How can you say that about Rachel Maddow? You already conceded in another thread that you don't watch "ole Rachel." Do you really watch Ed Schultz?
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Sep 28, 2013 10:38AM)
[quote]
On 2013-09-28 11:28, mastermindreader wrote:
Care to comment on the Koch brothers study?
[/quote]

Why would you or I do anything other than line our bird cages with a study done by the Koch brothers?

Care to comment on Dr. Richard Lindzen's comments?
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Sep 28, 2013 10:43AM)
http://www.thegwpf.org/ipcc-sausage-factory-95-figure-meat/

"Reporter: I’m hoping you can answer a question about the upcoming IPCC report. When the report states that scientists are “95 percent certain” that human activities are largely to cause for global warming, what does that mean? How is 95 percent calculated? What is the basis for it? And if the certainty rate has risen from 90 n 2007 to 95 percent now, does that mean that the likelihood of something is greater? Or that scientists are just more certain? And is there a difference?

Judith Curry: The 95% is basically expert judgment, it is a negotiated figure among the authors. The increase from 90-95% means that they are more certain. How they can justify this is beyond me.

Reporter: You mean they sit around and say, “How certain are you?” ”Oh, I feel about 95 percent certain. Michael over there at Penn State feels a little more certain. And Judy at Georgia Tech feels a little less. So, yeah, overall I’d say we’re about 95 percent certain.” Please tell me it’s more rigorous than that.

JC: Well I wasn’t in the room, but last report they said 90%, and perhaps they felt it was appropriate or politic that they show progress and up it to 95%.

Reporter: So it really is as subjective as that?

JC: As far as I know, this is what goes on. All this has never been documented."

Maybe Bob or Magnus can show us where the IPCC documents how they come up with the 95% number? Judith was nice enough not to just say that they pulled it out of their you know what's.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Sep 28, 2013 10:55AM)
Rockwall.

1. I cannot comment on Lindzen or Curry because I a) haven't seen their detailed arguments and b) I probably don't know enough climate science to have an informed opinion. They are a qualified and educated minority. I can't comment on the detailed arguments of the vast majority of climatologists who disagree with Lindzen and Curry. It is simple dishonesty to pick one or two whose conclusions I like and say that they must the ones with the best science.

2. Um, you do know that the IPCC documents are due to be released on Monday, don't you? Unlike the psychic Delingpole, I cannot read what isn't yet released.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 28, 2013 10:59AM)
[quote]
On 2013-09-28 11:30, mastermindreader wrote:
Danny-

How can you say that about Rachel Maddow? You already conceded in another thread that you don't watch "ole Rachel." Do you really watch Ed Schultz?
[/quote]

Am I wrong?
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Sep 28, 2013 11:02AM)
Rockwall was a much nicer guy when he refused to discuss controversial subjects.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Sep 28, 2013 11:03AM)
1. Judith Curry has an excellent blog here: http://judithcurry.com/, which you should take a look at. Quite thought provoking. You might especially enjoy this blog entry: http://judithcurry.com/2013/08/20/scientists-and-motivated-reasoning/


2. No, I didn't. I thought they were released yesterday. I've certainly seen plenty of direct quotes from them to indicate they had been released.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Sep 28, 2013 11:03AM)
[quote]
On 2013-09-28 12:02, Al Angello wrote:
Rockwall was a much nicer guy when he refused to discuss controversial subjects.
[/quote]

And that's where we're different Al. I never thought you were a nicer guy.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Sep 28, 2013 11:14AM)
Rockwall
The giant chip on your shoulder makes you walk with a limp. LOL
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 28, 2013 11:18AM)
Al you are the one always calling names at people you disagree with. YOU have the little man chip on your shoulder.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Sep 28, 2013 11:23AM)
If you don't want to believe James Delingpole, or Judith Curry or Dr. Richard Lindzen, then I suggest you listen to George Carlin's comments on the IPCC report. ;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Sep 28, 2013 11:25AM)
It's true. There are a handful of scientists in various disciplines, including climatology, who have published articles saying that AGW is a myth or that its models are seriously flawed. They are regularly cited as authoritative by those seeking to debunk AGW.

It is also true that there are a handful of scientists in almost every discipline, who have published articles or given interviews in which they've "authoritatively stated" that tobacco is harmless, that 9/11 was an inside job and that there are secret colonies on the dark side of the Moon.

They, too, are regularly cited as "authoritative" by conspiracy theorists.

Personally, I put a little more faith in a world wide scientific consensus that I do in reports from the fringes.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Sep 28, 2013 11:30AM)
You can always count on Danny to rear his ugly head whenever he gets a chance to insult me. I draw these uptight people like fly's. I guess it's because they resent my joie de vive. LOL
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 28, 2013 11:30AM)
EXCUSE ME Bob but I have been on one of those secret colonies.

Problem is the ONLY album we were allowed to play was Pink Floyds Dark Side of the Moon. Great album but after a few decades it gets tiresome!
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 28, 2013 11:31AM)
[quote]
On 2013-09-28 12:30, Al Angello wrote:
You can always count on Danny to rear his ugly head whenever he gets a chance to insult me. I draw these uptight people like fly's. I guess it's because they resent my joie de vive. LOL
[/quote]

Al it is when YOU start calling names and when you say things about others having a chip on their shoulder. I just keep hoping you look in the mirror. Hope springs eternal.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Sep 28, 2013 11:40AM)
Yes mother
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Sep 28, 2013 12:10PM)
FWIW Lindzen has also publicly argued that no link between smoking and lung cancer has yet been shown. Interesting fellow.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Sep 28, 2013 12:33PM)
Sounds like one of the Heritage foundation "researchers" who provided faux "studies" about smoking to their employers at the tobacco industry.

It always comes down to "follow the money." The reason big oil funds anti-AGW propaganda is because the reality of AGW would require corrective measures that would cut into their profit margins. So they finance bogus research, attempt to discredit mainstream science, and create phony grass-roots movements to divert attention from their actual agenda.

When they inadvertently fund a study that actually CONFIRMS AGW (as happened to the Koch brothers), they simply act as if the study never happened.

If we didn't currently have a House majority that actively promotes scientific illiteracy, we'd be better able to develop constructive solutions to the problem. Simply pretending it doesn't exist just allows the Kochs and their ilk to continue to line their corporate pockets while destroying the environment.
Message: Posted by: silvercup (Sep 28, 2013 12:37PM)
Destroy is a big word, the planet is bigger.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Sep 28, 2013 12:46PM)
[quote]On 2013-09-28 09:02, Dannydoyle wrote:
A fine translation.[/quote]
I just don't understand how anyone can discount a position on global warming when the chief spokeswoman was named after an Otter Pop.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Sep 28, 2013 12:49PM)
[quote]
On 2013-09-28 13:33, mastermindreader wrote:
It always comes down to "follow the money."

[/quote]

Absolutely agree. And of course there is BILLIONS more being spent on 'studying' and 'proving' AGW than on anything else. Thanks for making my point.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 28, 2013 01:11PM)
Bob you keep making that tobacco reference from what 40 years ago?
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Sep 28, 2013 06:56PM)
[quote]
On 2013-09-28 13:10, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
FWIW Lindzen has also publicly argued that no link between smoking and lung cancer has yet been shown. Interesting fellow.
[/quote]

And he was also a lead author of Chapter 7, 'Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,' of the IPCC Third Assessment Report on climate change. Go figure.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Sep 28, 2013 06:57PM)
[quote]
On 2013-09-28 13:49, rockwall wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-09-28 13:33, mastermindreader wrote:
It always comes down to "follow the money."

[/quote]

Absolutely agree. And of course there is BILLIONS more being spent on 'studying' and 'proving' AGW than on anything else. Thanks for making my point.
[/quote]

Actually, most of the money has been coming from Koch and industry people. Universities are generally non-profit.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Sep 28, 2013 06:59PM)
[quote]
On 2013-09-28 14:11, Dannydoyle wrote:
Bob you keep making that tobacco reference from what 40 years ago?


[/quote]

Not really. Heritage was putting out crap tobacco "research" as late as the 1990's. They work for the highest corporate bidder. At the time it was Big Tobacco. Today it's Big Oil. Same stuff, different day.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Sep 28, 2013 07:02PM)
[quote]
On 2013-09-28 13:37, silvercup wrote:
Destroy is a big word, the planet is bigger.
[/quote]
Are you in the camp that says the world is too big for us to damage? Or the camp which holds that God won't let us?

Do you believe that we have any responsibilities at all to our planet and environment?
Message: Posted by: Theodore Lawton (Sep 28, 2013 07:20PM)
[quote]
On 2013-09-28 13:46, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On 2013-09-28 09:02, Dannydoyle wrote:
A fine translation.[/quote]
I just don't understand how anyone can discount a position on global warming when the chief spokeswoman was named after an Otter Pop.
[/quote]

Lol! I love it. At least she wasn't named Strawberry Short Kook.
Message: Posted by: saysold1 (Sep 28, 2013 07:28PM)
I am kinda new to this area of the Café but I just want to say that Bob Cassidy is my friggen hero!!!

The truth will set you free baby.

Now I'm gonna go watch Billy Jack on my VCR... another here with a cool hat :)
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 28, 2013 08:18PM)
So this is one of the times it is ok to attack the messenger?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Sep 28, 2013 08:30PM)
[quote]
On 2013-09-28 19:56, rockwall wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-09-28 13:10, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
FWIW Lindzen has also publicly argued that no link between smoking and lung cancer has yet been shown. Interesting fellow.
[/quote]

And he was also a lead author of Chapter 7, 'Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,' of the IPCC Third Assessment Report on climate change. Go figure.
[/quote]

From what little I've read, he quite enjoys attention.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Sep 28, 2013 08:40PM)
[quote]
On 2013-09-28 21:18, Dannydoyle wrote:
So this is one of the times it is ok to attack the messenger?
[/quote]

Apparently so. The ICPP hasn't even issued its full report yet and already it's being attacked by the anti-AGW extremists and Big Oil lackeys.
Message: Posted by: saysold1 (Sep 28, 2013 08:51PM)
Common sense indicates that global warning is a reality - as does the majority scientific community.

Reinventing the entire universe is something the GOP is great at doing.

Lets dumb everyone down - lets dumb kids down especially - so that corporate American can enjoy the "free" market.

Hey, I'm sure there are some scientists out there that could testify in court (for a fee of course) that smoking doesn't cause lung cancer.

Is American a better place where everyone should be dumbed down?

Global warming isn't real.

Obamacare = death panels.

Obama is a job killer (he lies!).

Lowering taxes even more for the corporations & wealthy will increase job hiring (many corporations pay no taxes anyway)

Food stamps are a freeloader giveaway (you try to live on $4.50 of food a day)

On and on... the sky is always changing colors when the GOP and their followers interpret the data.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 28, 2013 08:54PM)
There's a difference between global warming and Global Warming.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Sep 28, 2013 09:34PM)
[quote]
On 2013-09-28 21:54, LobowolfXXX wrote:
There's a difference between global warming and Global Warming.
[/quote]

Perhaps not for those who are certain their beliefs should be accepted as truth with a capital t - who sometimes even express their confidence in capital letters, highlighter and rhetoric that presupposes more than persuades.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Sep 28, 2013 09:51PM)
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-business/need-an-elegant-antidote-to-global-warming-look-to-bc/article14585503/

[T]here is an efficient, fair way to reduce carbon footprints without throwing economies into reverse. It is one that is not impossibly complicated and prone to abuse like carbon-credit trading, or based on command-and-control regulations, such as milking taxpayers to subsidize renewable energy. It is carbon taxes. They are quietly being introduced by governments in North America, Europe and Asia, although not quickly enough. Given their relative simplicity and effectiveness, they ought to be ubiquitous.

More than a few prominent scientists and economists, among them Paul Ekins, director of the Institute for Sustainable Resources at University College of London, and Stewart Elgie of the University of Ottawa, think British Columbia’s carbon tax is a fine model. “The design of that carbon tax was the best in the world,” Mr. Ekins said in an interview.

The B.C. carbon tax applies to all fuels, from gasoline to propane, at the point of sale. It was launched in July, 2008 as the main effort in the province’s campaign to drop emissions by one-third by 2020. The tax was designed to be “revenue neutral” – that is, all the income it raised would be offset by reduced taxes elsewhere – and it was introduced gradually. By 2012, the tax per litre of gasoline was seven cents.

A study led by Mr. Elgie found that in the first four years of the carbon tax, B.C. fuel consumption fell 17.4 per cent per capita, and 18.8 per cent compared with the rest of Canada. In the first three years, the province’s greenhouse gas emissions fell 11 per cent (more recent data are not available). If all this were not good enough, B.C.’s economy did not get clobbered, either. Since the tax was introduced, its gross domestic product has kept pace with the rest of Canada.

The tax does not take an army of bureaucrats to administer and was relatively cheap to introduce. It went from concept to reality in a mere five months.

The IPCC report will receive a barrage of criticism from the climate-change skeptics. They will dismiss the report as a fraud or a hoax because of the declining rate of warming; never mind that the planet is warming. They will ignore the data that reveal an alarming increase in natural catastrophes, such as floods. They will condemn carbon taxes as yet another tax grab, even if they are revenue neutral. B.C.’s fine example of a tax that helps the planet, yet neither hurts taxpayers nor growth, will fail to sway them.

[More at the link.]
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Sep 28, 2013 10:01PM)
[quote]
On 2013-09-28 19:57, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-09-28 13:49, rockwall wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-09-28 13:33, mastermindreader wrote:
It always comes down to "follow the money."

[/quote]

Absolutely agree. And of course there is BILLIONS more being spent on 'studying' and 'proving' AGW than on anything else. Thanks for making my point.
[/quote]

Actually, most of the money has been coming from Koch and industry people. Universities are generally non-profit.
[/quote]

Not even in the same ball park Bob. And I would have thought you were smart enough to realize that.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/08/23/the-alarming-cost-of-climate-change-hysteria/

"According to the GAO, annual federal climate spending has increased from $4.6 billion in 2003 to $8.8 billion in 2010, amounting to $106.7 billion over that period. " And that's just in the US!

Yes, please follow the money.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Sep 28, 2013 10:05PM)
Well if we're going to start making snide comments like "I thought you were smart enough...", I see no point in responding. You pay little attention to facts or science anyway.

Ask the Kochs where their money goes.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Sep 28, 2013 10:09PM)
[quote]
On 2013-09-28 21:40, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-09-28 21:18, Dannydoyle wrote:
So this is one of the times it is ok to attack the messenger?
[/quote]

Apparently so. The ICPP hasn't even issued its full report yet and already it's being attacked by the anti-AGW extremists and Big Oil lackeys.
[/quote]

Apparently so. The ICPP hasn't even issued its full report yet and already we're getting news articles claiming how much worse it is than we thought. (See the OP if you somehow missed it.)

Of course in Bob's mind it's OK to quote the report that hasn't been released if it supports his beliefs but not to comment on it if it doesn't. Hypocritical any?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 28, 2013 10:10PM)
If we all agreed that there were no global warming, climate researchers would be largely irrelevant and research grants would dry up. Also, those who stand to benefit from the "million green jobs" would take a hit, too. So it's not like there's a dearth of financial incentives on either side.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Sep 28, 2013 10:26PM)
If you do any research at all, you find all kinds of quotes on how the terrible Kochs are spending MILLIONS supporting climate denial. (Oh dear me! Millions!) That's a drop in the bucket compared to the BILLIONS and BILLIONS being spent by just the US Gov on Climate change.

(For those of you who may be math challenged, a Billion is 1000 times bigger than a Million.)
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Sep 29, 2013 11:30AM)
I can't help but think that if all warmists had this guys convictions, how much better the world would be. :)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2436551/A-weatherman-breaks-tears-vows-NEVER-fly-grim-climate-change-report.html
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Sep 29, 2013 01:14PM)
[quote]
On 2013-09-27 14:16, silvercup wrote:
Extremely likely. Is that like almost could be true?
[/quote]

No, it's science speak. Nothing is ever 100% is science speak.
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Sep 29, 2013 01:23PM)
[quote]
On 2013-09-28 10:29, Chance Wolf wrote:
Here is the real truth....
The only "Green" in "Going Green" is MONEY!!!

Ask Al Gore. He got incredibly WEALTHY from his little campaign!
He is a SHAMELESS opportunistic fear mongerer who gets a FREE PASS as a complete hypocrite/Capitalist because he "Cares"...or is a Dem.

Ugh.

The fact is that it about PROFIT no matter what side you are on.
[/quote]

Granted "going green" did not become popular until it went mainstream and someone figured out a way to make a profit off of it.

Having said that. I'm in favor of anything that takes us away from the 60's period when people were advised to stay indoors because the air was unfit to breath and a river caught on fire!
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Sep 29, 2013 01:23PM)
[quote]
On 2013-09-29 12:30, rockwall wrote:
I can't help but think that if all warmists had this guys convictions, how much better the world would be. :)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2436551/A-weatherman-breaks-tears-vows-NEVER-fly-grim-climate-change-report.html


[/quote]

Better yet if people would just get up and do small things. If we can ban CFCs and save the ozone layer, clean up lakes and rivers, put emission controls on factories, get lead out of gasoline, why are so many people whining that being responsible will be the death of the world economy.

It's absolutely bizarre.
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Sep 29, 2013 01:34PM)
[quote]
On 2013-09-28 11:25, rockwall wrote:
http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/09/28/mit-climate-scientist-dr-richard-lindzen-rips-un-ipcc-report-the-latest-ipcc-report-has-truly-sunk-to-level-of-hilarious-incoherence-it-is-quite-amazing-to-see-the-contortions-the-ipcc-has/

"I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence. They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase."

"Finally, in attributing warming to man, they fail to point out that the warming has been small, and totally consistent with there being nothing to be alarmed about. It is quite amazing to see the contortions the IPCC has to go through in order to keep the international climate agenda going."

Now, maybe you can tell me why we should have want to do anything other than line our bird cages with anything Dr. Richard Lindzen has to say.
[/quote]

"95%" means that there's 5% that doesn't agree. They're not stupid. They're not uninformed. They've just taken the information and seen it in a different way. They might be right (although I doubt it) or for all their intelligence and training, they have chosen to wear cultural blinders and deny what's inconvient for them.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Sep 29, 2013 01:35PM)
It's more than bizarre. It's a perfect example of corporate greed trumping common sense and sanity.
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Sep 29, 2013 03:18PM)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zASFErF8aMc

Ron
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 29, 2013 03:23PM)
Now John lets at least add perspective.

There is a very vocal crowd tangled up with the warming movement who would love nothing more than to plunge America back to not being a super power. They may be an extreme but are in power. (In power within the movement that is.) They want to do things like the cap and trade scheme that would tremendously adversely impact America question about it.

So while doing little things is very important it is the history of government to creep in and take little by little and suddenly you are down the rabbit hole. For those of you with a political bend to like government this does not bother you in the least. Those who do not think it should be ever expanding need more pragmatic solutions and not the earth will end on Tuesday if we don't do SOMETHING.

I think the hyperbole needs to be removed from the discussion. The doomsday scenarios from everyone on all sides. Als bs about Miami under water. The scary economic collapse claims. Stop it all and discuss.

Till this happens we are nowhere.

Point is remarkable things can be done. We have a river near me in Arkansas. Pristine in parts, logging camps near it. But in the 60s they wanted to add two dams. It would have drown trees, stopped water falls, covered up caves and so forth. They never let them do it even when on a building spree. People got together and the river is better for it. Lake Erie is a prime example of reversing irreversible damage when people just put aside hyperbole and do what needs to be done.
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Sep 30, 2013 04:52AM)
[quote]
On 2013-09-29 16:23, Dannydoyle wrote:

There is a very vocal crowd tangled up with the warming movement who would love nothing more than to plunge America back to not being a super power.
[/quote]

[quote]
I think the hyperbole needs to be removed from the discussion.
[/quote]
Message: Posted by: RNK (Sep 30, 2013 07:28AM)
For those that missed this- from 2012 to 2013 the Artic Ice cap has INCREASED 60%. They showed a satellite picture of the increased area of coverage of the ice. Come on guys- wake up. Further- in my graduate studies I had a paleoclimatology class- my professor was a world known paleoclimatologist- and lets just say she laughed at the notion of Global Warming. Actually the overall trend in the past 15 years indicates a cooling period. Now- you may be one of those nuts that say ,"It's because of Global Warming we are getting colder". Which I have had people say to me. When they say that I know it's time to turn around and just walk away!

RNK
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Sep 30, 2013 07:41AM)
RNK I'm not sure who your professor is/was, but the polar ice is constantly being monitored and the scientists on the job have reached a rather different conclusion.

The Polar ice typically reaches its annual minimum in the Arctic and maximum in the Antarctic around the Autumn Equinox (the end of September). According to the [url=http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/]National Snow and Ice Data Center[/url],

[quote]On September 13, 2013, sea ice extent dropped to 5.10 million square kilometers (1.97 million square miles). This appears to have been the lowest extent of the year. In response to the setting sun and falling temperatures, ice extent will now climb through autumn and winter. However, a shift in wind patterns or a period of late season melt could still push the ice extent lower. The minimum extent was reached two days earlier than the 1981 to 2010 average minimum date of September 15.[/quote]

This year's minimum Arctic Extent is higher than 2012, as you note. In fact it is higher than 2010 or 2011, in spite of being the 6th lowest on record. And the 5 lower exents all occurred in the past 7 years.
Message: Posted by: RNK (Sep 30, 2013 07:57AM)
"She pointed to long-term cycles in ocean temperature, which have a huge influence on climate and suggest the world may be approaching a period similar to that from 1965 to 1975, when there was a clear cooling trend. This led some scientists at the time to forecast an imminent ice age.

Professor Anastasios Tsonis, of the University of Wisconsin, was one of the first to investigate the ocean cycles. He said: ‘We are already in a cooling trend, which I think will continue for the next 15 years at least. There is no doubt the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped."


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/And-global-COOLING-Return-Arctic-ice-cap-grows-29-year.html#ixzz2gNbDo4qP
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter |DailyMail on Facebook

Another one: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/092413-672356-arctic-ice-cap-grows-60-percent.htm

Another one: And as this article says- do your own research and see! http://www.policymic.com/articles/3824/a-really-inconvenient-truth-global-warming-is-not-real
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Sep 30, 2013 09:23AM)
So my scientific link is "refuted" by the Daily Mail, Investor's Business Daily, and Polymic ("News for Millennials")? Seriously?

Your three articles all note that the Arctic sea ice has grown since this time last year. Do any of them mention that last year had the smallest ice sheet on record? Growing from the smallest on record is good, but is hardly an indication that there are no troubles.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 30, 2013 11:51AM)
[quote]
On 2013-09-30 05:52, R.S. wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-09-29 16:23, Dannydoyle wrote:

There is a very vocal crowd tangled up with the warming movement who would love nothing more than to plunge America back to not being a super power.
[/quote]

[quote]
I think the hyperbole needs to be removed from the discussion.
[/quote]



[/quote]

Show me where there is not a vocal group like that and it is hyperbole. Till then it is a statement of fact.
Message: Posted by: Kune (Oct 1, 2013 02:08PM)
Personally I was 90% certain global warming was going to kills us all by the year 2012. Now I'm 95% certain.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Oct 2, 2013 08:55PM)
[quote]
On 2013-09-29 14:34, ed rhodes wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-09-28 11:25, rockwall wrote:
http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/09/28/mit-climate-scientist-dr-richard-lindzen-rips-un-ipcc-report-the-latest-ipcc-report-has-truly-sunk-to-level-of-hilarious-incoherence-it-is-quite-amazing-to-see-the-contortions-the-ipcc-has/

"I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence. They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase."

"Finally, in attributing warming to man, they fail to point out that the warming has been small, and totally consistent with there being nothing to be alarmed about. It is quite amazing to see the contortions the IPCC has to go through in order to keep the international climate agenda going."

Now, maybe you can tell me why we should have want to do anything other than line our bird cages with anything Dr. Richard Lindzen has to say.
[/quote]

"95%" means that there's 5% that doesn't agree. They're not stupid. They're not uninformed. They've just taken the information and seen it in a different way. They might be right (although I doubt it) or for all their intelligence and training, they have chosen to wear cultural blinders and deny what's inconvient for them.
[/quote]

"95% means that there's 5% that doesn't agree."

Actually, no. That's not what it means at all. But don't believe me, have Magnus explain it to you.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Oct 2, 2013 10:53PM)
It means if I agree with the 95% I don't have to bother thinking.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 3, 2013 07:39AM)
BTW the [url=http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/]full report[/url] is now available. I'll give it a light read over the next couple of weeks.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Oct 3, 2013 11:51AM)
[quote]
On 2013-09-28 11:55, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Rockwall.

1. I cannot comment on Lindzen or Curry because I a) haven't seen their detailed arguments and b) I probably don't know enough climate science to have an informed opinion. They are a qualified and educated minority. I can't comment on the detailed arguments of the vast majority of climatologists who disagree with Lindzen and Curry. It is simple dishonesty to pick one or two whose conclusions I like and say that they must the ones with the best science.

2. Um, you do know that the IPCC documents are due to be released on Monday, don't you? Unlike the psychic Delingpole, I cannot read what isn't yet released.
[/quote]

[quote]
On 2013-10-03 08:39, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
BTW the [url=http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/]full report[/url] is now available. I'll give it a light read over the next couple of weeks.
[/quote]

I can't help but wonder, what would be the point?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 3, 2013 11:53AM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-03 12:51, rockwall wrote:
I can't help but wonder, what would be the point?
[/quote]

To learn.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Oct 3, 2013 12:02PM)
Why is it totally unsurprising that the most vehement deniers of science would see no point in even bothering to read the report?

Facts and evidence don't matter to those who have already made up their minds.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Oct 3, 2013 12:03PM)
So, I'm curious. Do you read anything by Curry or other scientists who disagree or do you just avoid it since they are in the minority and you aren't knowledgeable enough to refute what they post anyway so why bother?
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Oct 3, 2013 12:04PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-03 13:02, mastermindreader wrote:
Why is it totally unsurprising that the most vehement deniers of science would see no point in even bothering to read the report?

Facts and evidence don't matter to those who have already made up their minds.
[/quote]

That wasn't my point at all Bob. If you want to read both posts that I quoted, you might be able to follow what I was getting at. Then again, this may just turn into another back and forth like we had on health care where it took you 3 or 4 posts before you realized that you were completely missing my point.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 3, 2013 12:13PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-03 13:03, rockwall wrote:
So, I'm curious. Do you read anything by Curry or other scientists who disagree or do you just avoid it since they are in the minority and you aren't knowledgeable enough to refute what they post anyway so why bother?
[/quote]

Talking to me? I read Roy Spencer when Danny brought him up. I have done a bit of reading about Curry, and I have read quite a bit of her blog since your brought her name up. I haven't looked into her scholarly work yet.

Life is too short to read everything. In this case, it's best to understand what the mainstream is saying in the main policy document before reading what the critics have to say about it. I read a lot, but I certainly can't read everything.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Oct 3, 2013 12:56PM)
Thanks for the reply. I really was curious and I'm glad you've read some of what Curry has had to say. And if you were at all curious, I too like to read opposing views. I often find strong AND weak arguments on both sides.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Oct 3, 2013 03:18PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-03 13:02, mastermindreader wrote:
Why is it totally unsurprising that the most vehement deniers of science would see no point in even bothering to read the report?

Facts and evidence don't matter to those who have already made up their minds.
[/quote]Yes you would like to assign that because it is convenient.

But some of the mental gymnastics you guys do to justify your opinion, and then couch them in "well the science says so" indicate your mind is pretty well made up as well. SO casting aspersions on others for the same behavior is not really cool. Glass houses and all.

But please just smear anyone you feel the need to in spit of saying this is not how to behave. I am sure some mental gymnastic move on your part will justify the behavior in you that you decry in others.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Oct 3, 2013 03:26PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-03 13:02, mastermindreader wrote:
Why is it totally unsurprising that the most vehement deniers of science would see no point in even bothering to read the report?

Facts and evidence don't matter to those who have already made up their minds.
[/quote]

Yes you would like to assign that because it is convenient.

But some of the mental gymnastics you guys do to justify your opinion, and then couch them in "well the science says so" indicate your mind is pretty well made up as well. SO casting aspersions on others for the same behavior is not really cool. Glass houses and all.

But please just smear anyone you feel the need to in spite of saying this is not how to behave. I am sure some mental gymnastic move on your part will justify the behavior in you that you decry in others.
Message: Posted by: GlenD (Oct 6, 2013 05:55PM)
Aren't they affiliated with the Heartland Institute and thereby disqualified from having any credibility whatsoever? We've been informed, quite emphatically that any denying scientists are associated with them and/or evil big oil etc. Has this link not been discovered yet???
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Oct 6, 2013 06:19PM)
You can quote any science denier you want, because in 30 years the beaches will be in different places.
Message: Posted by: saysold1 (Oct 6, 2013 06:24PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-03 16:26, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-10-03 13:02, mastermindreader wrote:
Why is it totally unsurprising that the most vehement deniers of science would see no point in even bothering to read the report?

Facts and evidence don't matter to those who have already made up their minds.
[/quote]

Yes you would like to assign that because it is convenient.

But some of the mental gymnastics you guys do to justify your opinion, and then couch them in "well the science says so" indicate your mind is pretty well made up as well. SO casting aspersions on others for the same behavior is not really cool. Glass houses and all.

But please just smear anyone you feel the need to in spite of saying this is not how to behave. I am sure some mental gymnastic move on your part will justify the behavior in you that you decry in others.
[/quote]

Are you still blubbering a bunch of nonsense here?

Man.
Message: Posted by: saysold1 (Oct 6, 2013 06:31PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-03 13:03, rockwall wrote:
So, I'm curious. Do you read anything by Curry or other scientists who disagree or do you just avoid it since they are in the minority and you aren't knowledgeable enough to refute what they post anyway so why bother?
[/quote]

Science isn't perfect - but when the overwhelming number of scientists - the majority - believe that something is probable, we should all pay attention to it.

I'm no scientist - are you?

I have heard Curry interviewed and having heard her I keep an open mind - scientists should keep an open mind. But...

"Almost all climate scientists agree on the physics of the infrared emission of the CO2 molecule and understand that if all other things remain equal, more CO2 in the atmosphere will have a warming effect on the planet. Further, almost all agree that the planet has warmed across the past century and that humans have had some impact on the climate."

But understanding the causes of recent climate change and predicting future change is far from a straightforward endeavor.

- See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/consensus-distorts-the-climate-picture/story-e6frg6zo-1226724019428#sthash.qKPo9gB8.dpuf
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 6, 2013 07:04PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-06 19:19, Al Angello wrote:
You can quote any science denier you want, because in 30 years the beaches will be in different places.
[/quote]

Experience has shown that the safest AGW horror predictions are the ones that can't be evaluated until the predictor is dead.
Message: Posted by: saysold1 (Oct 6, 2013 07:24PM)
Since I have little ones I would prefer to leave the world a better place then I found it.

Prior generations used to feel strongly about that.

What a crazy bunch they were in standing up for building all these freeways, dams, bridges, promoting the GI bill, Medicare, putting a man on the moon, building Junior Colleges.

What were those people thinking?

Must have cost a lot too huh - all that government financed stuff.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 6, 2013 08:10PM)
I think that leaving the world a better place is a great idea.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 6, 2013 08:11PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-06 21:10, LobowolfXXX wrote:
I think that leaving the world a better place is a great idea.
[/quote]

Better for whom? or what?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 6, 2013 08:16PM)
Oh, just better in general.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Oct 6, 2013 08:44PM)
Yea a lot of people think that a moon landscape is better in general too.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Oct 6, 2013 11:42PM)
I would be pretty proud if our generation was part of a solution to renewable energy. I would think if we found the tech to leave our grandchildren with a better standard of living AND a better planet that would be cool.

I would also like to be part of a generation that did not look to governments for solutions but rather just did because it was the right thing to do. Because others are our neighbors and therefore our responsibility. Can't force this on people but it would be a wonderful world.

My part of the country is sort of like this. I keep hoping it is contagious.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Oct 7, 2013 01:00PM)
Which part of the country is that, Danny?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Oct 7, 2013 01:17PM)
Southern Missouri.

A neighbor needs help we do it. If that neighbor is 2 miles from my house no biggie.

I admit my part of the world has some issues to get past no doubt.

But people should lean on others more than government. Government has a place mind you. No question about it. I am not an abolish the government dude. Not at all.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Oct 7, 2013 09:46PM)
Lobo
After I die and the world land mass is considerably smaller than it is today will you think of me, and tell all of your friends that back in 2013 old Al predicted this?????
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 7, 2013 10:39PM)
Al, you're going to outlive us all, with your low-stress approach.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Oct 7, 2013 10:44PM)
Al whenever we tell you of your great predictions you say we are attacking you. Or do we only mention ones you get right?
Message: Posted by: saysold1 (Oct 7, 2013 11:01PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-07 14:17, Dannydoyle wrote:
Southern Missouri.

A neighbor needs help we do it. If that neighbor is 2 miles from my house no biggie.

I admit my part of the world has some issues to get past no doubt.

But people should lean on others more than government. Government has a place mind you. No question about it. I am not an abolish the government dude. Not at all.
[/quote]
Poverty and Number of Uninsured Rises
The number of Missourians living in poverty or without health insurance increased dramatically, while earnings dropped, according to preliminary state Census Bureau figures released today. Government investments in critical safety net programs like Medicaid are critical in assisting families to weather the economic storm. Robust supports like Medicaid and unemployment insurance – much like jobs — not only reduce hardship in a weak economy but also help the economy by shoring up unusually weak consumer demand.
Census Bureau figures indicate that poverty has increased substantially in Missouri and across the country. Nearly one in every six Missourians (15.2 percent), or about 906,000, lived in poverty in 2009 and 2010, up 4.8% since 1999-2000. Nationwide, about one in 7 (14.7 percent) lived in poverty.
The number of Missourians lacking health insurance grew as well. More than 850,000 Missourians had no health coverage in 2009 and 2010, an increase of nearly 8 percent compared to 1999-2000 – and the highest increase of any state.
These state figures from the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey are preliminary. It is the only data available on state poverty and health insurance trends through 2010. On September 22, the Census Bureau will release more definitive 2010 poverty data as part of the American Community Survey, which is a larger review.
“The new data show that Missouri families are severely feeling the effects of the economy, and budget cuts to vital services make it even harder for families struggling to get by,” said Ruth Ehresman, Director of Health and Budget Policy for the Missouri Budget Project. “A ‘cuts-only’ approach also undermines our investment in education, transportation, health care and other building blocks of job creation and economic growth. A balanced approach that includes increasing revenue at both the state and federal level is needed to help families in the short and long run.”
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Oct 8, 2013 12:06AM)
Naturally that is all my fault right?

Why do you take every opportunity to shove your agenda down the throat of others?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 8, 2013 01:14AM)
I wonder what the percentage of government reports that say that less government is needed is.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Oct 8, 2013 07:47AM)
Lobo
Great idea the world is getting more complicated every year, and the only viable solution is a smaller government. You are beginning to sound like those science deniers.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 8, 2013 09:19AM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-08 02:14, LobowolfXXX wrote:
I wonder what the percentage of government reports that say that less government is needed is.
[/quote]

About the same as lawyer recommendations that don't include further lawyer involvement.
Message: Posted by: RNK (Oct 8, 2013 10:05AM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-08 00:01, saysold1 wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-10-07 14:17, Dannydoyle wrote:
Southern Missouri.

A neighbor needs help we do it. If that neighbor is 2 miles from my house no biggie.

I admit my part of the world has some issues to get past no doubt.

But people should lean on others more than government. Government has a place mind you. No question about it. I am not an abolish the government dude. Not at all.
[/quote]
Poverty and Number of Uninsured Rises
The number of Missourians living in poverty or without health insurance increased dramatically, while earnings dropped, according to preliminary state Census Bureau figures released today. Government investments in critical safety net programs like Medicaid are critical in assisting families to weather the economic storm. Robust supports like Medicaid and unemployment insurance – much like jobs — not only reduce hardship in a weak economy but also help the economy by shoring up unusually weak consumer demand.
Census Bureau figures indicate that poverty has increased substantially in Missouri and across the country. Nearly one in every six Missourians (15.2 percent), or about 906,000, lived in poverty in 2009 and 2010, up 4.8% since 1999-2000. Nationwide, about one in 7 (14.7 percent) lived in poverty.
The number of Missourians lacking health insurance grew as well. More than 850,000 Missourians had no health coverage in 2009 and 2010, an increase of nearly 8 percent compared to 1999-2000 – and the highest increase of any state.
These state figures from the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey are preliminary. It is the only data available on state poverty and health insurance trends through 2010. On September 22, the Census Bureau will release more definitive 2010 poverty data as part of the American Community Survey, which is a larger review.
“The new data show that Missouri families are severely feeling the effects of the economy, and budget cuts to vital services make it even harder for families struggling to get by,” said Ruth Ehresman, Director of Health and Budget Policy for the Missouri Budget Project. “A ‘cuts-only’ approach also undermines our investment in education, transportation, health care and other building blocks of job creation and economic growth. A balanced approach that includes increasing revenue at both the state and federal level is needed to help families in the short and long run.”

[/quote]

Only 17% of the gov't is currently shut down! And....it's Obama's choice to what programs get shut down- in saying that- he chose to keep movein or moveout.org whatever the liberal website is called running while deciding to shutdown the Amber alert! You see where his priorities are!

RNK
Message: Posted by: RNK (Oct 8, 2013 10:13AM)
Further- the earth's climate has gone through MANY climate changes since it's beginning. Most of which happened when humans and technology was not even here! So how do you explain that humans are the cause? Further please read:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/science-technology/432754/More-hot-air-from-scaremongers-on-global-warming

The amount of time humans and technology have been here is a SPECK compared to the total age of the earth. And as previously stated- there are MANY more documented and science proven theories of the history of climatic changed the earth has been through WITHOUT humans being here! So to relate that humans are responsible for climatic change is absurd! Look at the history of paleoclimatology and historical geology and see for yourself all the different climate changes the earth has been through already!

RNK
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 8, 2013 10:24AM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-08 11:13, RNK wrote:
Further- the earth's climate has gone through MANY climate changes since it's beginning. Most of which happened when humans and technology was not even here! So how do you explain that humans are the cause? Further please read:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/science-technology/432754/More-hot-air-from-scaremongers-on-global-warming

The amount of time humans and technology have been here is a SPECK compared to the total age of the earth. And as previously stated- there are MANY more documented and science proven theories of the history of climatic changed the earth has been through WITHOUT humans being here! So to relate that humans are responsible for climatic change is absurd! Look at the history of paleoclimatology and historical geology and see for yourself all the different climate changes the earth has been through already!

RNK
[/quote]

By analogy, consider pollution in the oceans. To paraphrase you, "Ocean chemistry has gone through MANY chemical changes since its beginning. Most of which happened when humans and technology were not even here! So how do you explain that humans are the cause of ocean pollution?"

It's a silly setup. If you read the IPCC report, you will note that it takes into account solar effects, el Niño effects, etc. There remains variation that cannot be accounted for with these natural phenomena. There are solid scientific reasons for believing that much of that variation is explained by human activity. The article you cite appears to be oblivious to the content of the actual science.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Oct 8, 2013 10:33AM)
RNK,

I'm sure I'll get some balanced reporting from an article entitled More Hot Air from Scaremongers on Global Warming. :)
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Oct 8, 2013 10:44AM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-08 11:05, RNK wrote:
Only 17% of the gov't is currently shut down! And....it's Obama's choice to what programs get shut down- in saying that- he chose to keep movein or moveout.org whatever the liberal website is called running while deciding to shutdown the Amber alert! You see where his priorities are!

RNK
[/quote]
I can't tell if you're joking or serious. If you're being serious, you should realize that anything with .org after it is privately owned and operated. It's the sites with .gov that are down. And state governments are functional, just not the federal government. Things like the post office and social security are under separate funds and not affected by the federal budget, so they're still working, as are functions deemed essential- military and police, for example.

What isn't running is all the stuff we never use* like the CDC, the national parks, NASA (excepting a skeleton crew for the space station- gotta keep the astronauts alive), payments for section 8 housing (which will run out if the shutdown extends past October), NOAA (better hope there's no hurricanes coming... oh wait, there are!)

Oh wait. You're getting your news from breitbart, aren't you? That explains it.

---
* This is sarcasm, for those with impaired sarcasm detectors.
Message: Posted by: saysold1 (Oct 8, 2013 10:44AM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-08 11:05, RNK wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-10-08 00:01, saysold1 wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-10-07 14:17, Dannydoyle wrote:
Southern Missouri.

A neighbor needs help we do it. If that neighbor is 2 miles from my house no biggie.

I admit my part of the world has some issues to get past no doubt.

But people should lean on others more than government. Government has a place mind you. No question about it. I am not an abolish the government dude. Not at all.
[/quote]
Poverty and Number of Uninsured Rises
The number of Missourians living in poverty or without health insurance increased dramatically, while earnings dropped, according to preliminary state Census Bureau figures released today. Government investments in critical safety net programs like Medicaid are critical in assisting families to weather the economic storm. Robust supports like Medicaid and unemployment insurance – much like jobs — not only reduce hardship in a weak economy but also help the economy by shoring up unusually weak consumer demand.
Census Bureau figures indicate that poverty has increased substantially in Missouri and across the country. Nearly one in every six Missourians (15.2 percent), or about 906,000, lived in poverty in 2009 and 2010, up 4.8% since 1999-2000. Nationwide, about one in 7 (14.7 percent) lived in poverty.
The number of Missourians lacking health insurance grew as well. More than 850,000 Missourians had no health coverage in 2009 and 2010, an increase of nearly 8 percent compared to 1999-2000 – and the highest increase of any state.
These state figures from the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey are preliminary. It is the only data available on state poverty and health insurance trends through 2010. On September 22, the Census Bureau will release more definitive 2010 poverty data as part of the American Community Survey, which is a larger review.
“The new data show that Missouri families are severely feeling the effects of the economy, and budget cuts to vital services make it even harder for families struggling to get by,” said Ruth Ehresman, Director of Health and Budget Policy for the Missouri Budget Project. “A ‘cuts-only’ approach also undermines our investment in education, transportation, health care and other building blocks of job creation and economic growth. A balanced approach that includes increasing revenue at both the state and federal level is needed to help families in the short and long run.”

[/quote]

Only 17% of the gov't is currently shut down! And....it's Obama's choice to what programs get shut down- in saying that- he chose to keep movein or moveout.org whatever the liberal website is called running while deciding to shutdown the Amber alert! You see where his priorities are!

RNK
[/quote]

Only 17% - that is a number that doesn't reflect the human PAIN of actual people (like you or me) that don't have the money coming in to put food on their tables.

Here is a good article delving into 13 reasons WHY Washington is currently failing at the moment:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/07/the-13-reasons-washington-is-failing/?tid=pm_business_pop

As far as global warming not being "real" - this is only one example of how many conservatives are in denial of actual science. It is really hard to take the right seriously these days:

1. The incidence of pregnancy from RAPE is low (please - what a joke). "Legitimate rape?" - yuck.

2. Denial of human caused global warming - there’s one problem with the denials: refusing to link global warming to human behavior greatly reduces your options for curtailing it.

3. The theory of evolution is incorrect: “I’m not a scientist, man,” Marco Rubio recently told GQ. “I can tell you what recorded history says. I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that’s a dispute amongst theologians. Whether the Earth was created in seven days, or seven actual eras, I’m not sure we’ll ever be able to answer that.” Georgia Representative Paul Broun recently showed the right’s hand. “All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell,” he said during his (unopposed) run for reelection last year. “And it’s lies to try to keep me and all the folks who are taught that from understanding that they need a savior.”

4. Opposition to stem cell research - another example of the GOP's longstanding denial of important science and research
Message: Posted by: RNK (Oct 8, 2013 11:31AM)
Saysold- the main point I see you avoided: All the previous documented climate changes in the history of the earth that were much more extreme than what is going on today? All of which are proven using scientific instrumentation and methods! All the climate changes that were directly related to extinction of animals! Instead you write some babble that has nothing to do with the above statements to attempt to answer it. Sorry- not a good response- as a matter of fact- doesn't even relate to what I am saying.

Further- gov't during this slight shutdown gives Public Broadcasting stations $445 million! Now- Obama could have easily said , This money should goto "the human PAIN of actual people (like you or me) that don't have the money coming in to put food on their tables." But he did not! Not to mention- no response on him keeping the funding going for Moveon.org! When that money could have easily been used for all the people in PAIN. Sad- Obamas actions to NOT negotiate and fund the proper programs to help those people in PAIN are outright seen and you guys STILL continue to ignore them. But that's ok. That's what the left usually does when they don't have an answer- AVOID it!

RNK
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 8, 2013 11:47AM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-08 10:19, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-10-08 02:14, LobowolfXXX wrote:
I wonder what the percentage of government reports that say that less government is needed is.
[/quote]

About the same as lawyer recommendations that don't include further lawyer involvement.
[/quote]

Exactly.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Oct 8, 2013 12:01PM)
[quote]
Further- gov't during this slight shutdown gives Public Broadcasting stations $445 million! Now- Obama could have easily said , This money should goto "the human PAIN of actual people (like you or me) that don't have the money coming in to put food on their tables." But he did not! Not to mention- no response on him keeping the funding going for Moveon.org! When that money could have easily been used for all the people in PAIN. Sad- Obamas actions to NOT negotiate and fund the proper programs to help those people in PAIN are outright seen and you guys STILL continue to ignore them. But that's ok. That's what the left usually does when they don't have an answer- AVOID it!

RNK
[/quote]
RNK- there's actually specific laws determining what gets shut down, and Obama really doesn't have much choice in the matter. And I responded to your moveon.org comment- it's privately funded, not publically funded. And the money for public broadcasting was allocated two years ago and can't legally be changed. Just like how it's constitutionally illegal to -stop- paying Congress during the shutdown.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Oct 8, 2013 12:56PM)
EsnRedshirt-

Don't interrupt the partisan rants with facts. :eek:

As the character "Dirty Sally" Fergus once said on "Gunsmoke," "Well, you don't have to know nuthin' to have an opinion."
Message: Posted by: Slide (Oct 8, 2013 01:27PM)
"Further- gov't during this slight shutdown gives Public Broadcasting stations $445 million!"

The estimated cost to the economy for the shutdown according to Bloomberg is $1.6 Billion last week and $160 million each day. The money lost during this "slight shutdown" could have funded Public Broadcasting for the next 5 years.
Message: Posted by: Kune (Oct 8, 2013 02:29PM)
25 Things Obama Shut Down That He Shouldn’t Have
http://downtrend.com/peterbraun/from-breitbart-25-things-obama-shut-down-that-he-shouldnt-have/
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Oct 8, 2013 02:36PM)
The President didn't shut ANYTHING down. Not surprised that the Breitbart site would blatantly lie about that, though.
Message: Posted by: Kune (Oct 8, 2013 02:40PM)
The president of the United States has no say in the matter? What's changed since the govt shut down under Clinton, other than who's president?
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Oct 8, 2013 02:43PM)
Kune, turns out (as I said above) there are specific laws governing what does and does not get closed when there is a government shutdown. The President has little choice in the matter.
Message: Posted by: Kune (Oct 8, 2013 02:46PM)
In that case, who changed those laws to include monuments and memorials, along with a long list of new things, since the shut down under Clinton?
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Oct 8, 2013 02:47PM)
Kune- monuments and memorials are part of the National Park Service, which does get shut down. If they weren't shut down last time, it's because somebody passed a bill to temporarily exempt them.
Message: Posted by: Kune (Oct 8, 2013 02:55PM)
Have they barricaded the war memorial or attempted to close off parts of the sea, etc in any previous government shut down, or is this just the first time they've failed to make a very large list of exemptions?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Oct 8, 2013 02:57PM)
Why all the concern on the right about closing national parks when they haven't made a peep about the cutbacks in Meals on Wheels and services to the poor, as well as veterans, etc.?

Answer- Those aren't things that will provide them with hypocritical photo ops.
Message: Posted by: Kune (Oct 8, 2013 03:02PM)
To be fair, it's hard to mention everything, considering the sheer extent of the list. While I agree that things like Meals on Wheels should be kept open, priests being threatened with arrest if they work for free seems even more insane, along with the countless other things which must be taking extra resources to achieve less.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Oct 8, 2013 03:06PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-08 15:55, Kune wrote:
Have they barricaded the war memorial or attempted to close off parts of the sea, etc in any previous government shut down, or is this just the first time they've failed to make a very large list of exemptions?
[/quote]
I don't know. You're making the claim, maybe you should do your research.

One reason I can speculate upon is that this shutdown took place [i]after[/i] 9/11. In prior shutdowns, there wasn't a greater need for security in open-air public monuments.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Oct 8, 2013 03:08PM)
And, by the way, the House did pass legislation to pay furloughed government employees once the shutdown ends... So, essentially, the GOP is giving them free vacation days.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 8, 2013 03:13PM)
It seems like the cheapest thing regarding national parks would be to just keep them OPEN. If you say they're closed, you need to pay someone(s) to make sure that people are staying outl
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 8, 2013 03:14PM)
What does the US government shutdown have to do with the IPCC report?
Message: Posted by: Kune (Oct 8, 2013 03:15PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-08 16:06, EsnRedshirt wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-10-08 15:55, Kune wrote:
Have they barricaded the war memorial or attempted to close off parts of the sea, etc in any previous government shut down, or is this just the first time they've failed to make a very large list of exemptions?
[/quote]
I don't know. You're making the claim, maybe you should do your research.

One reason I can speculate upon is that this shutdown took place [i]after[/i] 9/11. In prior shutdowns, there wasn't a greater need for security in open-air public monuments.
[/quote]

Rather, it was a question in response to your previous claim that the shut down is actually business as usual and Obama has no control over it. While that certainly may be correct, currently I'm very sceptical.
I suppose it doesn't make much difference, in that either the US govt has suddenly gone rather insane, or they were always insane, but it wasn't so obvious until now.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Oct 8, 2013 03:19PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-08 16:13, LobowolfXXX wrote:
It seems like the cheapest thing regarding national parks would be to just keep them OPEN. If you say they're closed, you need to pay someone(s) to make sure that people are staying outl
[/quote]
Who empties the trash, cleans the restrooms, and makes sure nobody does something foolish that would result in a lawsuit? Seems cheaper to close it all down, to me.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 8, 2013 03:23PM)
Good points...I guess you need some sort of skeleton crew either way. Probably better to shut down.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Oct 8, 2013 03:36PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-08 16:19, EsnRedshirt wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-10-08 16:13, LobowolfXXX wrote:
It seems like the cheapest thing regarding national parks would be to just keep them OPEN. If you say they're closed, you need to pay someone(s) to make sure that people are staying outl
[/quote]
Who empties the trash, cleans the restrooms, and makes sure nobody does something foolish that would result in a lawsuits?
[/quote]
Who are these people of which you speak? In my land, such ones would be looked on as Alien Gods.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Oct 8, 2013 05:55PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-08 16:14, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
What does the US government shutdown have to do with the IPCC report?
[/quote]

I was curious as well John but of late some are just so zealous to push an agenda they do it at seemingly random times. Can be either side. Just push an agenda and bash the other. It is getting old.

And incidently Bob I exempt you from this statement. Needless to say John you as well.

My not exempting does not mean I am accusing.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 8, 2013 08:18PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-08 16:36, landmark wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-10-08 16:19, EsnRedshirt wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-10-08 16:13, LobowolfXXX wrote:
It seems like the cheapest thing regarding national parks would be to just keep them OPEN. If you say they're closed, you need to pay someone(s) to make sure that people are staying outl
[/quote]
Who empties the trash, cleans the restrooms, and makes sure nobody does something foolish that would result in a lawsuits?
[/quote]
Who are these people of which you speak? In my land, such ones would be looked on as Alien Gods.
[/quote]

Space aliens do that abducting stuff to find out how clever creatures create waste?
Message: Posted by: Woland (Oct 13, 2013 11:16AM)
I'm surprised that [url=http://journalstar.com/news/state-and-regional/nebraska/blizzard-killed-up-to-head-of-cattle/article_b911b3b8-860f-5f2d-bc13-f6db9b8f01a8.html]this story [/url] hasn't generated more discussion in the national media.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 13, 2013 11:22AM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-13 12:16, Woland wrote:
I'm surprised that [url=http://journalstar.com/news/state-and-regional/nebraska/blizzard-killed-up-to-head-of-cattle/article_b911b3b8-860f-5f2d-bc13-f6db9b8f01a8.html]this story [/url] hasn't generated more discussion in the national media.
[/quote]

Yikes. Nasty storm, that one.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Oct 13, 2013 07:05PM)
Cold winters and the loss of so many cattle were one of the causes of the Johnson County war on the Powder River range, which is the historical substrate for so many popular westerns.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 13, 2013 07:12PM)
I'd have been impressed if someone else observed the weather and how it's effected orange crops - think of the oranges!

http://news.yahoo.com/cold-still-threatens-crops-west-easing-213057814.html
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Oct 14, 2013 08:21AM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-08 16:19, EsnRedshirt wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-10-08 16:13, LobowolfXXX wrote:
It seems like the cheapest thing regarding national parks would be to just keep them OPEN. If you say they're closed, you need to pay someone(s) to make sure that people are staying outl
[/quote]
Who empties the trash, cleans the restrooms, and makes sure nobody does something foolish that would result in a lawsuit? Seems cheaper to close it all down, to me.
[/quote]

Who empties the trash .. The locals?
Cleans the restrooms .. Lock the restrooms up?
makes sure nobody does something foolish that would result in a lawsuit? .. gee, I don't know, who makes sure nobody does something foolish that would result in a lawsuit everywhere else that you don't have park rangers?

How about putting up a sign that says: "Due to the government shutdown, this park is no longer manned by government employees. Enjoy it but do so at your own risk. Bathrooms are not available and please pick up after yourself."

See, problem solved. We don't need nannies watching after us 24/7 after all. In fact, I went for a hike in the wilderness just last weekend and didn't have any park rangers following me to take care of me. You should try it sometime.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Oct 14, 2013 08:29AM)
"See, problem solved. We don't need nannies watching after us 24/7 after all. In fact, I went for a hike in the wilderness just last weekend and didn't have any park rangers following me to take care of me. You should try it sometime. "

I think what you need a ranger for are when things don't go well: forest fires set by unobservant campers, campers being eaten by bears (wasn't there an incident like this recently during the sequester where someone was a attacked by bears and there was no ranger, or was that an episode of VEEP? ), campers who have gotten lost, or is hanging from a ledge somewhere.

Same argument could be made for the disbandment of the police and fire fighters. I mean, after all, we are capable of defending ourselves and putting our own fires out. I've never had to call the police or the fire department in my life. What do we need those for in a government shut down?
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Oct 14, 2013 04:19PM)
You know, I think you've convinced me. What we REALLY need to do is expand the park service so that the entire US is covered with nannies to keep an eye on us wherever we are. How have we ever gotten along without that??
Message: Posted by: Slide (Oct 14, 2013 04:30PM)
Good come back. :)
Message: Posted by: RNK (Oct 16, 2013 10:50AM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-13 12:22, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-10-13 12:16, Woland wrote:
I'm surprised that [url=http://journalstar.com/news/state-and-regional/nebraska/blizzard-killed-up-to-head-of-cattle/article_b911b3b8-860f-5f2d-bc13-f6db9b8f01a8.html]this story [/url] hasn't generated more discussion in the national media.
[/quote]

Yikes. Nasty storm, that one.
[/quote]

It's because the general media doesn't want anything that doesn't fit the lefts agenda since they are obviously more left and not even near the center- and global warming is a leftist idea so that's why this will not get national coverage by the general media. Shame- used to be that the general media covered everything! Not the case anymore.....

RNK
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 16, 2013 10:55AM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-16 11:50, RNK wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-10-13 12:22, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-10-13 12:16, Woland wrote:
I'm surprised that [url=http://journalstar.com/news/state-and-regional/nebraska/blizzard-killed-up-to-head-of-cattle/article_b911b3b8-860f-5f2d-bc13-f6db9b8f01a8.html]this story [/url] hasn't generated more discussion in the national media.
[/quote]

Yikes. Nasty storm, that one.
[/quote]

It's because the general media doesn't want anything that doesn't fit the lefts agenda since they are obviously more left and not even near the center- and global warming is a leftist idea so that's why this will not get national coverage by the general media. Shame- used to be that the general media covered everything! Not the case anymore.....

RNK
[/quote]

And your evidence is....

Or, as anyone who has read more than a few sentences on the topic can tell you, individual storms are data; they are not global temperatures. They are part of the picture, not the whole picture.

And if you read more than a few paragraphs on the topic you would know that the best models predict that with increased average temperatures go increased variability in temperate regions. That is, if global warming is occurring, you should expect more storms of this sort, and more heat waves. But again, this is a singular event. It is consistent with the predictions, but it doesn't prove anything by itself.

But why bother with the facts when you already know everything, eh RNK?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 16, 2013 11:19AM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-16 11:55, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-10-16 11:50, RNK wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-10-13 12:22, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-10-13 12:16, Woland wrote:
I'm surprised that [url=http://journalstar.com/news/state-and-regional/nebraska/blizzard-killed-up-to-head-of-cattle/article_b911b3b8-860f-5f2d-bc13-f6db9b8f01a8.html]this story [/url] hasn't generated more discussion in the national media.
[/quote]

Yikes. Nasty storm, that one.
[/quote]

It's because the general media doesn't want anything that doesn't fit the lefts agenda since they are obviously more left and not even near the center- and global warming is a leftist idea so that's why this will not get national coverage by the general media. Shame- used to be that the general media covered everything! Not the case anymore.....

RNK
[/quote]

And your evidence is....

Or, as anyone who has read more than a few sentences on the topic can tell you, individual storms are data; they are not global temperatures. They are part of the picture, not the whole picture.

And if you read more than a few paragraphs on the topic you would know that the best models predict that with increased average temperatures go increased variability in temperate regions. That is, if global warming is occurring, you should expect more storms of this sort, and more heat waves. But again, this is a singular event. It is consistent with the predictions, but it doesn't prove anything by itself.

But why bother with the facts when you already know everything, eh RNK?
[/quote]

Very well put...can I cut & paste for use when one of those "it's 97 degrees today, and some people still don't believe in Global Warming!" posts shows up?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 16, 2013 11:47AM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-16 12:19, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-10-16 11:55, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-10-16 11:50, RNK wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-10-13 12:22, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-10-13 12:16, Woland wrote:
I'm surprised that [url=http://journalstar.com/news/state-and-regional/nebraska/blizzard-killed-up-to-head-of-cattle/article_b911b3b8-860f-5f2d-bc13-f6db9b8f01a8.html]this story [/url] hasn't generated more discussion in the national media.
[/quote]

Yikes. Nasty storm, that one.
[/quote]

It's because the general media doesn't want anything that doesn't fit the lefts agenda since they are obviously more left and not even near the center- and global warming is a leftist idea so that's why this will not get national coverage by the general media. Shame- used to be that the general media covered everything! Not the case anymore.....

RNK
[/quote]

And your evidence is....

Or, as anyone who has read more than a few sentences on the topic can tell you, individual storms are data; they are not global temperatures. They are part of the picture, not the whole picture.

And if you read more than a few paragraphs on the topic you would know that the best models predict that with increased average temperatures go increased variability in temperate regions. That is, if global warming is occurring, you should expect more storms of this sort, and more heat waves. But again, this is a singular event. It is consistent with the predictions, but it doesn't prove anything by itself.

But why bother with the facts when you already know everything, eh RNK?
[/quote]

Very well put...can I cut & paste for use when one of those "it's 97 degrees today, and some people still don't believe in Global Warming!" posts shows up?
[/quote]

Please do. I'm flattered.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Oct 16, 2013 01:28PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-16 12:19, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-10-16 11:55, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-10-16 11:50, RNK wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-10-13 12:22, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-10-13 12:16, Woland wrote:
I'm surprised that [url=http://journalstar.com/news/state-and-regional/nebraska/blizzard-killed-up-to-head-of-cattle/article_b911b3b8-860f-5f2d-bc13-f6db9b8f01a8.html]this story [/url] hasn't generated more discussion in the national media.
[/quote]

Yikes. Nasty storm, that one.
[/quote]

It's because the general media doesn't want anything that doesn't fit the lefts agenda since they are obviously more left and not even near the center- and global warming is a leftist idea so that's why this will not get national coverage by the general media. Shame- used to be that the general media covered everything! Not the case anymore.....

RNK
[/quote]

And your evidence is....

Or, as anyone who has read more than a few sentences on the topic can tell you, individual storms are data; they are not global temperatures. They are part of the picture, not the whole picture.

And if you read more than a few paragraphs on the topic you would know that the best models predict that with increased average temperatures go increased variability in temperate regions. That is, if global warming is occurring, you should expect more storms of this sort, and more heat waves. But again, this is a singular event. It is consistent with the predictions, but it doesn't prove anything by itself.

But why bother with the facts when you already know everything, eh RNK?
[/quote]

Very well put...can I cut & paste for use when one of those "it's 97 degrees today, and some people still don't believe in Global Warming!" posts shows up?
[/quote]

You better! You can certainly bet that Magnus won't be telling them that!
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Oct 16, 2013 01:32PM)
You'd probably be a lot busier cutting and pasting Magnus's answer every time a science denier points to an extreme weather event involving blizzards and anomalous cold days as evidence against AGW. Most people who understand the science don't point to single weather events as examples of anything.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Oct 16, 2013 01:36PM)
Ha! You obviously haven't been reading the posts here much. I can point to several that have claimed exactly that. In particular, that the Sandy storm was proof positive of Global Warming.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Oct 16, 2013 01:43PM)
PATTERNS and increased frequency of storms, such as Sandy, are indeed to be expected per the AGW model.

And, as I said, virtually everyone who understands the science behind AGW is aware of the difference. The deniers, not so much.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 16, 2013 01:46PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-16 14:28, rockwall wrote:

You better! You can certainly bet that Magnus won't be telling them that!
[/quote]

Rockwall, you defame me. Have you ever known me to back away from facts?
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Oct 16, 2013 01:48PM)
LOL. This is rich.

So, the huge snowstorm that killed all the cattle isn't proof that AGW doesn't exist but it IS proof that AGW is real! After all it's a pattern of an extreme cold wave. So, if we get hit with 20 years of cooling that will ALSO be proof of AGW because it will be another pattern of ... something.

It must be great to have a position that is impossible to disprove no matter what happens.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Oct 16, 2013 01:50PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-16 14:46, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-10-16 14:28, rockwall wrote:

You better! You can certainly bet that Magnus won't be telling them that!
[/quote]

Rockwall, you defame me. Have you ever known me to back away from facts?
[/quote]

No, I don't think I have, which isn't REALLY what I was saying. I've just never noticed you to correct someone who makes a claim like 'such and such' storm proves something as long as they are saying it proves AGW.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 16, 2013 01:54PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-16 14:50, rockwall wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-10-16 14:46, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-10-16 14:28, rockwall wrote:

You better! You can certainly bet that Magnus won't be telling them that!
[/quote]

Rockwall, you defame me. Have you ever known me to back away from facts?
[/quote]

No, I don't think I have, which isn't REALLY what I was saying. I've just never noticed you to correct someone who makes a claim like 'such and such' storm proves something as long as they are saying it proves AGW.
[/quote]

Have done.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Oct 16, 2013 01:57PM)
If so, I apologize. I'd ask for a link but more than likely it's been deleted! LOL
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 16, 2013 02:01PM)
:) Just reread this thread. Nobody made such a claim this time.

To be honest, I often worry that I respond too often in these threads and I'm turning into the bore of the party.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Oct 16, 2013 02:06PM)
The costs and benefits from a moderately warmer climate are discussed [url=http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/10/an-unbiased-economic-scorecard-shows.html]here[/url]. Note that "Carbon dioxide fertilization of crops and reduced energy demand for heating are the main positive impacts." The full paper (2011) is [url=http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/sites/default/files/Climate%20Change_8_Web.pdf]here.[/url]
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Oct 16, 2013 02:13PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-16 14:48, rockwall wrote:
LOL. This is rich.

So, the huge snowstorm that killed all the cattle isn't proof that AGW doesn't exist but it IS proof that AGW is real! After all it's a pattern of an extreme cold wave. So, if we get hit with 20 years of cooling that will ALSO be proof of AGW because it will be another pattern of ... something.

It must be great to have a position that is impossible to disprove no matter what happens.
[/quote]

I can't help it if the science is incomprehensible to you.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 16, 2013 02:17PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-16 14:48, rockwall wrote:
LOL. This is rich.

So, the huge snowstorm that killed all the cattle isn't proof that AGW doesn't exist but it IS proof that AGW is real! After all it's a pattern of an extreme cold wave. So, if we get hit with 20 years of cooling that will ALSO be proof of AGW because it will be another pattern of ... something.

It must be great to have a position that is impossible to disprove no matter what happens.
[/quote]

I normally expect a better level of reading comprehension from you, rockwall.

"Is consistent with..." is not even close to "is proof of..."

And I have no doubt that you understood that completely before you posted this nonsense.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 16, 2013 02:32PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-16 14:32, mastermindreader wrote:
You'd probably be a lot busier cutting and pasting Magnus's answer every time a science denier points to an extreme weather event involving blizzards and anomalous cold days as evidence against AGW. Most people who understand the science don't point to single weather events as examples of anything.
[/quote]

Those who understand the science are in the minority on both sides. Single weather events are used quite often to support the AGW hypothesis.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 16, 2013 02:33PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-16 14:46, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-10-16 14:28, rockwall wrote:

You better! You can certainly bet that Magnus won't be telling them that!
[/quote]

Rockwall, you defame me. Have you ever known me to back away from facts?
[/quote]

It's not a matter of backing away from the facts; it's a question of choosing whom to call out.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 16, 2013 02:48PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-16 15:33, LobowolfXXX wrote:

It's not a matter of backing away from the facts; it's a question of choosing whom to call out.
[/quote]

That is a completely fair criticism. I do choose my spots.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 16, 2013 03:09PM)
Thanks for that...I do try to be fair.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Oct 16, 2013 04:47PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-16 15:17, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-10-16 14:48, rockwall wrote:
LOL. This is rich.

So, the huge snowstorm that killed all the cattle isn't proof that AGW doesn't exist but it IS proof that AGW is real! After all it's a pattern of an extreme cold wave. So, if we get hit with 20 years of cooling that will ALSO be proof of AGW because it will be another pattern of ... something.

It must be great to have a position that is impossible to disprove no matter what happens.
[/quote]

I normally expect a better level of reading comprehension from you, rockwall.

"Is consistent with..." is not even close to "is proof of..."

And I have no doubt that you understood that completely before you posted this nonsense.
[/quote]

True Magnus. But he WAS using his 'consistent with' argument to justify those who claim single weather events prove AGW. (As he was responding to my post complaining about those who have done so here.) But, like Bob usually does, I am sure he will claim plausible deniability to dispute this.

I'm thinking that you could also say that extreme cold events are consistent with the argument that AGW may not be happening or reversing, couldn't you?
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Oct 16, 2013 04:48PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-16 15:48, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-10-16 15:33, LobowolfXXX wrote:

It's not a matter of backing away from the facts; it's a question of choosing whom to call out.
[/quote]

That is a completely fair criticism. I do choose my spots.
[/quote]

Which is what I think I was trying to say. Lobo, being the lawyer, probably stated it more clearly than I was able to.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 16, 2013 05:03PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-16 17:47, rockwall wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-10-16 15:17, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-10-16 14:48, rockwall wrote:
LOL. This is rich.

So, the huge snowstorm that killed all the cattle isn't proof that AGW doesn't exist but it IS proof that AGW is real! After all it's a pattern of an extreme cold wave. So, if we get hit with 20 years of cooling that will ALSO be proof of AGW because it will be another pattern of ... something.

It must be great to have a position that is impossible to disprove no matter what happens.
[/quote]

I normally expect a better level of reading comprehension from you, rockwall.

"Is consistent with..." is not even close to "is proof of..."

And I have no doubt that you understood that completely before you posted this nonsense.
[/quote]

True Magnus. But he WAS using his 'consistent with' argument to justify those who claim single weather events prove AGW. (As he was responding to my post complaining about those who have done so here.) But, like Bob usually does, I am sure he will claim plausible deniability to dispute this.

I'm thinking that you could also say that extreme cold events are consistent with the argument that AGW may not be happening or reversing, couldn't you?
[/quote]

Who is "he"? And my point is precisely that individual events neither confirm nor deny current theories.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Oct 16, 2013 05:18PM)
Who is "he"?

OK, I'll try to explain.

Bob joined our discussion about individual events not confirming or denying current theories. When Lobo and I stated the position that both warmists AND deniers make those claims at least in equal measure, Bob tried to make the point that warmists would NEVER do such a thing.

[quote]
On 2013-10-16 14:32, mastermindreader wrote:
Most people who understand the science don't point to single weather events as examples of anything.
[/quote]

When I laughed at this assertion, I pointed out that there are several here that do so, including one in particular who has made the claim that the Sandy storm was proof positive that AGW is true.

Bob then defended such a claim with the following comment:

[quote]
On 2013-10-16 14:43, mastermindreader wrote:
PATTERNS and increased frequency of storms, such as Sandy, are indeed to be expected per the AGW model.
[/quote]

And now I think I see were your confusion may be from.

I responded to Bob with my comments about the snowstorm killing the cattle. In between my comment and Bob's however, you made a comment which made it appear that MY comment may have been to you.

So the 'he' in this case was Bob, not you.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Oct 16, 2013 05:24PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-16 18:18, rockwall wrote:
Who is "he"?

OK, I'll try to explain.

Bob joined our discussion about individual events not confirming or denying current theories. When Lobo and I stated the position that both warmists AND deniers make those claims at least in equal measure, Bob tried to make the point that warmists would NEVER do such a thing.

[quote]
On 2013-10-16 14:32, mastermindreader wrote:
Most people who understand the science don't point to single weather events as examples of anything.
[/quote]
[/quote]

You're obviously having a serious comprehension problem here. WHERE in the above quote by me did I state that "warmists would NEVER do such a thing?" Please explain why you chose to emphasize with capital letters a word that I didn't use. Why did you deliberately misstate what I wrote?

As you accurately quoted me in the cite following, I stated that "most people who understand the science don't point to single weather events as examples of anything."

You do understand the difference between the generic" warmists" and "most people who understand the science," do you not?

Now that I think of it, you probably don't.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 16, 2013 05:38PM)
Has anyone calculated the "what if America and western Europe simply stopped all fossil fuel energy consumption today" difference in modeled climate a year from now, a decade, a hundred years from now? I'm asking as without that solid baseline to work from it's difficult to argue the matter rationally.

That leaves irrational. Can you sing the Pascal's Wager Weather song? Then there's the "who benefits from all this question" or "where would that put us" if you'd like to get more concrete about it. Are you buying carbon credits, indulgences or maybe just paying a little more because TV shows are showing sad people and telling you (ala Sally Struthers appeals) that even though you've ignored all the catastrophic monsoon seasons and floods that cost them thousands of lives a year now you can feel bad about your warm home and assuage your [i]Western Guilt[/i](R)(TM)(SM), and for a limited time only feel morally superior to all who are not preaching to the choir?

AGW... is that AGW(TM)? AGW(SM) or the very latest [i]New and Improved End of the World with Science[/i](TM)(SM)(R)!! It's something to feel righteous about insisting your neighbors agree to and feel better if they don't agree as much as you do.

Just a few posts a day and you can make a difference. Think of all the villages by the water that will be lost without your help. Think of all those people who have nowhere to move who will be flooded if you don't help them. Even a few posts every month can save a village.

??
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Oct 16, 2013 05:42PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-16 18:24, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-10-16 18:18, rockwall wrote:
Who is "he"?

OK, I'll try to explain.

Bob joined our discussion about individual events not confirming or denying current theories. When Lobo and I stated the position that both warmists AND deniers make those claims at least in equal measure, Bob tried to make the point that warmists would NEVER do such a thing.

[quote]
On 2013-10-16 14:32, mastermindreader wrote:
Most people who understand the science don't point to single weather events as examples of anything.
[/quote]
[/quote]

You're obviously having a serious comprehension problem here. WHERE in the above quote by me did I state that "warmists would NEVER do such a thing?" Please explain why you chose to emphasize with capital letters a word that I didn't use. Why did you deliberately misstate what I wrote?

As you accurately quoted me in the cite following, I stated that "most people who understand the science don't point to single weather events as examples of anything."

You do understand the difference between the generic" warmists" and "most people who understand the science," do you not?

Now that I think of it, you probably don't.
[/quote]

Bob, I should have learned to avoid arguing about the obvious with you after our last two arguments. You know, the one where you claimed a million people had already signed up for healthcare under Obamacare and the one where you couldn't understand the difference for 3 pages between my point about temp workers and what you mistook my statement for.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Oct 16, 2013 05:52PM)
If you can't show me where I stated that "warmists would NEVER" do such a thing, the least you can do is retract your blatantly, and I believe intentionally, false statement.

If you actually bothered to read my post about the sign-ups for Obamacare you would have notice that I was accurately referring sign-ups on the state and federal web sites.

You do understand the difference between registering on a web site and purchasing an insurance plan, don't you?
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Oct 16, 2013 06:16PM)
Yes Bob, I was exaggerating your statement.

Since you were responding DIRECTLY to the claim I made of people on THESE boards who claimed that Hurricane Sandy was proof positive that AGW was a fact, it seemed quite obvious to me that you were making the point that THOSE people were people who 'understand the science'. And since you were responding to the argument that I and Lobo were making that people on both sides of the argument make false claims about weather events, it certainly appeared that even though you didn't say that warmists NEVER make such claims, that certainly seemed your intent.

But, like I said, you left yourself with enough wiggle room to claim plausible deniability as is your wont.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Oct 16, 2013 06:17PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-16 18:52, mastermindreader wrote:
....

You do understand the difference between registering on a web site and purchasing an insurance plan, don't you?
[/quote]

Yes, I do, as I had to explain it to you as I recall. I'm glad that you now understand it too.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 16, 2013 08:28PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-16 19:16, rockwall wrote:
Yes Bob, I was exaggerating your statement.

Since you were responding DIRECTLY to the claim I made of people on THESE boards who claimed that Hurricane Sandy was proof positive that AGW was a fact, it seemed quite obvious to me that you were making the point that THOSE people were people who 'understand the science'. And since you were responding to the argument that I and Lobo were making that people on both sides of the argument make false claims about weather events, it certainly appeared that even though you didn't say that warmists NEVER make such claims, that certainly seemed your intent.

But, like I said, you left yourself with enough wiggle room to claim plausible deniability as is your wont.
[/quote]

While Bob can defend himself, he most certainly said the opposite. He repeatedly has said that those who understand the science do not generalize from individual incidents.

No doubt there are people (even on this board) who incorrectly claim that Sandy was proof positive of global warming. And there are people on this board who claim that ancient warming periods, record snowfalls in their states and solar activity are proof positive that humans have no effect on global climate.

What makes everyone with the same conclusion part of the same tribe? Surely the mature approach is to look at the evidence without dividing into teams.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Oct 16, 2013 09:19PM)
I'm just popping in here to put in a good word for unjustly maligned individual cases. An accumulation of individual cases over time becomes a trend line.
Message: Posted by: MaxfieldsMagic (Oct 16, 2013 09:27PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-16 22:19, landmark wrote:
I'm just popping in here to put in a good word for unjustly maligned individual cases. An accumulation of individual cases over time becomes a trend line.
[/quote]

Bingo. But only for those who choose to see it.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Oct 16, 2013 09:29PM)
But a collection of anecdotes is not data.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 16, 2013 09:35PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-16 21:28, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
While Bob can defend himself, he most certainly said the opposite. He repeatedly has said that those who understand the science do not generalize from individual incidents.
[/quote]

While not explicitly [i]saying[/i] so, I think Bob's two posts that followed mine did a fine job of implying that there are two types of people - those who understand the science, and those who deny the central AGW hypothesis.
Message: Posted by: Pop Haydn (Oct 16, 2013 09:39PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-16 22:35, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-10-16 21:28, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
While Bob can defend himself, he most certainly said the opposite. He repeatedly has said that those who understand the science do not generalize from individual incidents.
[/quote]

While not explicitly [i]saying[/i] so, I think Bob's two posts that followed mine did a fine job of implying that there are two types of people - those who understand the science, and those who deny the central AGW hypothesis.
[/quote]

I am not sure that Bob would have said that...but I would.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Oct 16, 2013 09:45PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-16 21:28, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
..
While Bob can defend himself, he most certainly said the opposite. He repeatedly has said that those who understand the science do not generalize from individual incidents.
...
[/quote]

Yes, that is true. However, context is everything.

I stand by my assertion.

When he said,

"You'd probably be a lot busier cutting and pasting Magnus's answer every time a science denier points to an extreme weather event involving blizzards and anomalous cold days as evidence against AGW. Most people who understand the science don't point to single weather events as examples of anything."

It was clear that what he meant by, "Most people who understand the science", was "Most people who believe in AGW". While you may disagree with that, I don't see how you could disagree that I could fairly accurately paraphrase this post to say, "You'll be a lot busier cutting and pasting Mangus's answer every time a science denier points to an extreme weather event involving blizzards and anomalous cold days as evidence against AGW since people who believe in AGW almost never do that since they understand the science."

He may not have exactly said that but based on context, it's pretty obvious that's what he meant.

I am happy to see that you seem willing to admit that it happens regularly on both sides of the argument. (Which I recognized you did when you first said to Lobo, "Please do. I'm flattered.", about using your quote instead of trying to argue that he would have troubles ever finding anyone to use that quote on like Bob wanted to do.)
Message: Posted by: MaxfieldsMagic (Oct 16, 2013 10:00PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-16 22:29, Woland wrote:
But a collection of anecdotes is not data.
[/quote]

Put enough anecdotes together regarding closely occurring weather events that have never been seen before, and presto! Data. But feel free to ignore it. You'll be in good company. Or, in company, at least.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Oct 16, 2013 10:05PM)
How long has it been since we've see such a dearth of hurricanes during a hurricane season as the US has seen this year? Could that be the type of anecdotes of closely occurring non-weather events that might be referring to?

http://www.weather.com/news/weather-hurricanes/hurricane-season-2013-major-hurricanes-20130926

"Based on long-term averages from 1966-2009, the Atlantic has typically seen nine named storms by Oct. 4 and five hurricanes by Oct. 7. As you can see, the 2013 season is fairly close to average when it comes to the number of named storms, but lagging behind in the hurricane category."
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 16, 2013 10:21PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-16 22:39, Pop Haydn wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-10-16 22:35, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-10-16 21:28, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
While Bob can defend himself, he most certainly said the opposite. He repeatedly has said that those who understand the science do not generalize from individual incidents.
[/quote]

While not explicitly [i]saying[/i] so, I think Bob's two posts that followed mine did a fine job of implying that there are two types of people - those who understand the science, and those who deny the central AGW hypothesis.
[/quote]

I am not sure that Bob would have said that...but I would.
[/quote]

I'm not sure he [i]wouldn't[/i], but he [i]didn't[/i]. I wont try to convince you that there are people who are in both groups, but I assure you there are people in neither group.
Message: Posted by: MaxfieldsMagic (Oct 16, 2013 10:24PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-16 23:05, rockwall wrote:
How long has it been since we've see such a dearth of hurricanes during a hurricane season as the US has seen this year? Could that be the type of anecdotes of closely occurring non-weather events that might be referring to?

http://www.weather.com/news/weather-hurricanes/hurricane-season-2013-major-hurricanes-20130926

"Based on long-term averages from 1966-2009, the Atlantic has typically seen nine named storms by Oct. 4 and five hurricanes by Oct. 7. As you can see, the 2013 season is fairly close to average when it comes to the number of named storms, but lagging behind in the hurricane category."
[/quote]

OK, but I seem to recall we had a pretty good one last year, of the type that had never occurred since New York became a large city. And ask India about the recent calming of hurricanes/typhoons - you'll get a different report. When I moved to Virginia in 1998, tornados were unheard of - now we get them on a regular basis every year. There have also been several areas of the world recently that have experienced unprecedented flooding. But it's not all about extreme weather events - the pine beetles, which have existed in the American west and Rocky Mountains for most of its recorded history, continue to do heretofore unseen damage to the great western forests thanks to the fact that the winters are no longer consistently cold enough to control the population.

Again, anecdotes - but anecdotes that are consistent with scientists' hypotheses. Personally, I see a lot more evidence confirming those hypotheses than I do for many other things I'm asked to believe in.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 17, 2013 12:00AM)
The Virginia Department of Emergency Management and the Southeast Regional Climate Center have certainly heard of tornados in Virginia prior to 1998...in fact, you've been getting them "on a regular basis every year" for decades.
Message: Posted by: MaxfieldsMagic (Oct 17, 2013 12:30AM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-17 01:00, LobowolfXXX wrote:
The Virginia Department of Emergency Management and the Southeast Regional Climate Center have certainly heard of tornados in Virginia prior to 1998...in fact, you've been getting them "on a regular basis every year" for decades.
[/quote]

Sorry, not true. Don't know what website you looked at, but when we first had a large tornado in northern Virginia in 1998, it was the top story on the news channels here because it was so unheard of. There were occasional water spouts in the Chesapeake which crossed onto land on the Eastern Shore, but tornadoes in northern Virginia just didn't happen. Since then, they have steadily increased over the last 15 years to where we now regularly have tornado sightings in Loudoun county, and the school district implemented tornado drills for the kids 8 years ago. That's all new.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 17, 2013 12:36AM)
Well, among others, the Virginia Department of Emergency Management's government website.

http://www.vaemergency.gov/news/history/stats/tornadoes-stats
http://www.tornadohistoryproject.com/tornado/Virginia
http://www.sercc.com/education_files/tornadoes_va.pdf
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 17, 2013 12:38AM)
Maybe nobody in the state in 1998 was living there five years earlier, when 28 tornados hit Virginia.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 17, 2013 12:42AM)
"From 1950 through the year 2001, 376 tornadoes were documented in Virginia. That is an average of 7 tornadoes per year. Nationally, statistics have suggested that prior to 1990, only a third of all tornadoes were actually recorded. Many occurred in unpopulated areas or caused little property damage and therefore are not reported to the National Weather Service. Others may have been recorded as wind events instead of tornadoes. Based on these statistics, the actual average number of tornadoes that Virginia likely experiences in a year is between 15 and 20. Tornado fatality records began in 1916 and since then only 65 people have been known to have died from tornadoes in Virginia. A third of these deaths occurred during a tornado outbreak on May 2, 1929, Virginia's worst tornado outbreak."
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Oct 17, 2013 12:56AM)
The size of the tornadoes is a significant factor. Here in Washington, for example, we have lots of tornadoes, but, for the most part, they aren't much larger than dust devils. So while they are reported as tornadoes, the are hardly of the intensity or magnitude that most people associate with a typical tornado.

Same was true when I lived in New Jersey. Lots of tornadoes recorded there, too, although very few were large enough for anyone to actually notice them.

The Virginia tornado in 1998 that Maxfield is referring to was, in fact, the first [i] violent[/i] tornado recorded in that state since 1950.

http://www.erh.noaa.gov/lwx/Historic_Events/va-tors.html
Message: Posted by: Woland (Oct 17, 2013 06:37AM)
A climate that is, historically, on the moderately warmer side is a good thing. In fact, "Carbon dioxide fertilization of crops and reduced energy demand for heating are the main positive impacts." A short (22 page) paper on the costs and benefits of a warmer climate is [url=http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/sites/default/files/Climate%20Change_8_Web.pdf]here[/url].
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 17, 2013 09:25AM)
Out of curiosity, rockwall, on this forum have you challenged or questioned anyone who believes that AGW is not real/not a problem? Just askin'
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Oct 17, 2013 11:08AM)
I could say yes, but the post was deleted but I'll be honest. Probably not. Good point Magnus. I'll admit, it takes a certain amount of honest introspection to try and recognize that the things we accuse others of, we are often at fault of ourselves.
Message: Posted by: MaxfieldsMagic (Oct 17, 2013 01:54PM)
All right, Lobo, you cite your sources, I'll give you that. Like mastermindreader said, though, there are "tornados" and then there are Tornados. Every summer, now, we wind up in the basement at least twice because of nearby tornado warnings or sightings during violent storms. That never happened when we originally moved to Northern Virginia, and everyone I've spoken to who has lived here since then has noticed the change. You might not find that on a web site.

And now that we've generated several exchanges over the Virginia tornado mystery, I'd just like to point out that that was only one of several "anecdotes" I mentioned in the post that led to your responses. You focused on that one alone.

This seems to be a common strategy for climate change skeptics and defense attorneys - look at each piece of evidence in isolation and try to pick it apart, thereby ignoring the cumulative weight of evidence that the big picture provides. Thirty discrete pieces of circumstantial evidence may be explained away individually, but it becomes increasingly less likely that they are all coincidences when taken together, particularly when they are consistent with a hypothesis that is already generally accepted.
Message: Posted by: GlenD (Oct 17, 2013 04:58PM)
Global warming believers are hoping it's as real and effective as extenz users are hoping for real results.
Message: Posted by: MaxfieldsMagic (Oct 17, 2013 08:47PM)
Global warming "believers" as you say, are not "hoping it's...real." We've become convinced that it's real, and afraid that there are still too many willfully ignorant folks out there for the political will to coalesce to do something about it in time. Given the choice, I would hope with all of my heart that it's all a sham. That would be much more pleasant for everyone.

Which brings up an interesting point. Many of the deniers seem to think that the Global Warming theory is some sort of a conspiracy. But I've never heard a coherent explanation of why they think so many people believe in the conspiracy. It's all framed in terms of liberal/conservative politics, which are irrelevant to the science. Yes, you do hear references to a plot for government control over energy decisions - the "Big Government" conspiracy theory - but really, when has there not been government control over energy decisions? And some seem to speculate that people who invest in "green" technology are driving the ruse, for purposes of personal gain. That, of course, ignores the fact that only a tiny percentage of our society has invested in green technology.

For selfish planning purposes, most of my money is invested in Exxon stock. I stand to gain quite a bit if we pursue pipelines, fracking, off-shore drilling, etc. But that's all short term stuff. To be truly "conservative," or a good citizen in the classic sense means to plan for the future. Energy that generates substantial CO2 emissions is a dead end, and one that will ultimately destroy economic prosperity and quality of life, if not life itself. So how do I reconcile that belief with my investments in Exxon? Simple. Exxon is one of the most heavily capitalized companies in the world, and I have no doubt that when green energy becomes viable they will take over that market as well, buying up all of the innovators and investing in research that enhances its market position. Exxon will be a solid energy company, no matter the energy source. But I'm certainly not going to deny the science or support "drill baby drill" candidates merely because I've invested in oil.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Oct 17, 2013 08:53PM)
I think it is incorrect to refer to those who simply accept the science as "believers." True believers are those who continue to accept something without regard to the facts, such as those who accept the propaganda put out by science deniers.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 17, 2013 10:00PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-17 21:47, MaxfieldsMagic wrote:
... But I've never heard a coherent explanation of why they think so many people believe in the conspiracy. It's all framed in terms of ...
[/quote]

Same as any other "The End is Nigh" movement. They get to be loud, righteous and awkward to deal with in civil discourse. Protected speech ... this time with graphs, statistics, pictures of unhappy polar bears and ... using the legitimacy of science where earlier movements used divine revelation as appeal to authority.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Oct 18, 2013 12:44AM)
Actually, this time around it's many of the deniers who have actually relied on "divine revelation" as their reason for rejecting the science of AGW.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 18, 2013 05:32AM)
"actually" science is about models based on data and ideas that get tested by experiment.


Happy to have a rational dialog about climate and what human societies are doing in the large. Let's start with a "what if everyone were gone" model and use that as baseline.

Or perhaps just as well that folks get directly back into denial, sit with their feelings of righteous cause and type away about the western burden and polar bear guilt.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 18, 2013 07:53AM)
Naw, Jonathan, don't agree about the "righteous cause" and "western burden". We have simple precedents where we have made messes and then cleaned them up. Look at North American water quality in the past half-century. We made a h3ll of a mess, and we have done (and hopefully will continue to do) a decent job of cleaning up our lakes and rivers. Look at the air quality in our major cities. There is still work to be done, but the air in the biggest cities is considerably better than it was 40 years ago. And what about the damage to the ozone layer? With international cooperation and the banning of CFCs, human-caused damage was repaired.

It is bizarre (to me at least) that we have political disagreement over pretty obvious human-made atmospheric contamination this time. For most of the past half-century, governments have recognized that if its our mess, we ought to do something about it. Now we have people making political hay out of

1. There is no mess, (yeah, right) or
2. There is a mess, but it has natural causes, or
3. Cleaning up the mess will cause damage to our economy (hang on while I shut down the govermnent).

I'm not sure what has changed politically. But I do not waver from "If it's our mess, it is incumbent on us to clean it up."
Message: Posted by: GlenD (Oct 18, 2013 08:27AM)
One of the problems is that there is no mess. Where is the mess (staying on topic with the global temperature issue)? The sun heats the earth. Our carbon emmissions have about as much to do with the overall temperature on the planet as me spitting in the ocean has of adding to the volume of water.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Oct 18, 2013 09:14AM)
Hi Magnus,

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is a vital nutrient for the plant life upon which all life on this planet depends. We are suffering through a period that in terms of the earth's history is starving for carbon dioxide. This is not a mess that needs cleaning up.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 18, 2013 10:17AM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-18 10:14, Woland wrote:
Hi Magnus,

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is a vital nutrient for the plant life upon which all life on this planet depends. We are suffering through a period that in terms of the earth's history is starving for carbon dioxide. This is not a mess that needs cleaning up.
[/quote]

Sigh. Nobody ever said CO2 was a pollutant. The issue is the absorption spectra of the gases in the atmosphere. Changing the concentrations of gases such as carbon dioxide or even water vapour (also not a pollutant) changes the rate of release of energy from the atmosphere.

Saunas aren't poisonous either, but if you spend too much time in one, you could dies of cardiac arrest.
Message: Posted by: GlenD (Oct 18, 2013 02:37PM)
Here Magnus, your "sigh" made me wonder if you feel like this sometimes...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwTW1_42W7M
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 18, 2013 02:42PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-18 15:37, GlenD wrote:
Here Magnus, your "sigh" made me wonder if you feel like this sometimes...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwTW1_42W7M
[/quote]

:)Oh no. Never. Really.
Message: Posted by: Andrew Zuber (Oct 18, 2013 02:59PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-18 09:27, GlenD wrote:
One of the problems is that there is no mess. Where is the mess (staying on topic with the global temperature issue)? The sun heats the earth. Our carbon emmissions have about as much to do with the overall temperature on the planet as me spitting in the ocean has of adding to the volume of water.
[/quote]
Like you, I live in Los Angeles. I'm a private pilot and I fly in and out of Van Nuys on a regular basis - and the brown layer than hangs over this place is as apparent as ever. I don't care if you're talking about warming or not - I would love to hear one reason, just one, why we SHOULDN'T be reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Seriously, why is this a political issue when one needs only to look at the smog that covers this city to see that there's a problem?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 18, 2013 03:17PM)
Oh, to be young enough not to remember the 70s in Low Angeles!
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Oct 18, 2013 03:18PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-18 11:17, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
...
Sigh. Nobody ever said CO2 was a pollutant.
...
[/quote]

hmmm. you sure about that?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-pollutant-advanced.htm

"Although it has some very important and beneficial effects, CO2 meets the legal and encyclopedic definitions of a "pollutant", and human CO2 emissions pose a threat to public health and welfare."


http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2012/12/27/epa-administrator-resigns-declared-carbon-dioxide-a-pollutant/

"Jackson was the first federal official to declare carbon dioxide a pollutant."


I'm pretty sure I could find a lot more if necessary.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 18, 2013 03:31PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-18 16:18, rockwall wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-10-18 11:17, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
...
Sigh. Nobody ever said CO2 was a pollutant.
...
[/quote]

hmmm. you sure about that?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-pollutant-advanced.htm

"Although it has some very important and beneficial effects, CO2 meets the legal and encyclopedic definitions of a "pollutant", and human CO2 emissions pose a threat to public health and welfare."


http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2012/12/27/epa-administrator-resigns-declared-carbon-dioxide-a-pollutant/

"Jackson was the first federal official to declare carbon dioxide a pollutant."


I'm pretty sure I could find a lot more if necessary.
[/quote]

Ok somebody does say it's a pollutant. Not that its toxic, but that in sufficient quantities it is a pollutant. I stand corrected.

OTOH please note that this does not alter the substance of my response to Woland. The issue is that substantially increasing the quantitiy of CO2 in the atmosphere is harmful.
Message: Posted by: Devious (Oct 18, 2013 03:47PM)
@Andrew,
I completely agree Brother!

Heck, even the snow refuses to pay you Angelinos a visit.
[img]http://oursouthbay.com/flickr_snow.jpg[/img]
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 18, 2013 03:51PM)
BTW IPCC 5 does not refer to CO2 as a pollutant, as you can see by the contrast they draw.

[quote]Humans enhance the greenhouse effect directly by emitting greenhouse gases such as CO2, CH4, N2O, and chlorofluorocarbons (CFC) (Figure 1.1). In addition, pollutants such as carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and sulfur dioxide (SO2), which by themselves are negligible GHGs, have an indirect effect on the greenhouse effect by altering, through atmospheric chemical reactions, the abundance of important gases to the amount of outgoing LWR such as CH4 and ozone (O3), and/or by acting as precursors of secondary aerosols. Since anthropogenic emission sources simultaneously can emit some chemicals that affect climate and others that affect air pollution, including some that affect both, atmospheric chemistry and climate science are intrinsically linked.[/quote]
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Oct 18, 2013 03:52PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-18 16:31, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-10-18 16:18, rockwall wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-10-18 11:17, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
...
Sigh. Nobody ever said CO2 was a pollutant.
...
[/quote]

hmmm. you sure about that?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-pollutant-advanced.htm

"Although it has some very important and beneficial effects, CO2 meets the legal and encyclopedic definitions of a "pollutant", and human CO2 emissions pose a threat to public health and welfare."


http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2012/12/27/epa-administrator-resigns-declared-carbon-dioxide-a-pollutant/

"Jackson was the first federal official to declare carbon dioxide a pollutant."


I'm pretty sure I could find a lot more if necessary.
[/quote]

Ok somebody does say it's a pollutant. Not that its toxic, but that in sufficient quantities it is a pollutant. I stand corrected.

OTOH please note that this does not alter the substance of my response to Woland. The issue is that substantially increasing the quantitiy of CO2 in the atmosphere is harmful.
[/quote]

That's what I like about you Magnus. You'll usually admit it if you made a mistake. Unlike others who would argue for days about it even after being obviously proven wrong.

And you're correct, it doesn't alter the substance of the rest of your response. But it does kinda diminish the sigh.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Oct 18, 2013 04:30PM)
[quote]I would love to hear one reason, just one, why we SHOULDN'T be reducing greenhouse gas emissions.[/quote]

Carbon dioxide is a vital nutrient for and stimulant of plant life. Moderately increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is doing wonders for food production, and may be the most significant factor associated with "greening" the planet. I think that we should allow the concentration of carbon dioxide to continue increasing towards levels that have been over the aeons more typical of the earth's atmosphere, and get out of the desertification caused by the relative starvation levels of carbon dioxide that still plague the planet.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Oct 18, 2013 04:31PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-18 17:30, Woland wrote:
[quote]I would love to hear one reason, just one, why we SHOULDN'T be reducing greenhouse gas emissions.[/quote]

Carbon dioxide is a vital nutrient for and stimulant of plant life. Moderately increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is doing wonders for food production, and may be the most significant factor associated with "greening" the planet. I think that we should allow the concentration of carbon dioxide to continue increasing towards levels that have been over the aeons more typical of the earth's atmosphere, and get out of the desertification caused by the relative starvation levels of carbon dioxide that still plague the planet.
[/quote]

Ok, give me TWO reasons then, dag nabbit! :)
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 18, 2013 04:37PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-17 14:54, MaxfieldsMagic wrote:
This seems to be a common strategy for climate change skeptics and defense attorneys
[/quote]

I found your responses rather unsurprising, too.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 18, 2013 04:44PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-18 17:30, Woland wrote:
[quote]I would love to hear one reason, just one, why we SHOULDN'T be reducing greenhouse gas emissions.[/quote]

Carbon dioxide is a vital nutrient for and stimulant of plant life. Moderately increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is doing wonders for food production, and may be the most significant factor associated with "greening" the planet...
[/quote]

What is your source for this claim?
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Oct 18, 2013 05:00PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-17 14:54, MaxfieldsMagic wrote:
...

This seems to be a common strategy for climate change skeptics and defense attorneys - look at each piece of evidence in isolation and try to pick it apart, thereby ignoring the cumulative weight of evidence that the big picture provides. Thirty discrete pieces of circumstantial evidence may be explained away individually, but it becomes increasingly less likely that they are all coincidences when taken together, particularly when they are consistent with a hypothesis that is already generally accepted.
[/quote]

Well, I suppose that instead of looking at each piece of evidence in isolation, we could look at a year's worth of evidence and try not to ignore the cumulative weight of the evidence that data provides. After all, thirty discrete pieces of circumstantial evidence may be explained away individually but a year's worth of evidence is less likely that it is all due to coincidence when taken together. (Unless, of course, they are in-consistent with the hypothesis that you choose to believe.)

http://thesiweather.com/2013/10/18/1100-am-2013-a-year-with-minimal-extreme-weather-events-in-the-us/

"There have been many forecasts in the news in recent years predicting more and more extreme weather-related events in the US, but for 2013 that prediction has been way off the mark. Whether you’re talking about tornadoes, wildfires, extreme heat or hurricanes, the good news is that weather-related disasters in the US are all way down this year compared to recent years and, in some cases, down to historically low levels."

"Tornadoes
To begin with, the number of tornadoes in the US this year is on pace to be the lowest total since 2000 and it may turn out to be the lowest total in several decades. "

"Wildfires
Second, the number of wildfires across the US so far this year is on pace to be the lowest it has been in the past ten years and the acreage involved is at the second lowest level in that same time period"

"Extreme Heat
In addition to wildfires, extreme heat is also way down across the US this year. In fact, the number of 100 degree days across the country during 2013 is not only down for this year, but it is perhaps going to turn out to be the lowest in about 100 years of records"

"Hurricanes
Finally, as far as hurricanes are concerned and keeping in mind that the season isn't over yet, there have been only two hurricanes so far this year in the Atlantic Basin (Humberto and Ingrid) and they were both short-lived and weak category 1 storms."

"Finally, another interesting stat with respect to hurricanes has to do with the fact that we are currently in the longest period since the Civil War Era without a major hurricane strike in the US (i.e., category 3, 4 or 5)."
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Oct 18, 2013 05:45PM)
Now try looking at twenty or fifty years.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 18, 2013 06:27PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-18 18:45, mastermindreader wrote:
Now try looking at twenty or fifty years.
[/quote]

Now try looking at the entire deck of cards.
See I told you your card was there.

I reviewed the [url=http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/]reports[/url] as referenced by earlier as well in Woland's posts. Let's pretend for a moment that the worst case climate instability projections are "true" in the sense that their predicted increased deaths due to storms and population displacements are what will happen given current conditions and fuel use. Okay then what do you suggest? I've already posted my "modest proposal".

Did Chanting "Four legs good, two legs better" spare the flock from the destiny that comes with mint jelly?

Getting everyone scared right before an eclipse does not hasten the event - nor does it change the timing of the event - but it does affect the people suffering through the event. Is that increase in suffering of interest to anyone here?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 18, 2013 07:54PM)
Out of curiosity, rockwall, what were you doing at siweather.com?

It appears to be an employee-run weather service from a private defense contractor (SI Organization) that has no business or past interests in weather or climate. I haven't bothered to check their claims, but it is very odd organization.

Maybe I'll look into the claims later.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 18, 2013 07:55PM)
For those who'd like to address the matter under discussion - there's an interesting item in the report (page 12-6) linked [url=http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter12.pdf]here[/url] about the basic premise of the theory its meaning to us and those who come after. In short - it's not as if any hand wringing is likely to help but their predictions are on the table.

Monsoon season?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 18, 2013 08:02PM)
Before I even consider chasing this goose, rockwall, can you find a single scientific reference that suggests that tornadoes, wildfires, heatwaves or hurricanes in the USA were predicted to rise?

On second glance, the linked report looks like nothing but cherry picking "extreme events" of its own definition to attack a vague and unidentified target.

Who or what is it supposed to respond to?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 18, 2013 08:11PM)
So all those tornados that never happened before the late 90's DON'T support the AGW hypothesis after all?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 18, 2013 08:13PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-18 20:55, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
For those who'd like to address the matter under discussion - there's an interesting item in the report (page 12-6) linked [url=http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter12.pdf]here[/url] about the basic premise of the theory its meaning to us and those who come after. In short - it's not as if any hand wringing is likely to help but their predictions are on the table.

Monsoon season?
[/quote]

Oh sure, bring the IPCC report into the discussion at this late stage :0
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Oct 18, 2013 08:20PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-18 21:02, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Before I even consider chasing this goose, rockwall, can you find a single scientific reference that suggests that tornadoes, wildfires, heatwaves or hurricanes in the USA were predicted to rise?

On second glance, the linked report looks like nothing but cherry picking "extreme events" of its own definition to attack a vague and unidentified target.

Who or what is it supposed to respond to?
[/quote]

PATTERNS and increased frequency of storms, tornadoes, heatwaves, wildfires and hurricanes such as Sandy, are indeed to be expected per the AGW model.

Virtually everyone who understands the science behind AGW is aware of the this. The deniers, not so much. :)
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Oct 18, 2013 08:28PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-18 21:02, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Before I even consider chasing this goose, rockwall, can you find a single scientific reference that suggests that tornadoes, wildfires, heatwaves or hurricanes in the USA were predicted to rise?

On second glance, the linked report looks like nothing but cherry picking "extreme events" of its own definition to attack a vague and unidentified target.

Who or what is it supposed to respond to?
[/quote]

OK, the first response was just for fun. Here's a better one with links.

We'll start with heatwaves.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/06/30/2208981/abc-news-scientists-say-human-caused-climate-change-is-creating-more-heat-waves-droughts-and-intense-downpours/

ABC News: ‘Scientists Say Human-Caused Climate Change Is … Creating More Heat Waves, Droughts And Intense Downpours’


http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20130820/NEWS09/130829997

Climate change will cause more severe heatwaves: Study


Now, let's move on to wildfires.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/05/business/energy-environment/wildfires-and-climate-change.html?_r=0

Wildfires and Climate Change


Next up, we've got hurricanes.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2013/07/08/climate-change-global-warming-hurricanes/2498611/

Storm warning: Climate change to spawn more hurricanes


I'm sure Bob would agree that all of these articles were written by 'those who understand the science.' One of his favorite phrases in discussing AGW.
Message: Posted by: MaxfieldsMagic (Oct 18, 2013 08:49PM)
Edit.
Message: Posted by: MaxfieldsMagic (Oct 18, 2013 08:58PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-18 18:00, rockwall wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-10-17 14:54, MaxfieldsMagic wrote:
...

This seems to be a common strategy for climate change skeptics and defense attorneys - look at each piece of evidence in isolation and try to pick it apart, thereby ignoring the cumulative weight of evidence that the big picture provides. Thirty discrete pieces of circumstantial evidence may be explained away individually, but it becomes increasingly less likely that they are all coincidences when taken together, particularly when they are consistent with a hypothesis that is already generally accepted.
[/quote]

Well, I suppose that instead of looking at each piece of evidence in isolation, we could look at a year's worth of evidence and try not to ignore the cumulative weight of the evidence that data provides. After all, thirty discrete pieces of circumstantial evidence may be explained away individually but a year's worth of evidence is less likely that it is all due to coincidence when taken together. (Unless, of course, they are in-consistent with the hypothesis that you choose to believe.)

http://thesiweather.com/2013/10/18/1100-am-2013-a-year-with-minimal-extreme-weather-events-in-the-us/

"There have been many forecasts in the news in recent years predicting more and more extreme weather-related events in the US, but for 2013 that prediction has been way off the mark. Whether you’re talking about tornadoes, wildfires, extreme heat or hurricanes, the good news is that weather-related disasters in the US are all way down this year compared to recent years and, in some cases, down to historically low levels."

"Tornadoes
To begin with, the number of tornadoes in the US this year is on pace to be the lowest total since 2000 and it may turn out to be the lowest total in several decades. "

"Wildfires
Second, the number of wildfires across the US so far this year is on pace to be the lowest it has been in the past ten years and the acreage involved is at the second lowest level in that same time period"

"Extreme Heat
In addition to wildfires, extreme heat is also way down across the US this year. In fact, the number of 100 degree days across the country during 2013 is not only down for this year, but it is perhaps going to turn out to be the lowest in about 100 years of records"

"Hurricanes
Finally, as far as hurricanes are concerned and keeping in mind that the season isn't over yet, there have been only two hurricanes so far this year in the Atlantic Basin (Humberto and Ingrid) and they were both short-lived and weak category 1 storms."

"Finally, another interesting stat with respect to hurricanes has to do with the fact that we are currently in the longest period since the Civil War Era without a major hurricane strike in the US (i.e., category 3, 4 or 5)."

[/quote]

Seriously, Rockwall? You think a year's worth of data is dispositive of climate change theory? I really doubt you actually believe that.

But folks who do - and judging by what you hear on AM radio, there are many - are again focusing on discrete chunks of data in order to willfully ignore long term trends.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 18, 2013 08:59PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-18 21:28, rockwall wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-10-18 21:02, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Before I even consider chasing this goose, rockwall, can you find a single scientific reference that suggests that tornadoes, wildfires, heatwaves or hurricanes in the USA were predicted to rise?

On second glance, the linked report looks like nothing but cherry picking "extreme events" of its own definition to attack a vague and unidentified target.

Who or what is it supposed to respond to?
[/quote]

OK, the first response was just for fun. Here's a better one with links.

We'll start with heatwaves.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/06/30/2208981/abc-news-scientists-say-human-caused-climate-change-is-creating-more-heat-waves-droughts-and-intense-downpours/

ABC News: ‘Scientists Say Human-Caused Climate Change Is … Creating More Heat Waves, Droughts And Intense Downpours’[/quote]

Who knows what's being referenced here. A web site quotes an ABC News item that says "Scientists say human-caused climate change is already helping shift the planet’s natural balance. Creating more heat waves, drought, and intense downpours. A stormy and expensive reality, that’s already on our doorsteps." No reference, no name, nothing. Not impressed yet.


[quote]http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20130820/NEWS09/130829997

Climate change will cause more severe heatwaves: Study[/quote]

You got the headline. I don't see the story. Do you subscribe to this service so I can read what is being claimed by whom?


[quote]Now, let's move on to wildfires.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/05/business/energy-environment/wildfires-and-climate-change.html?_r=0

Wildfires and Climate Change[/quote]

Um. Did you read the article? Especially the part that says "The pattern of increased wildfires by the end of this century appears 'clear for temperate and northern regions of the world, and it is most striking for the boreal forests/taiga and tundra biomes,' the paper stated"? I don't think the first 10 months of 2013 is sufficient data to contradict trends that are talking about "the end of this century".

[quote]
Next up, we've got hurricanes.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2013/07/08/climate-change-global-warming-hurricanes/2498611/

Storm warning: Climate change to spawn more hurricanes[/quote]

Again, I suggest you read what you link to. The first paragraph says "The world could see as many as 20 additional hurricanes and tropical storms each year by the end of the century because of climate change, says a study out today." Again, the first 10 months of 2013 in the USA quite contradicts a global claim about the end of the 21st century.

[/quote]

Google is fun. Reading is better.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Oct 18, 2013 09:03PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-18 21:20, rockwall wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-10-18 21:02, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Before I even consider chasing this goose, rockwall, can you find a single scientific reference that suggests that tornadoes, wildfires, heatwaves or hurricanes in the USA were predicted to rise?

On second glance, the linked report looks like nothing but cherry picking "extreme events" of its own definition to attack a vague and unidentified target.

Who or what is it supposed to respond to?
[/quote]

PATTERNS and increased frequency of storms, tornadoes, heatwaves, wildfires and hurricanes such as Sandy, are indeed to be expected per the AGW model.

Virtually everyone who understands the science behind AGW is aware of the this. The deniers, not so much. :)
[/quote]

Thank you for quoting my almost correct answer. I should have stated that such events are "consistent with" rather that "to be expected" by the AGW model. (As anyone who is familiar with the science already knows.)
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Oct 18, 2013 09:18PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-18 21:59, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
...

Google is fun. Reading is better.
[/quote]

Sigh. You obviously aren't one who understands the science. ;)
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Oct 18, 2013 09:21PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-18 21:58, MaxfieldsMagic wrote:
...

Seriously, Rockwall? You think a year's worth of data is dispositive of climate change theory? I really doubt you actually believe that.

But folks who do - and judging by what you hear on AM radio, there are many - are again focusing on discrete chunks of data in order to willfully ignore long term trends.
[/quote]

LOL. You're a funny guy. This from a guy who just minutes ago claimed,

"Thirty discrete pieces of circumstantial evidence may be explained away individually, but it becomes increasingly less likely that they are all coincidences when taken together"
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Oct 18, 2013 09:50PM)
Ten months of data is, in fact, a "discrete piece of circumstantial evidence" when analyzing long term change. Note the time periods analyzed before scientists concluded that sea level increases were directly related to AGW: (It's a bit more than ten months)

[quote]Sea levels around the world are rising.[2] Current sea-level rise potentially affects human populations (e.g., those living in coastal regions and on islands)[3] and the natural environment (e.g., marine ecosystems).[4] Between 1870 and 2004, global average sea levels rose 195 mm (7.7 in).[5] From 1950 to 2009, measurements show an average annual rise in sea level of 1.7 ± 0.3 mm per year, with satellite data showing a rise of 3.3 ± 0.4 mm per year from 1993 to 2009,[6] a faster rate of increase than previously estimated.[7] It is unclear whether the increased rate reflects an increase in the underlying long-term trend.[8]

Two main factors contributed to observed sea level rise.[9] The first is thermal expansion: as ocean water warms, it expands.[10] The second is from the contribution of land-based ice due to increased melting. The major store of water on land is found in glaciers and ice sheets.

Sea level rise is one of several lines of evidence that support the view that the climate has recently warmed.[11] The global community of climate scientists confirms that it is very likely that human-induced (anthropogenic) warming contributed to the sea level rise observed in the latter half of the 20th century.[12][/quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise
Message: Posted by: MaxfieldsMagic (Oct 18, 2013 10:59PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-18 22:21, rockwall wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-10-18 21:58, MaxfieldsMagic wrote:
...

Seriously, Rockwall? You think a year's worth of data is dispositive of climate change theory? I really doubt you actually believe that.

But folks who do - and judging by what you hear on AM radio, there are many - are again focusing on discrete chunks of data in order to willfully ignore long term trends.
[/quote]

LOL. You're a funny guy. This from a guy who just minutes ago claimed,

"Thirty discrete pieces of circumstantial evidence may be explained away individually, but it becomes increasingly less likely that they are all coincidences when taken together"

[/quote]

There's no contradiction. One year of data is but a point on a much larger chart - a small timeframe deliberately chosen because you find the data supportive. Expand your focus to a larger data sample, such as the trends of the last 25 years, or even the last 150 years "taken together," and you'll see a line that goes up and down year to year, but the upward trend is undeniable.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 18, 2013 11:08PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-18 23:59, MaxfieldsMagic wrote:
One year of data is but a point on a much larger chart - a small timeframe deliberately chosen because you find the data supportive.
[/quote]

That's how folks do it, on both sides...choose the data that supports you, and ignore the rest.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 18, 2013 11:17PM)
Down to guilt by association, Lobo.

How about the way that climate scientists do it?

Liking or disliking an expert's opinion, doesn't recruit them to your "side".
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 18, 2013 11:32PM)
I'm not sure what you mean by guilt by association here. I agree that liking or disliking an expert's opinion doesn't recruit the expert to one's side; however, the side that one is on often tends to determine which experts are liked.

More directly, if you peruse the thread for the last day or so, you'll see that MM, who accused Rockwall of deliberately choosing information to provide because he finds the data supportive, in turn posted what he thought was "supportive" information about tornados in Virginia. When confronted with evidence that suggested that the actual data didn't support his claim, he first 1) denied the facts ("Sorry. Not true. Don't know what website you're looking at..."); then, when confronted with unimpeachable sources, 2) moved the goalposts (Well, ok, we had lots of tornados way back when, too, but they weren't that big), then 3) dismissed the whole metric - HIS own metric introduced that very day when the claim appeared to [i]support[/i] the AGW hypotheses (Why are you focusing on the tornados, anyway?).

No guilt by association involved; just describing a rhetorical device that's not limited to one side or the other - quote the stuff that supports your position; ignore the rest. So, who is it that was choosing what information to provide based on whether or not he finds the data supportive, again?

By the way, along the way, he picked up some support from you (Who ever said that AGW would lead to more tornados, anyway?)
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Oct 19, 2013 12:38AM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-19 00:08, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-10-18 23:59, MaxfieldsMagic wrote:
One year of data is but a point on a much larger chart - a small timeframe deliberately chosen because you find the data supportive.
[/quote]

That's how folks do it, on both sides...choose the data that supports you, and ignore the rest.
[/quote]

But what is being suggested is simply to look at a much larger time frame- back to when records were first kept, as in the sea level data I cited above which shows that the increased sea level is undeniable evidence that the earth is warming.
Message: Posted by: Bob1Dog (Oct 19, 2013 01:31AM)
Yikes, don't y'alls have jobs or something? Geeze so much time wasted here not solving anything. Yikes again. Carry on for my continued amusement. :)
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 19, 2013 11:26AM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-19 01:38, mastermindreader wrote:...

But what is being suggested is simply to look at a much larger time frame- back to when ...
[/quote]

In which case the planet is cooling and its rotation is slowing ... basic physics.

[url=http://www.earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GISSTemperature/giss_temperature2.php]here[/url]'s a readable discussion of the warming observations and argument.

The longer term thermal issue is described [url=http://csmres.jmu.edu/geollab/fichter/PlateTect/heathistory.html]here[/url] toward the bottom of the page.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 19, 2013 11:42AM)
Lobo, I'm disputing the whole notion of "sides". Lots of people have opinions and we can conveniently group them in a number of ways--by conclusion seems to be the most obvious. But they aren't on the "same side" in any interesting sense. Any more than all men are on the same side, or all Californians with Spanish as a first language are.

By assigning sides, it becomes much too tempting even more easy to dismiss everyone because of one or two wacky members.
Message: Posted by: MaxfieldsMagic (Oct 19, 2013 11:55AM)
[quote]

More directly, if you peruse the thread for the last day or so, you'll see that MM, who accused Rockwall of deliberately choosing information to provide because he finds the data supportive, in turn posted what he thought was "supportive" information about tornados in Virginia. When confronted with evidence that suggested that the actual data didn't support his claim, he first 1) denied the facts ("Sorry. Not true. Don't know what website you're looking at..."); then, when confronted with unimpeachable sources, 2) moved the goalposts (Well, ok, we had lots of tornados way back when, too, but they weren't that big), then 3) dismissed the whole metric - HIS own metric introduced that very day when the claim appeared to [i]support[/i] the AGW hypotheses (Why are you focusing on the tornados, anyway?).

[/quote]

Actually, if you go back and look at my original post where I mentioned the frequency of tornados (something that folks here in Northern Virginia will support, by the way, based on the increased disruption to our lives over the last several years), you'll see that it was just one of many "anecdotes" I mentioned. The post was a response to an assertion that because this year has been low in hurricanes (limited data set which, BTW, was compiled before the massive typhoon in India), implying that AGW is not supported by observable facts. In every one of your responses, you focused on the tornados alone and ignored the others. Again, divide and conquer. Pull back your focus a bit and look at the big picture and long term trends. That's what the scientists do, because that's what matters.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Oct 19, 2013 12:08PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-19 12:26, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-10-19 01:38, mastermindreader wrote:...

But what is being suggested is simply to look at a much larger time frame- back to when ...
[/quote]

In which case the planet is cooling and its rotation is slowing ... basic physics.

[url=http://www.earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GISSTemperature/giss_temperature2.php]here[/url]'s a readable discussion of the warming observations and argument.

The longer term thermal issue is described [url=http://csmres.jmu.edu/geollab/fichter/PlateTect/heathistory.html]here[/url] toward the bottom of the page.
[/quote]

Nice try at changing what I said by deliberately leaving out the rest of my sentence. It said "back to when records were first kept," (approximately the mid 19th Century) NOT back to the beginning of the planet. The facts show that the planet has been warming and the sea level rising during the second half of the twentieth century at faster rates than from the mid 19th to the mid 20th.

If you are going to quote me, please don't selectively edit what I wrote.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 19, 2013 12:13PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-19 12:55, MaxfieldsMagic wrote:
[quote]

More directly, if you peruse the thread for the last day or so, you'll see that MM, who accused Rockwall of deliberately choosing information to provide because he finds the data supportive, in turn posted what he thought was "supportive" information about tornados in Virginia. When confronted with evidence that suggested that the actual data didn't support his claim, he first 1) denied the facts ("Sorry. Not true. Don't know what website you're looking at..."); then, when confronted with unimpeachable sources, 2) moved the goalposts (Well, ok, we had lots of tornados way back when, too, but they weren't that big), then 3) dismissed the whole metric - HIS own metric introduced that very day when the claim appeared to [i]support[/i] the AGW hypotheses (Why are you focusing on the tornados, anyway?).

[/quote]

Actually, if you go back and look at my original post where I mentioned the frequency of tornados (something that folks here in Northern Virginia will support, by the way, based on the increased disruption to our lives over the last several years), you'll see that it was just one of many "anecdotes" I mentioned. The post was a response to an assertion that because this year has been low in hurricanes (limited data set which, BTW, was compiled before the massive typhoon in India), implying that AGW is not supported by observable facts. In every one of your responses, you focused on the tornados alone and ignored the others. Again, divide and conquer. Pull back your focus a bit and look at the big picture and long term trends. That's what the scientists do, because that's what matters.
[/quote]

I "focused on" tornadoes because 1) I figured it would be the easiest thing to check on (maybe somewhere there's a government agency that quantifies the historic damage that pine beetles have done on an annual basis and provides those results on a website, but it might take a while to find), and 2) They were local to you (as opposed to Indian typhoons) - they were within your firsthand experience. I didn't look for anything else and dismiss it because it didn't fit any agenda of mine; I just grabbed one of your assertions and explored it. Not to disprove it, but because I was curious.

Here's how you closed that post:

"Again, anecdotes - but anecdotes that are consistent with scientists' hypotheses. Personally, I see a lot more evidence confirming those hypotheses than I do for many other things I'm asked to believe in."

When confronted with the possibility that in fact, one of those pieces of evidence that you thought was "consistent with scientists' hypotheses," your first response was to first tell me that my claim - pulled from sources like a government emergency response information websites and a regional climate center - was wrong. The data didn't fit your belief, so they were [i]immediately[/i] dismissed. Your second response was to move the goalposts, backing off of the "tornadoes in Virginia were unheard of" claim to latch onto MasterMindreader's lifeline (Well, ok, there WERE regular tornadoes in Virginia going back for decades, but these are REALLY BIG tornadoes). And your third response is to completely disregard the significance of the metric that YOU introduced. It's ok to examine the frequency of tornadoes in Virginia as long as the data support your position, but if they don't, then you've got to look at the big picture, question why I'm focused on the tornadoes instead of the pine beetles, etc.

Now, that's all fine. I certainly recognize that there are many, many data. I'm just particularly interested in the question, "What does one do who encounters evidence that he was unaware of and which don't support his belief on the issue?" And the answer for most people - apparently including you; let's just be honest about it, - regardless of their position on AGW, is that it doesn't slow anyone down a bit.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 19, 2013 12:19PM)
Still playing both Casandra and Polonius? It's the audience that decides whether the predictions are correct and the advice is sagacious or specious.

Do we need to vote how to interpret the words "heat death"? It's a darn good equivocation if asked about "the future" ;)

Anyway back to the actual matter (not the egos) at hand - the notion of "negative" carbon emissions got my attention in the cited page. What do you think?
Message: Posted by: MaxfieldsMagic (Oct 19, 2013 12:30PM)
Lobowolf - although I'm not backing away from my observation that tornados in Northern Virginia have increased, because they most definitely have over the last 15 years, I did credit you with citing your sources, which gave some historical background of which I was unaware. That's great. I'll admit (and did) that you introduced data of which I was unaware, in regards to one specific point. However, it certainly doesn't erase my personal observations living in Nothern Virginia and having to go through the "to the basement" drill with increasing frequency. There's something about having the lives of your wife and children at stake that focuses your attention on reality, as opposed to "he said, she said" politics.

My fear is that we're going to wait until everyone has these same personal observations before we decide to act. And then it will likely be too late.
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (Oct 19, 2013 10:21PM)
If the bill doesn't come due in their lifetime, they don't care. :clownjuggling:
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 19, 2013 10:44PM)
Norman Spinrad tried to have part of this dialog some time ago. His more recent published effort [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6665904-he-walked-among-us]He Walked Among Us[/url] got pretty good reviews.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Oct 19, 2013 10:56PM)
[quote]The Purple Sage opened his mouth and moved his tongue and so spake to them and he said:

The Earth quakes and the Heavens rattle; the beasts of nature flock together and the nations of men flock apart; volcanoes usher up heat while elsewhere water becomes ice and melts; and then on other days it just rains. Indeed do many things come to pass.

-Lord Omar Khayaam Ravenhurst, K.S.C., "The Book of Predications." The Honest Book of Truth [/quote]

- RA Wilson and Robert Shea, The Eye in the Pyramid, Book One of The Illuminatus Trilogy
Message: Posted by: Woland (Oct 20, 2013 06:07PM)
Please look at the historical climate graphs in [url=http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3553]this article.[/url] Warm is better than cold, but unfortunately, as far as can be determined, warm periods are usually shorter than ice ages.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 20, 2013 06:58PM)
From the foresight place: Amazing sci-fi [url=http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3553#comment-865490]link[/url] and now re-framed as fiction

[quote] From December 7th, 2009 at 10:07 PM

Very interesting.

But I understand that there is one single tree on the Yamal Peninsula of Russia that holds the key to the temperature record for the past 5 billion years. And that tree tells us that we are experiencing unprecedented warming, with anthropogenic greenhouse gas footprints all over it.

.... We are only laymen and laywomen, who cannot think for ourselves. Trust the 25,000,000 scientists who support the 25,000 IPCC scientists — and who all agree that humans are to blame for catastrophic warming.

We have an imperative, you see, ...[/quote]

Very interesting.

But I was now aware that trees had secrets and that anyone had learned how to talk to trees. Waterboarding??
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Oct 20, 2013 07:08PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-20 19:07, Woland wrote:
Please look at the historical climate graphs in [url=http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3553]this article.[/url] Warm is better than cold, but unfortunately, as far as can be determined, warm periods are usually shorter than ice ages.
[/quote]

[quote]
On 2013-10-19 01:38, mastermindreader wrote:
...
But what is being suggested is simply to look at a much larger time frame- back to when records were first kept, as in the sea level data I cited above which shows that the increased sea level is undeniable evidence that the earth is warming.
[/quote]

I don't think your time frames are large enough Woland.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Oct 20, 2013 07:41PM)
Love how you intentionally misread what I write. As I made clear in my follow up post, "back to when records were first kept" refers to official climate records dating back to the mid 19th Century.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Oct 20, 2013 08:53PM)
As I've mentioned before in other discussions, accurate temperature records according to a universal standard that would permit comparisons to be made between them and allow data to be accumulated, are very sparse. The standardized thermometer is less than 200 years old. Regular, standardized temperature measurements have been made for a far shorter period than that, and temperatures have been recorded accurately in only very few locations, most of them close to centers of population in the temperate zone. It has also been shown that the majority of US mainland temperature recording stations fail to meet the basic requirements set forth for siting them.

There are virtually no temperature recording stations on the 3/4 of the world's surface that was not covered by Paul Blair.

Beyond the extremely limited and sparse data of the past century, there are only surrogates.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 20, 2013 10:36PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-20 21:53, Woland wrote:
As I've mentioned before in other discussions, accurate temperature records according to a universal standard that would permit comparisons to be made between them and allow data to be accumulated, are very sparse. The standardized thermometer is less than 200 years old. Regular, standardized temperature measurements have been made for a far shorter period than that, and temperatures have been recorded accurately in only very few locations, most of them close to centers of population in the temperate zone. It has also been shown that the majority of US mainland temperature recording stations fail to meet the basic requirements set forth for siting them.

There are virtually no temperature recording stations on the 3/4 of the world's surface that was not covered by Paul Blair.

Beyond the extremely limited and sparse data of the past century, there are only surrogates.
[/quote]

Read the reports. This is nothing new, and it is not much of a barrier.
Message: Posted by: RNK (Oct 21, 2013 10:37AM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-20 21:53, Woland wrote:
As I've mentioned before in other discussions, accurate temperature records according to a universal standard that would permit comparisons to be made between them and allow data to be accumulated, are very sparse. The standardized thermometer is less than 200 years old. Regular, standardized temperature measurements have been made for a far shorter period than that, and temperatures have been recorded accurately in only very few locations, most of them close to centers of population in the temperate zone. It has also been shown that the majority of US mainland temperature recording stations fail to meet the basic requirements set forth for siting them.

There are virtually no temperature recording stations on the 3/4 of the world's surface that was not covered by Paul Blair.

Beyond the extremely limited and sparse data of the past century, there are only surrogates.
[/quote]

So true. There is no such thing as accurate "recorded" data from the mid 19th century. Doesn't exist.

RNK
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Oct 21, 2013 10:44AM)
Look at the link I provided re: sea level change. Many records do, in fact, go back to the mid 19th Century.

Please provide a link to support your contention that there is "no such thing as accurate 'recorded' data from the mid 19th Century."

You also completely overlook the fact that my post was in rebuttal to the suggestion that conclusions can be drawn by looking at the first tenth months of THIS YEAR alone. ALL available recorded data is required to understand the science of AGW.
Message: Posted by: RNK (Oct 21, 2013 10:50AM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-21 11:44, mastermindreader wrote:
Look at the link I provided re: sea level change. Many records do, in fact, go back to the mid 19th Century.

Please provide a link to support your contention that there is "no such thing as accurate 'recorded' data from the mid 19th Century."

You also completely overlook the fact that my post was in rebuttal to the suggestion that conclusions can be drawn by looking at the first tenth months of THIS YEAR alone. ALL available recorded data is required to understand the science of AGW.
[/quote]

Recording sea level is much different than saying you have "recorded temperatures from the mid 19th century". Anyone who knows and has studied any type of science knows that there are no "accurately recorded temperatures" from the mid-19th century.

RNK
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Oct 21, 2013 10:54AM)
Here are my exact words. You seem to have missed them:

[quote] But what is being suggested is simply to look at a much larger time frame- back to when records were first kept, as in the sea level data I cited above which shows that the increased sea level is undeniable evidence that the earth is warming.[/quote]

As to no temperature records existing that go back to the mid 19th Century, you might want to Google Thomas Jefferson and the extremely detailed temperature records that he kept at Monticello well BEFORE the mid 19th Century. (Data that he shared with others who kept similar records at different locations.)
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 21, 2013 11:20AM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-21 11:54, mastermindreader wrote:
Here are my exact words. You seem to have missed them:

[quote] But what is being suggested is simply to look at a much larger time frame- back to when records were first kept, as in the sea level data I cited above which shows that the increased sea level is undeniable evidence that the earth is warming.[/quote]

As to no temperature records existing that go back to the mid 19th Century, you might want to Google Thomas Jefferson and the extremely detailed temperature records that he kept at Monticello well BEFORE the mid 19th Century. (Data that he shared with others who kept similar records at different locations.)

[/quote]

Gabriel Fahrenheit established his scale on mercury thermometers in 1724; Anders Celsius gave us his scale in 1742. Nonstandard scales had been in use for over a century before this.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Oct 22, 2013 06:08AM)
The weather has been noticeably [url=http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/10/18/new-study-2013-ranks-as-one-of-the-least-extreme-us-weather-years-ever-many-bad-weather-events-at-historically-low-levels/]less extreme this year.[/url]

Tornadoes:

[quote]Year # of Tornadoes
2013 771
2012 1119
2011 1894
2010 1543
2009 1305
2008 1685
2007 1102
2006 1117
2005 1262
2004 1820
2003 1374
2002 938
2001 1219
2000 1072

[/quote]

Wildfires:

[quote]

2013 Fires: 40,306 Acres: 4,152,390
2012 Fires: 67,774 Acres: 9,326,238
2011 Fires: 74,126 Acres: 8,711,367
2010 Fires: 62,471 Acres: 3,233,461
2009 Fires: 78,792 Acres: 5,921,786
2008 Fires: 80,094 Acres: 5,254,109
2007 Fires: 85,822 Acres: 9,321,326
2006 Fires: 96,358 Acres: 9,871,939
2005 Fires: 66,552 Acres: 8,686,753
2004 Fires: 63,608 Acres: 8,097,880

[/quote]

And then:

[quote]In addition to wildfires, extreme heat is also way down across the US this year. In fact, the number of 100 degree days across the country during 2013 is not only down for this year, but it is perhaps going to turn out to be the lowest in about 100 years of records.

The five summers with the highest number of 100 degree days across the US are as follows: 1936, 1934, 1954, 1980 and 1930. In addition to the vast reduction in 100 degree days across the US this year, the number of high temperature records (ie hi max and hi min records) is way down compared to a year ago with 22,965 records this year as compared with 56,885 at this same time last year.[/quote]

Sounds to me like things are cooling off. Not a good thing, by the way.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Oct 22, 2013 06:33AM)
Now look at ALL the GLOBAL figures going back to 1930. They'll give you a much more accurate basis for analysis.

The sea level is still rising- guess why?
Message: Posted by: Woland (Oct 22, 2013 06:40AM)
Because the sky is falling?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 22, 2013 07:52AM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-22 07:08, Woland wrote:
The weather has been noticeably [url=http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/10/18/new-study-2013-ranks-as-one-of-the-least-extreme-us-weather-years-ever-many-bad-weather-events-at-historically-low-levels/]less extreme this year.[/url]

[/quote]

rockwall linked to this "study" on page 9. Apart from cherry picking 4 select indicators, only looking at the USA and using only the first 9 months of 2013, this authorless "study" posted on theisweather.com, which gives no indication of who they are, surely must be telling us something about the whole planet, eh?

Oh, and speaking of wildfires, been following the drama in [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-24579099]Australia[/url]?

[quote]Fire fighters in Australia's New South Wales have worked throughout the day to battle bushfires across the state, amid fears three blazes could merge.

New South Wales has been badly hit by bushfires after the hottest September on record. It has declared a state of emergency.

Early on Monday, the fire commissioner said three fires near Lithgow could be at risk of joining into one fire front.

Officials say conditions will worsen this week, with a peak on Wednesday.

NSW Rural Fire Services Commissioner Shane Fitzsimmons told a news briefing early on Monday that the State Mine fire was at risk of merging with a fire at Mount Victoria.

"Modelling indicates that there's every likelihood under the forecast weather conditions that these two fires, particularly up in the back end of the mountains will merge at some point... there is every likelihood that these two fires will join up," he said.

He added that in a "worst-case scenario" the fire could merge with a third fire at Springwood but said: "With the continued success of the fire-fighting effort, let's hope that it doesn't extend all that far eastward."


Speaking at the end of the day, he said the fires at Springwood and State Mine were still burning.

"Advice back from the Springwood fire area is that the fire... is still very active and is still burning in the valley system," he said.

At the State Mine fire, planned back-burning - a controlled burn aimed at managing a fire - had been thwarted "by the forward spread of the main fire front," he said.

Remote area teams would be working on Monday night to try to secure the Blackheath community near Mount Victoria, Mr Fitzsimmons said.

"It's a very difficult and challenging operation," he said. "They're going down very deep gorges... right down to creek lines." Around 800 personnel from interstate fire departments are expected to arrive on Tuesday to assist in fire-fighting efforts. Dry weather conditions had made firefighting efforts difficult on Monday, Mr Fitzsimmons added.

"The challenge is that most of the thunderstorm activity and lightning activity we are seeing is unaccompanied by any moisture."[/quote]
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Oct 22, 2013 07:59AM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-22 07:40, Woland wrote:
Because the sky is falling?
[/quote]

No, Woland. Because the sea ice is melting and the resulting gradual rise in sea level is undeniable. This has been confirmed by the data I cited earlier, which covers a span of over one-hundred and fifty years.
Message: Posted by: Russell Davidson (Oct 22, 2013 08:05AM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-22 08:59, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-10-22 07:40, Woland wrote:
Because the sky is falling?
[/quote]

No, Woland. Because the sea ice is melting and the resulting gradual rise in sea level is undeniable. This has been confirmed by the data I cited earlier, which covers a span of over one-hundred and fifty years.
[/quote]

Are you sure it's not just the fish getting fatter? :)
Message: Posted by: Woland (Oct 22, 2013 08:28AM)
It can't be from the "sea ice," because if melting of ice in the sea could cause sea levels to rise, then my Scotch on the rocks would overflow every time I let it sit long enough for the ice to melt.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Oct 22, 2013 08:44AM)
You're right. That's what I get from posting after staying up all night. I meant to say land-based ice NOT sea ice.

As stated in the quote I provided earlier:

[quote]Two main factors contributed to observed sea level rise.[9] The first is thermal expansion: as ocean water warms, it expands.[10] The second is from the contribution of land-based ice due to increased melting. The major store of water on land is found in glaciers and ice sheets.[/quote]

And the fact that a large amount of glacial ice has melted over just the last few decades is undeniable, as is the corresponding rise in sea level.

I note that no one on this thread has even attempted to contradict the observed rise in sea-level.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 22, 2013 09:30AM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-22 09:28, Woland wrote:
It can't be from the "sea ice," because if melting of ice in the sea could cause sea levels to rise, then my Scotch on the rocks would overflow every time I let it sit long enough for the ice to melt.
[/quote]

The ice in your scotch is floating in the liquid. Much of the polar caps is situated over land. Bad analogy.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 22, 2013 09:51AM)
Since he was responding to the statement that it was due to the melting of "sea ice," it was a pretty good analogy.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 22, 2013 09:54AM)
LOL. I generously read Bob's post to refer to the entire ice pack. Maybe he meant that the floating sea ice melt is independent of the land-locked ice. Sure.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 22, 2013 10:00AM)
I think there may be harsher criticism of Woland coming from those who would [i]never[/i] ruin a glass of perfectly good Scotch with ice.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 22, 2013 10:21AM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-22 11:00, LobowolfXXX wrote:
I think there may be harsher criticism of Woland coming from those who would [i]never[/i] ruin a glass of perfectly good Scotch with ice.
[/quote]

De gustibus non est disputandum :)
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 22, 2013 10:30AM)
Don't forget about the famed "Café Exception," though!
Message: Posted by: Woland (Oct 22, 2013 01:14PM)
Hi Lobo,

The ice melts, and many of the cognoscenti think that the flavour of a good Scotch is improved with a bit of water.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Oct 22, 2013 01:37PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-22 10:54, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
LOL. I generously read Bob's post to refer to the entire ice pack. Maybe he meant that the floating sea ice melt is independent of the land-locked ice. Sure.
[/quote]

Thanks, Magnus. But I really only intended to refer to the melting of land ice as that is the direct cause of the sea level rise, along with thermal expansion. But, obviously, there is no doubt that floating sea-ice is melting as well.

While we've had a humorous back-and-forth about the heresy of putting ice in Scotch, I've yet to hear a "non-warming" explanation for the documented and continuing sea-level rise which completely contradicts the notion that the earth is actually cooling.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 22, 2013 01:47PM)
Don't worry Bob. You'll be inundated with links in no time.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Oct 22, 2013 01:50PM)
I'm sure. But I guarantee that not one will link to any reputable scientific study.
Message: Posted by: GlenD (Oct 22, 2013 10:26PM)
Temperature data does show that we are in a cooling phase. Let's hope that a long term cooling trend is not descending on us. That could be a lot worse than a warming trend. What about an even more severe "starvation trend" if we succeed in reducing greenhouse gasses by 80 percent in 15 or so years? That, in combination with cooling global temperatures could be very devastating for plant life and all other life on the planet. Those darned unintended consequences popping up again, oh well.

Glen
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 22, 2013 11:11PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-22 23:26, GlenD wrote:
Temperature data does show that we are in a cooling phase.

Glen
[/quote]

Really, do tell.

From [url=http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/]NASA[/url]


[img]http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/dTs_60+132mons.gif[/img]


(I couldn't get the NASA images to link to the Café, so I used copies from Columbia University. Data is current to September 14, 2013.)
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Oct 22, 2013 11:16PM)
GlenD-

The data shows no such thing as illustrated by the actual data posted by Magnus.

And the sea level continues to rise as the science deniers remain silent as to the cause.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Oct 23, 2013 06:57AM)
As Wittgenstein said, freely translating here, Concerning that about which one cannot speak, one must keep silence. In other words, in this case, it may be better to avoid prematurely ascribing a cause to a phenomenon, rather than ascribing the observation to something that may or may not have anything to do with it.
Message: Posted by: GlenD (Oct 23, 2013 07:36AM)
There is always interpretation and clarification involved. The above chart goes back a hundred years or so and has a 1 degree total tolerance spread. Keeping those things in mind, when I mentioned a cooling trend I was referring to the recent data of about the last fifteen years. The carbon emissions of the last fifteen years or so are also the highest, worldwide, ever. Which means the data should be in a continual upward spike. And it isn't. The floating ice of the arctic has been melting more in recent years (which would not cause the sea levels to rise) yet the ice in the southern Antarctic has been increasing (but this is often not mentioned or just ignored). Again it's more alarmist, "the sky is falling" , we gotta act now over this manmade global fantasy perpetuated by the ever increasing numbers of those being duped and the more deliberate hoaxers involved. Some like to smugly sit there and throw out gauntlets yet ask questions such as why would anyone think there is a global conspiracy (when the group known as IPCC starts off with "intergovernmental" panel ...).

Glen
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 23, 2013 07:48AM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-23 07:57, Woland wrote:
As Wittgenstein said, freely translating here, Concerning that about which one cannot speak, one must keep silence. In other words, in this case, it may be better to avoid prematurely ascribing a cause to a phenomenon, rather than ascribing the observation to something that may or may not have anything to do with it.
[/quote]

I don't think that's what Wittgenstein meant. Wittgenstein is generally agreed to be talking about the limits of language and the impossibility of speaking intelligibly about certain metaphysical issues. The Vienna Circle embraced this notion; Wittgenstein himself later repudiated the entire project of the [i]Tractatus[/i]. I cannot think of a single scholar who interprets the line as having anything to do with incomplete empirical data.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 23, 2013 07:50AM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-23 08:36, GlenD wrote:
There is always interpretation and clarification involved. The above chart goes back a hundred years or so and has a 1 degree total tolerance spread. Keeping those things in mind, when I mentioned a cooling trend I was referring to the recent data of about the last fifteen years. The carbon emissions of the last fifteen years or so are also the highest, worldwide, ever. Which means the data should be in a continual upward spike. And it isn't. The floating ice of the arctic has been melting more in recent years (which would not cause the sea levels to rise) yet the ice in the southern Antarctic has been increasing (but this is often not mentioned or just ignored). Again it's more alarmist, "the sky is falling" , we gotta act now over this manmade global fantasy perpetuated by the ever increasing numbers of those being duped and the more deliberate hoaxers involved. Some like to smugly sit there and throw out gauntlets yet ask questions such as why would anyone think there is a global conspiracy (when the group known as IPCC starts off with "intergovernmental" panel ...).

Glen
[/quote]

Assuming the NASA data is correct, it shows increase over the past 15 years. Pick a starting point around 2000 and you'll see an upward trend.

Are you accusing NASA ob perpetrating a hoax with this data?
Message: Posted by: Russell Davidson (Oct 23, 2013 08:47AM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-22 14:37, mastermindreader wrote:

While we've had a humorous back-and-forth about the heresy of putting ice in Scotch, I've yet to hear a "non-warming" explanation for the documented and continuing sea-level rise which completely contradicts the notion that the earth is actually cooling.


Too many whales in the sea? :)
Message: Posted by: Ray Tupper. (Oct 23, 2013 08:51AM)
From the two graphs, I notice that it dips markedly at the times of the two world wars.
If the taxation doesn't work, maybe a good solid ten year world war would.
Population and surface temperature reduction in one go....(Nearly)Everyone's a winner.
;)
Message: Posted by: Woland (Oct 23, 2013 09:18AM)
Hi Magnus,

I think there is some evidence that the Tractatus Logico-philosophicus was intended as a spoof. The numbering of the propositions had a particularly pernicious effect on the way British philosophy was done for years to follow.

My suggestion that we avoid superstitious attributions of causality to incomplete data and poorly understood phenomena stands, however.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Oct 23, 2013 09:30AM)
The data clearly shows a warming trend and the deniers continue to deny, regardless of the evidence. This has nothing to do with "the sky is falling" nonsense, but rather with those who hide their heads in the sand rather than to look at the clear empirical evidence around them.

I note that NO ONE has answered the question about sea-level change other than to say that the data isn't sufficient to explain it. In other words, it IS rising and they intentionally refuse to see why.

And misinterpreting Wittgenstein, while it sounds profound, is really no more persuasive than propounding the myth that Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican.

And the ineluctable sea-level rise, commensurate with the global rise in temperature, continues inexorably as the deniers close their eyes, put their fingers in their ears and stomp angrily on the floor about that vast conspiracy known as science.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 23, 2013 09:35AM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-23 10:18, Woland wrote:
Hi Magnus,

I think there is some evidence that the Tractatus Logico-philosophicus was intended as a spoof. The numbering of the propositions had a particularly pernicious effect on the way British philosophy was done for years to follow.

My suggestion that we avoid superstitious attributions of causality to incomplete data and poorly understood phenomena stands, however.
[/quote]

Interesting, Woland. I've never heard that it was a spoof. Wittgenstein studied under Russell and many of the properties of the [i]Tractatus[/i] offer improvements and simplifications to Russell and Whitehead's [i]Principia[/i]. I'd be most interested in seeing an argument to the effect that the [i]Tractatus[/i] is a spoof: do you have a reference?

John
Message: Posted by: GlenD (Oct 23, 2013 11:26AM)
Will get back with data, I am at work and among the few working class folks in this country... Not closing my eyes, plugging my ears or burying my head in sand... Sheesh, I am sure you left out a few there. Anyways, one thing I am sure of... if we do nothing at all, the climate will change. The sea levels will rise and fall, polar ice will melt and freeze. We can simply observe it and try to figure out why it happens!
Message: Posted by: Woland (Oct 23, 2013 11:54AM)
Hi Magnus,

I will dig up the articles describing the Tractatus as a joke. I think it has to do with the repudiation you mentioned.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Oct 23, 2013 11:59AM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-23 12:26, GlenD wrote:
Will get back with data, I am at work and among the few working class folks in this country... Not closing my eyes, plugging my ears or burying my head in sand... Sheesh, I am sure you left out a few there. Anyways, one thing I am sure of... if we do nothing at all, the climate will change. The sea levels will rise and fall, polar ice will melt and freeze. We can simply observe it and try to figure out why it happens!
[/quote]

Are you seriously suggesting that we just sit back and observe the effects of man-made carbon emissions? Sounds a bit like the fire department standing by watching a fire and trying to figure out exactly what started it, BEFORE they do anything about it.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Oct 23, 2013 12:24PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-23 00:11, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-10-22 23:26, GlenD wrote:
Temperature data does show that we are in a cooling phase.

Glen
[/quote]

Really, do tell.

From [url=http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/]NASA[/url]


[img]http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/dTs_60+132mons.gif[/img]


(I couldn't get the NASA images to link to the Café, so I used copies from Columbia University. Data is current to September 14, 2013.)
[/quote]

Pretty pictures. I may have missed it but I don't seem to recall if you commented on the link that Woland posted with the following pretty pictures.

[img]http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/histo5.png[/img]
[img]http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/histo4.png[/img]
[img]http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/histo3.png[/img]


The text accompanying the pictures is equally interesting.
Message: Posted by: GlenD (Oct 23, 2013 12:37PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-23 12:59, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-10-23 12:26, GlenD wrote:
Will get back with data, I am at work and among the few working class folks in this country... Not closing my eyes, plugging my ears or burying my head in sand... Sheesh, I am sure you left out a few there. Anyways, one thing I am sure of... if we do nothing at all, the climate will change. The sea levels will rise and fall, polar ice will melt and freeze. We can simply observe it and try to figure out why it happens!
[/quote]

Are you seriously suggesting that we just sit back and observe the effects of man-made carbon emissions? Sounds a bit like the fire department standing by watching a fire and trying to figure out exactly what started it, BEFORE they do anything about it.
[/quote]

Are you seriously saying that no climate changes would occur if all human activity stopped?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Oct 23, 2013 12:53PM)
You obviously aren't grasping the difference between man-made climate change, which we can deal with, and natural climate change. It is indisputable that the upswing in warming and accompanying sea level change, etc. corresponds with the advent of the industrial era, most notably in the second half of the 20th Century.

You seem to believe that man has nothing to do with climate change and therefore can do nothing about it. Do you recall the man-made problem we had with the ozone layer and how we were able to correct it? Do you believe that pollution has no effect on the atmosphere/biosphere and that, therefore, there is nothing that can be done about it? Which is exactly what the oil lobby and those who profit from polluting the atmosphere want you to believe.

Or do you just believe, as some actually do, that nature is immune from the activities of humankind?
Message: Posted by: GlenD (Oct 23, 2013 01:36PM)
And you and all the other hoaxers want to attribute all the climate variations that occur to be a result of human activity. And then assume that minute changes in temperatures (not proven as a result of human activity/emissions etc) are going to have drastic and dire consequences. Whereas maybe there would be benefits and not crazy predictions like what Al Gore and others go around saying (Earth burning up in 10 years etc). To top it all off you want to reduce, by figures as high as 80%, a natural by-product that is essential for life on the planet. Maybe the science is not over and debate/investigation should continue until we really do know more. Is that too much to ask???

Glen
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Oct 23, 2013 01:45PM)
Since I've NEVER attributed all climate change to human activity- and neither has any scientist - your statement is ridiculous. But now that you've resorted to name calling (calling me a "hoaxer"- a word that implies deliberate lying) there is no point in having any intelligent conversation with you.

Bye bye.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 23, 2013 02:16PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-23 13:24, rockwall wrote:




Pretty pictures. I may have missed it but I don't seem to recall if you commented on the link that Woland posted with the following pretty pictures.



The text accompanying the pictures is equally interesting.

[/quote]

I didn't comment. I'm not sure what to make of an anonymous blog post on historical climate, found on a site dedicated to advancing the use of nanotechnology. I can't find the original data for the graphs, or the source (except for one link to an ice core study), and I have no idea what the numbers on the vertical axes refer to. (It's a safe guess that the horizontal axis is year AD). Maybe you can clarify the source of the data and the measurements on the vertical axis for me.

I will comment on the concluding paragraph:

[quote]For climate science it means that the Hockey Team climatologists’ insistence that human-emitted CO2 is the only thing that could account for the recent warming trend is probably poppycock.[/quote]

The anonymous author obviously has not read or understood the IPCC report, or else (s)he is simply dishonest. The report goes over a wide range of other climate factors and expressly states that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are only part of the causal picture.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 23, 2013 02:19PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-23 00:11, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-10-22 23:26, GlenD wrote:
Temperature data does show that we are in a cooling phase.

Glen
[/quote]

Really, do tell.

From [url=http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/]NASA[/url]


[img]http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/dTs_60+132mons.gif[/img]


(I couldn't get the NASA images to link to the Café, so I used copies from Columbia University. Data is current to September 14, 2013.)
[/quote]

From the chart, the current 60-day running mean does appear lower than it was in 2005.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 23, 2013 02:35PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-23 15:19, LobowolfXXX wrote:

From the chart, the current 60-day running mean does appear lower than it was in 2005.
[/quote]

Hard to tell. Maybe.
Message: Posted by: GlenD (Oct 23, 2013 04:03PM)
60 month, not 60 day, right?

Just to make note... I take as much offense to being called a denier as someone would, to be labeled a hoaxer. I never attribute zero change to human activity. The criticism based on extremes is not fair either way.

I will focus more on any other sources of data, and also the sea level issue when I can get some google time.

Glen
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 23, 2013 04:16PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-23 17:03, GlenD wrote:
60 month, not 60 day, right?

Just to make note... I take as much offense to being called a denier as someone would, to be labeled a hoaxer. I never attribute zero change to human activity. The criticism based on extremes is not fair either way.

I will focus more on any other sources of data, and also the sea level issue when I can get some google time.

Glen
[/quote]

1. Yes it is months.
2. I agree completely, Glen. Name-calling is on the rise here and it adds nothing to any discussion.

Bravo for taking a stand!
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 23, 2013 05:24PM)
How's it going on issues that can be addressed by today's technology and choices ... like potable water and making healthier food available at lower costs? (transporting food to those who live in reals of conflict or hostile regimes is a separate problem)
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Oct 23, 2013 07:15PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-23 17:16, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
...
2. I agree completely, Glen. Name-calling is on the rise here and it adds nothing to any discussion.
...
[/quote]

Well, it WAS recently shown during a certain shutdown how effective name calling can be!
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 23, 2013 07:36PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-23 20:15, rockwall wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-10-23 17:16, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
...
2. I agree completely, Glen. Name-calling is on the rise here and it adds nothing to any discussion.
...
[/quote]

Well, it WAS recently shown during a certain shutdown how effective name calling can be!
[/quote]

But not by me. And not in any way that I approved.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Oct 23, 2013 09:06PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-22 08:52, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
...
rockwall linked to this "study" on page 9. Apart from cherry picking 4 select indicators, only looking at the USA and using only the first 9 months of 2013, this authorless "study" posted on theisweather.com, which gives no indication of who they are, surely must be telling us something about the whole planet, eh?
...
[/quote]


As I mentioned to you once before John, context is everything.

You see, the point of linking to that “study”, wasn’t to disprove AGW, but to instead respond to the thin attempts at AGW ‘proof’ that MaxfieldsMagic was providing and that I was responding directly to.

It all started with this brilliant post about anecdotes and data:


[quote]
On 2013-10-16 23:00, MaxfieldsMagic wrote:
Put enough anecdotes together regarding closely occurring weather events that have never been seen before, and presto! Data. But feel free to ignore it. You'll be in good company. Or, in company, at least.
[/quote]

I responded with a some anecdotes about the dearth of hurricanes this year to illustrate the weakness of his argument.

[quote]
On 2013-10-16 23:05, rockwall wrote:
How long has it been since we've see such a dearth of hurricanes during a hurricane season as the US has seen this year? Could that be the type of anecdotes of closely occurring non-weather events that might be referring to?

http://www.weather.com/news/weather-hurricanes/hurricane-season-2013-major-hurricanes-20130926

"Based on long-term averages from 1966-2009, the Atlantic has typically seen nine named storms by Oct. 4 and five hurricanes by Oct. 7. As you can see, the 2013 season is fairly close to average when it comes to the number of named storms, but lagging behind in the hurricane category."
[/quote]

Maxfieldsmagic then responded with additional anecdotes to try and make his point stronger. Unfortunately, he personal anecdote about Virginia seemed to have a few holes in it as Lobo pointed out.

[quote]
On 2013-10-16 23:24, MaxfieldsMagic wrote:
...
OK, but I seem to recall we had a pretty good one last year, of the type that had never occurred since New York became a large city. And ask India about the recent calming of hurricanes/typhoons - you'll get a different report. When I moved to Virginia in 1998, tornados were unheard of - now we get them on a regular basis every year. There have also been several areas of the world recently that have experienced unprecedented flooding. But it's not all about extreme weather events - the pine beetles, which have existed in the American west and Rocky Mountains for most of its recorded history, continue to do heretofore unseen damage to the great western forests thanks to the fact that the winters are no longer consistently cold enough to control the population.

Again, anecdotes - but anecdotes that are consistent with scientists' hypotheses. Personally, I see a lot more evidence confirming those hypotheses than I do for many other things I'm asked to believe in.
[/quote]

So now, MaxfieldsMagic desides to up the ante by discussing the ‘cumulative weight’ of evidence and as much as (holy smokes!) thirty! discrete pieces of evidence.

[quote]
On 2013-10-17 14:54, MaxfieldsMagic wrote:
...

This seems to be a common strategy for climate change skeptics and defense attorneys - look at each piece of evidence in isolation and try to pick it apart, thereby ignoring the cumulative weight of evidence that the big picture provides. Thirty discrete pieces of circumstantial evidence may be explained away individually, but it becomes increasingly less likely that they are all coincidences when taken together, particularly when they are consistent with a hypothesis that is already generally accepted.
[/quote]

This is when I responded with the ‘study’ of many more discrete pieces of evidence to again show the error in his logic. And while you may find a weakness in this study, it at least provided reliable sources of the data it was using which seems a bit stronger than the ‘anecdotes’ provided by maxfieldsmagic.

[quote]
On 2013-10-18 18:00, rockwall wrote:
...

Well, I suppose that instead of looking at each piece of evidence in isolation, we could look at a year's worth of evidence and try not to ignore the cumulative weight of the evidence that data provides. After all, thirty discrete pieces of circumstantial evidence may be explained away individually but a year's worth of evidence is less likely that it is all due to coincidence when taken together. (Unless, of course, they are in-consistent with the hypothesis that you choose to believe.)

...


[/quote]


So, in criticizing me in posting a study that I posted to refute maxfieldsmagic claims of a small set of discrete data being strong proof of AGW, you seem to be tacitly agreeing that maxfieldsmagic posts were much more convincing in their arguments.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 23, 2013 09:45PM)
Rockwall, you pasted the graphs beside the NASA graphs I posted. How could any reasonable person interpret that as anything but an attempt to compare?
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Oct 23, 2013 09:50PM)
Wrong again John. The graphs I posted were from the study Woland posted, NOT the study I linked to. And your comment that I was responding to was well before I posted those graphs.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 23, 2013 10:17PM)
You quoted my post, including graphs, referred to Woland's link and pasted your graphs underneath the quoted material. And now you claim that you were responding to Maxfieldmagic?

Have it your way.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Oct 23, 2013 10:47PM)
OK John, now you're just being difficult.

YOU said, "Rockwall linked to this "study" on page 9."

If you go back to page 9 where YOU are referring to, you will notice that I link to a study AND I directly respond to a quote by maxfieldmagic.

This is the quote of YOURS that I am referring to which I quoted at the start of my fairly long winded explanation.

AFTER you made the above quote, I ALSO posted some graphs from a study by WOLAND discussing a separate issue that YOU seem to think I am talking about but which I DID NOT refer to in the above mentioned long winded explanation. It is YOU that are getting the two mixed up.

My entire comment was about your criticism of the study I posted to back on page 9, not about your LATER criticism of the graphs I posted from Woland's linked study.

(I think that explanation makes it sound much more complicated than it actually is. Just go back to the comment you made about the study I linked to and then go back to page 9 where I made that comment. I think that should make it fairly clear.)
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Oct 23, 2013 11:03PM)
Besides which, when you said, "Rockwall linked to this "study" on page 9", it was a FULL day BEFORE I posted the pictures. Did you ride a time machine one day into the future knowing I was going to post about a completely different study?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 23, 2013 11:11PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-23 13:24, rockwall wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-10-23 00:11, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-10-22 23:26, GlenD wrote:
Temperature data does show that we are in a cooling phase.

Glen
[/quote]

Really, do tell.

From [url=http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/]NASA[/url]


[img]http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/dTs_60+132mons.gif[/img]


(I couldn't get the NASA images to link to the Café, so I used copies from Columbia University. Data is current to September 14, 2013.)
[/quote]

Pretty pictures. I may have missed it but I don't seem to recall if you commented on the link that Woland posted with the following pretty pictures.

[img]http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/histo5.png[/img]
[img]http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/histo4.png[/img]
[img]http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/histo3.png[/img]


The text accompanying the pictures is equally interesting.

[/quote]

John
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Oct 24, 2013 08:35AM)
I really don't believe you're actually this dense. I'm going to chalk it up to sampling too much of the scotch too late at night.
I'm not sure how to make it any clearer. Maybe Lobo could help.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 24, 2013 09:13AM)
Does the level of scotch in the glass go up when the ice cubes melt?

And what are the odds that the next ice age will start in the next hundred years?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 24, 2013 09:22AM)
You've lost me rockwall. I'm talking about evidence for AGW. I responded to the post I just quoted. Enjoy insulting someone else. If you have nothing to contribute to the discussion, I'm checking out.
Message: Posted by: irossall (Oct 24, 2013 09:26AM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-24 10:13, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
Does the level of scotch in the glass go up when the ice cubes melt?

And what are the odds that the next ice age will start in the next hundred years?
[/quote]

Yes, the level of Scotch (liquid) will go up and overflow IF the level of Scotch is even to the rim of the glass with enough ice being above the level of the Scotch (at least it did for me).

Some say we are on the brink of an Ice Age. Some say we are on the brink of Global Overheating. Seems to me nobody really knows for sure. Not even the "Experts".
Iven :patty:
Message: Posted by: landmark (Oct 24, 2013 09:35AM)
Anybody for fractals and measuring the length of coastlines here? That certainly got a lot of mathematicians' knickers in a twist.

As a species, humans have to be concerned with what will happen in the next century. If you're the optimistic sort, give it another century.

[i]In that time frame, [/i]the relevant questions are:

1) Is the Earth's climate changing within the next two centuries--regardless of cause--in a way that would be injurious to the peoples and species of this planet?
2) If #1 is true is there anything that this form of life can do about it to ameliorate the effects?
3) If #2 is true will appropriate actions be taken and not ignored/hijacked/twisted/sabotoged to make short-term profit in one way or another?

My feelings--and that's all they are:
1) Yes.
2) Probably able to ameliorate some problems, but not a lot of others.
3) No.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Oct 24, 2013 10:38AM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-24 10:22, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
You've lost me rockwall. I'm talking about evidence for AGW. I responded to the post I just quoted. Enjoy insulting someone else. If you have nothing to contribute to the discussion, I'm checking out.
[/quote]

Here's a simple question John.

When you said on 10-22, “rockwall linked to this “study” on page 9”, do you contend that you were not actually referring to my post on page 9 that I made on 10-17 but were in fact referring to the post you linked above that I made on 10-23, a full day AFTER your post?

If so, that’s an amazing piece of mentalism that I would bet rivals anything Bob has ever done.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Oct 24, 2013 10:46AM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-24 10:35, landmark wrote:
Anybody for fractals and measuring the length of coastlines here? That certainly got a lot of mathematicians' knickers in a twist.

As a species, humans have to be concerned with what will happen in the next century. If you're the optimistic sort, give it another century.

[i]In that time frame, [/i]the relevant questions are:

1) Is the Earth's climate changing within the next two centuries--regardless of cause--in a way that would be injurious to the peoples and species of this planet?
2) If #1 is true is there anything that this form of life can do about it to ameliorate the effects?
3) If #2 is true will appropriate actions be taken and not ignored/hijacked/twisted/sabotoged to make short-term profit in one way or another?

My feelings--and that's all they are:
1) Yes.
2) Probably able to ameliorate some problems, but not a lot of others.
3) No.

[/quote]

Good questions landmark. I think a good question #2 should possibly be modified to say this:
2) If #1 is true is there anything that this form of life can do about it to ameliorate the effects that will not cause more damage to this form of life than the effects will cause.

My feelings---and that's all they are:
1) The Climate may be changing but the results will probably not be seriously injurious.
2) Most changes so far put forth will more than likely cause much more damage to this form of life than they will help.
3) Since I don't find 1 or 2 True, this question doesn't really count for me I guess.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 24, 2013 10:50AM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-18 18:00, rockwall wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-10-17 14:54, MaxfieldsMagic wrote:
...

This seems to be a common strategy for climate change skeptics and defense attorneys - look at each piece of evidence in isolation and try to pick it apart, thereby ignoring the cumulative weight of evidence that the big picture provides. Thirty discrete pieces of circumstantial evidence may be explained away individually, but it becomes increasingly less likely that they are all coincidences when taken together, particularly when they are consistent with a hypothesis that is already generally accepted.
[/quote]

Well, I suppose that instead of looking at each piece of evidence in isolation, we could look at a year's worth of evidence and try not to ignore the cumulative weight of the evidence that data provides. After all, thirty discrete pieces of circumstantial evidence may be explained away individually but a year's worth of evidence is less likely that it is all due to coincidence when taken together. (Unless, of course, they are in-consistent with the hypothesis that you choose to believe.)

http://thesiweather.com/2013/10/18/1100-am-2013-a-year-with-minimal-extreme-weather-events-in-the-us/

"There have been many forecasts in the news in recent years predicting more and more extreme weather-related events in the US, but for 2013 that prediction has been way off the mark. Whether you’re talking about tornadoes, wildfires, extreme heat or hurricanes, the good news is that weather-related disasters in the US are all way down this year compared to recent years and, in some cases, down to historically low levels."

"Tornadoes
To begin with, the number of tornadoes in the US this year is on pace to be the lowest total since 2000 and it may turn out to be the lowest total in several decades. "

"Wildfires
Second, the number of wildfires across the US so far this year is on pace to be the lowest it has been in the past ten years and the acreage involved is at the second lowest level in that same time period"

"Extreme Heat
In addition to wildfires, extreme heat is also way down across the US this year. In fact, the number of 100 degree days across the country during 2013 is not only down for this year, but it is perhaps going to turn out to be the lowest in about 100 years of records"

"Hurricanes
Finally, as far as hurricanes are concerned and keeping in mind that the season isn't over yet, there have been only two hurricanes so far this year in the Atlantic Basin (Humberto and Ingrid) and they were both short-lived and weak category 1 storms."

"Finally, another interesting stat with respect to hurricanes has to do with the fact that we are currently in the longest period since the Civil War Era without a major hurricane strike in the US (i.e., category 3, 4 or 5)."




[/quote]

Ok I follow the reference now Rockwall. This is the "study" I referred to on a later page. I was confused by the later referencing, and posted out of exasperation at the seemingly endless supply of links to anonymous blogs and low-level content. My later "correction" was in fact incorrect.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Oct 24, 2013 11:41AM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-24 11:50, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
...

Ok I follow the reference now Rockwall. This is the "study" I referred to on a later page. I was confused by the later referencing, and posted out of exasperation at the seemingly endless supply of links to anonymous blogs and low-level content. My later "correction" was in fact incorrect.


[/quote]

Which is why my very first post after you made the error was the very succinct:

"Wrong again John. The graphs I posted were from the study Woland posted, NOT the study I linked to. And your comment that I was responding to was well before I posted those graphs."

It appears you had your mind made up and weren't willing to consider any other possibilities.

Which may be a good explanation of yours and others positions on AGW.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 24, 2013 12:27PM)
Very cute coming from the guy who posts links to things he's never read. You still haven't answered a single question I raised about the "studies" you have linked to. And what is on the vertical axis of the graphs?

I admit that I was confused. You admit to nothing. But nice evasion and attack rockwall.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 24, 2013 12:28PM)
Think about the developing world as they build up their factories, burn coal, manufacture what they choose...
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 24, 2013 12:32PM)
Can you put out a forest fire by planting trees, taxing matches and encouraging people to drink more water?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 24, 2013 12:33PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-24 13:28, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
Think about the developing world as they build up their factories, burn coal, manufacture what they choose...
[/quote]

Indeed. The challenges are immense. Not insuperable. But immense.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Oct 24, 2013 12:34PM)
... some will benefit, some will lose. Guess who?
Message: Posted by: Woland (Oct 24, 2013 01:13PM)
[quote]... some will benefit, some will lose. Guess who?[/quote]

Ozymandias.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Oct 24, 2013 05:19PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-24 13:27, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Very cute coming from the guy who posts links to things he's never read. You still haven't answered a single question I raised about the "studies" you have linked to. And what is on the vertical axis of the graphs?

I admit that I was confused. You admit to nothing. But nice evasion and attack rockwall.
[/quote]

OK John, now you're just being cranky.

I'm not sure why you don't think I haven't read the links that I posted. However, it is obvious that you didn't read my posts as your mind was already made up.

As to the vertical axis on the graph of the link that Woland posted? Well, since Woland had originally posted it, I thought he might want to chime in. But I'll let you know what I think. It seems fairly obvious that the vertical axis is based on temperature and seems to be based on degrees. I will admit it is a little confusing as the numbers seem inverted although the 'scale' seems to be fairly accurate based on the similarity of the first chart they post compared to the chart you posted.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Oct 24, 2013 05:23PM)
After digging a little deeper, here is a description of the data used to create the graphs.

DESCRIPTION:
Temperature interpretation based on stable isotope analysis, and
ice accumulation data, from the GISP2 ice core, central Greenland.
Data are smoothed from original measurements published by
Cuffey and Clow (1997), as presented in Figure 1 of Alley (2000).


ABSTRACT:
Greenland ice-core records provide an exceptionally clear picture of
many aspects of abrupt climate changes, and particularly of those
associated with the Younger Dryas event, as reviewed here.
Well-preserved annual layers can be counted confidently, with only 1%
errors for the age of the end of the Younger Dryas 11,500 years before
present. Ice-flow corrections allow reconstruction of snow accumulation
rates over tens of thousands of years with little additional uncertainty.
Glaciochemical and particulate data record atmospheric-loading changes
with little uncertainty introduced by changes in snow accumulation.
Confident paleothermometry is provided by site-specific calibrations
using ice-isotopic ratios, borehole temperatures, and gas-isotopic ratios.
Near-simultaneous changes in ice-core paleoclimatic indicators of local,
regional, and more-widespread climate conditions demonstrate that much
of the Earth experienced abrupt climate changes synchronous with
Greenland within thirty years or less. Post-Younger Dryas changes
have not duplicated the size, extent and rapidity of these
paleoclimatic changes.



DATA:
1. Temperature in central Greenland


Column 1: Age (thousand years before present)
Column 2: Temperature in central Greenland (degrees C)
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 24, 2013 09:33PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-24 13:33, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-10-24 13:28, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
Think about the developing world as they build up their factories, burn coal, manufacture what they choose...
[/quote]

Indeed. The challenges are immense. Not insuperable. But immense.
[/quote]

Somehow I get the feeling that they won't have too much trouble ignoring us and any wingeing about global warming or AGW while they have their industrial revolutions. They started out in buildings of straw and they want bricks, television, computers, hot running water and what's the big deal if they do what we already did for centuries?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Oct 24, 2013 09:41PM)
Depends if there's technology that can make energy production cleaner and cheaper. The industrialized nations could have subsidized such development long ago, but instead wasted time with the white elephant of nuclear. Too late now? I don't know. I wonder what the trillions devoted to warring on phantom enemies could have produced.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Oct 25, 2013 05:15AM)
Not exactly [url=http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/2013-hurricane-season-ranks-nearly-least-intense/18392996]evidence[/url] of extreme weather:

[quote]With only two hurricanes so far, the 2013 Atlantic hurricane season is well behind the curve to reach the average number of hurricanes and is one of the least intense since 1950.[/quote]
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 25, 2013 08:33AM)
It was 35 at 6am and it's already 50 at 10am. At this rate this the oceans will be boiling by dinner time!

But if we can annoy enough people and get them to spend lots of money maybe the AGW will relent for a few hours... Possibly even some temporary cooling if a big enough online effort succeeds. So unless you want to broil get posting!!!
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Oct 25, 2013 09:09AM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-25 06:15, Woland wrote:
Not exactly [url=http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/2013-hurricane-season-ranks-nearly-least-intense/18392996]evidence[/url] of extreme weather:

[quote]With only two hurricanes so far, the 2013 Atlantic hurricane season is well behind the curve to reach the average number of hurricanes and is one of the least intense since 1950.[/quote]
[/quote]

I think I can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy at least two responses to this post.


1. Now try looking at twenty or fifty years

2. Before I even consider chasing this goose, can you find a single scientific reference that suggests that hurricanes in the USA were predicted to rise?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 25, 2013 09:27AM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-25 10:09, rockwall wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-10-25 06:15, Woland wrote:
Not exactly [url=http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/2013-hurricane-season-ranks-nearly-least-intense/18392996]evidence[/url] of extreme weather:

[quote]With only two hurricanes so far, the 2013 Atlantic hurricane season is well behind the curve to reach the average number of hurricanes and is one of the least intense since 1950.[/quote]
[/quote]

I think I can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy at least two responses to this post.


1. Now try looking at twenty or fifty years

2. Before I even consider chasing this goose, can you find a single scientific reference that suggests that hurricanes in the USA were predicted to rise?
[/quote]

No. I'll once again advise you to read before you judge. From Woland's link:

[quote]With only two hurricanes so far, the 2013 Atlantic hurricane season is well behind the curve to reach the average number of hurricanes and is one of the least intense since 1950.[/quote]

Which you and Woland duly quoted. (Well Woland quoted it, rockwall probably just quoted Woland without following the link, if the first 12 pages of this discussion has any predictive value.)

The article continues:

[quote]While the season does not end until late November, time is running out for the season, much to the relief of those living in coastal areas.

By the end of November, on average there are about 12 tropical storms and six hurricanes per season. With approximately two months to go, the season will likely finish with an above-average number of tropical storms. There have already been 11 tropical storms as of Thursday morning, Oct. 3, 2013.

[/quote]

What's this? An ABOVE AVERAGE number of tropical storms? Why didn't you mention that?

Oh right.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 25, 2013 09:31AM)
I think I can predict the day of the week with better than one in ten accuracy. it's Monday.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 25, 2013 09:45AM)
Is there a trend in average storms per year and a trend in storm wind strength? NOAA has posted data back to 1851.
Message: Posted by: Pop Haydn (Oct 25, 2013 12:37PM)
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/arctic-temperatures-44-000-year-high-8C11462851

"New research shows that average summer temperatures in the Canadian Arctic over the last century are the highest in the last 44,000 years, and perhaps the highest in 120,000 years."

"Miller and his colleagues gauged Arctic temperatures by looking at gas bubbles trapped in ice cores (cylinders drilled from the ice that show layers of snow laid down over time) taken from the region, which allows scientists to reconstruct past temperature and levels of precipitation. They paired this with radiocarbon dating of clumps of moss taken from a melting ice cap on Canada's Baffin Island. Their analysis shows that these plants have been trapped in the ice for at least 44,000 years, and perhaps as long as 120,000 years. Taken together, that data suggest temperatures in the region haven't been this high since perhaps as long as 120,000 years ago, according to the study.

"The Arctic has been heating up for about a century, but the most significant warming didn't start until the 1970s, Miller said in the statement. "And it is really in the past 20 years that the warming signal from that region has been just stunning," he added. "All of Baffin Island is melting, and we expect all of the ice caps to eventually disappear, even if there is no additional warming."
Message: Posted by: landmark (Oct 25, 2013 01:24PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-25 09:33, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
It was 35 at 6am and it's already 50 at 10am. At this rate this the oceans will be boiling by dinner time!

[/quote]
Nominee for post of the year, and I don't even agree with him!
Message: Posted by: Woland (Oct 25, 2013 01:28PM)
[quote]What's this? An ABOVE AVERAGE number of tropical storms? Why didn't you mention that? [/quote]

Do you think that observation proves that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere diminishes the extreme amplitude of tropical storms, so that even if the number of tropical storms is "ABOVE AVERAGE" (as you say), fewer of them become hurricanes?

Just asking.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 25, 2013 01:51PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-25 14:28, Woland wrote:
[quote]What's this? An ABOVE AVERAGE number of tropical storms? Why didn't you mention that? [/quote]

Do you think that observation proves that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere diminishes the extreme amplitude of tropical storms, so that even if the number of tropical storms is "ABOVE AVERAGE" (as you say), fewer of them become hurricanes?

Just asking.


[/quote]

Of course not. It does illuminate recurring threads of dishonesty in the NVMS section of the café, though.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Oct 25, 2013 01:55PM)
Interesting to see, though, that Woland appears to agree that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing. He just believes that the resultant warming is a good thing and doesn't seem to have any problem with us emitting even more. (Of course, on other days he's stated that warming isn't occurring at all.)
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 25, 2013 02:39PM)
Iirc the post was about the long term data putting our age in the warm gap between ice ages.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Oct 25, 2013 02:47PM)
Unfortunately, if the temperature in the current "warm gap" keeps increasing artificially as predicted by the AGW model, it pretty much insures that man won't be around by the time the next natural ice age occurs.
Message: Posted by: RNK (Oct 25, 2013 03:20PM)
To say that our climate is changing because of ONE parameter CO2- is simply crazy. The climate is too complicated to be predicted by a single parameter. Further CO2 makes up approximately 0.8% of gases that make up our atmosphere. Considering how complex our climate is given the variable that control it- you can't make a statement that a gas that makes up 0.8% of the atmosphere is CONTROLLING the climate.

RNK
Message: Posted by: Woland (Oct 25, 2013 03:26PM)
Hi Bob,

That the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing is relatively straightforward to ascertain.

Whether there is such a thing as the "global climate" and if there is, whether the average baseline temperature (if there is such a thing) of the earth's climate is increasing, is far more difficult to know. And whether human industrial activity contributes to changes in that temperature is even more difficult to know.

But it is possible to be reasonably certain that all of the "good times" in recorded human history coincide with the warmer eras on earth, and not with the colder periods.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 25, 2013 03:37PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-25 16:20, RNK wrote:
To say that our climate is changing because of ONE parameter CO2- is simply crazy. The climate is too complicated to be predicted by a single parameter. Further CO2 makes up approximately 0.8% of gases that make up our atmosphere. Considering how complex our climate is given the variable that control it- you can't make a statement that a gas that makes up 0.8% of the atmosphere is CONTROLLING the climate.

RNK
[/quote]

Whew. Good thing IPCC claims no such thing, then.

Here we are 13-odd pages into a discussion allegedly about IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. Wonder how many posters have read any portion of the document.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Oct 25, 2013 03:40PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-25 16:20, RNK wrote:
To say that our climate is changing because of ONE parameter CO2- is simply crazy...

RNK
[/quote]

Just as it's simply crazy to assume that anyone ever said that.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Oct 25, 2013 03:42PM)
Sorry, John. We posted at the same time.

I DID read the IPCC report and you're absolutely correct that it claims no such thing. Nor have I.

Bob
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Oct 25, 2013 07:54PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-25 10:27, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
...

Which you and Woland duly quoted. (Well Woland quoted it, rockwall probably just quoted Woland without following the link, if the first 12 pages of this discussion has any predictive value.)

....
[/quote]

It's sad that this is what you now descend to simply because it was shown that you were so sure of yourself that you were unwilling to consider your error.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Oct 25, 2013 10:24PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-25 16:42, mastermindreader wrote:
Sorry, John. We posted at the same time.

I DID read the IPCC report and you're absolutely correct that it claims no such thing. Nor have I.

Bob

[/quote]

Really? All 2000+ pages of it? That's quite impressive.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Oct 25, 2013 11:45PM)
Then you're easily impressed. I also read the entire ACA. I read lots of things in their entirety. I'm a very proficient speed reader.

So I take it, then, that you haven't read it at all.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Oct 25, 2013 11:53PM)
LOL. Yeah, that's good material for speed reading.

I will admit to only sampling small portions of the report. I'll also admit that most of it is beyond me. It is quite technical. However, these guys, who understand the science much better than me, (and you, I would daresay), have actually read it.


"In fact, the IPCC’s massive, complex new report acknowledges that none of the models predicted the hiatus. The authors write that it could be due to climate models over-predicting the response to increasing greenhouse gases, or a failure to account for water vapor in the upper atmosphere.
The bottom line – no one saw it coming."
Professor Anastasios Tsonis, [Meteorologist] of the University of Wisconsin


"My main conclusion is that this report is to a large extent a rehash of the AR4 report. However, given the lack of any new evidence pointing to humans and the increasing discrepancy between the alarmist models and predictions, the IPCC authors are bluntly making more ridiculous claims as they attempt to fill in the gap between their models and reality."
Israeli Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv


“Mark Twain popularized the saying “There are liars, *** liars, and statisticians.” After reading the recently-released [IPCC AR5] report, we can now add, ‘there are liars, *** liars, and IPCC.”
UN IPCC Reviewer Dr. Don Easterbrook, rofessor of Geology, Western Washington University


“The latest IPCC report has truly sunk to the level of hilarious incoherence—it is quite amazing to see the contortions the IPCC has to go through in order to keep the international climate agenda going.”
Dr. Richard Lindzen


“The modelers correctly state that they produce scenarios. Scenarios are stories constructed from a collection of assumptions. Well-constructed scenarios can be convincing, in the same way that a book or a film can be. The IPCC and its supporters promote these scenarios as if they were forecasts. Scenarios are not, however, the product of evidence-based forecasting procedures: Our audit of the procedures used to create the IPCC scenarios found that they violated 72 of 89 relevant scientific forecasting principles."
Kesten C. Green, University of South Australia, is the Director of forecastingprinciples.com
J. Scott Armstrong, University of Pennsylvania, is editor of the Principles of Forecasting


“Der Spiegel also notes that only 3 out of 114 climate models could actually reproduce the 15-year lapse in warming. This fact was completely omitted from what the UN reported to policymakers and the public.”
“This point should have been more clearly addressed because it underscores that the important deficits of the climate models are still not understood,” said Eduardo Zorita of the Helmholtz Center for Coastal Research
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 26, 2013 01:11AM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-24 13:33, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-10-24 13:28, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
Think about the developing world as they build up their factories, burn coal, manufacture what they choose...
[/quote]

Indeed. The challenges are immense. Not insuperable. But immense.
[/quote]

Stopping them from doing as we did? Or providing them with something less toxic and more efficient that what we used? Or perhaps declaring them environmental terrorists and getting public support to (do bad things to them) for the benefit of all in the long run?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Oct 26, 2013 03:49AM)
Rockwall-

Would you mind posting the sources and links to the various quotes you Googled? Or would you prefer not to show us what site they all came from?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Oct 26, 2013 04:31AM)
Addendum to my previous:

Don Easterbrooks name jumped out at me, though. He's been a guest of Glenn Beck.

Here's what he had to say to his audience at the Heartland Institute. (That's right, the same group that produced the studies for the tobacco industry showing that cigarette smoke wasn't harmful.)

[quote]At the recent scandal-plagued Heartland climate conference, Don Easterbrook gave a presentation in which he discussed his previous predictions of global cooling. Given the inaccuracy of those predictions after just one decade, we were surprised to learn that Easterbrook had highlighted them in his talk, going as far as to claim that his global cooling projectons have thus far been more accurate than the global warming projections in the 2001 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report (TAR).

However, to make this claim, Easterbrook had to distort the IPCC's actual model projections, claiming:

"In fact the IPCC predicted in the year 2000 that we would be experiencing 1 degree increase in temperature between the year 2000 and 2010."

As Skeptical Science readers are undoubtedly aware, and as we will show in greater detail below, this assertion is an outright falsehood. Distortions of the IPCC projections aside, was Easterbrook correct in his claim that his temperature predictions were more accurate than those in the TAR? As Figure 1 shows, the simple answer is no...[/quote]

Read the rest at:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/don-easterbrook-heartland-distortion-of-reality.html
Message: Posted by: landmark (Oct 26, 2013 09:51AM)
Jon wrote:
[quote] Or providing them with something less toxic and more efficient that what we used?[/quote]
That would seem to be the one sane path. I'm not holding my breath. Wait I am, I have to. I live in NYC.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 26, 2013 10:20AM)
Rockwall still does not read what he posts.

[quote]
On 2013-10-26 00:53, rockwall wrote:
LOL. Yeah, that's good material for speed reading.

I will admit to only sampling small portions of the report. I'll also admit that most of it is beyond me. It is quite technical. However, these guys, who understand the science much better than me, (and you, I would daresay), have actually read it.


"In fact, the IPCC’s massive, complex new report acknowledges that none of the models predicted the hiatus. The authors write that it could be due to climate models over-predicting the response to increasing greenhouse gases, or a failure to account for water vapor in the upper atmosphere.
The bottom line – no one saw it coming."
Professor Anastasios Tsonis, [Meteorologist] of the University of Wisconsin

[/quote]

The quotation is not from Dr. Tsonis. It's from FOX blogger [url=http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/30/un-climate-change-models-warming/]John Roberts[/url].

Tsonis has raised some questions about the models, but the quoted material is not from him.

I won't bother checking the others. If rockwall doesn't bother to read the sources of his links, I can't see any reason for anyone else to do his reading for him.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 26, 2013 10:31AM)
So, we gonna sell them solar powered fondu sets with extra forks?

Kindly focus on the actual matter at hand - about ten times our population is interested in doing what we did - and claiming that doing so is their right - what do you suggest?
Message: Posted by: Woland (Oct 26, 2013 11:19AM)
Bomb them back into the stone age?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Oct 26, 2013 11:20AM)
We're [i]already[/i] selling them nuclear reactors with complimentary glowsticks thrown in. We could do better and other.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 26, 2013 12:05PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-26 12:19, Woland wrote:
Bomb them back into the stone age?
[/quote]

I don't know if really needs to be "bomb them" although that approach have the benefit of adding radiation blocking particulates to the atmosphere and a predictable "nuclear winter" - which offers additional opportunities to those who offer exothermic energy product and ... fur might even come back into fashion.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Oct 26, 2013 02:09PM)
[quote]
On 2013-10-26 11:20, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Rockwall still does not read what he posts.

[quote]
On 2013-10-26 00:53, rockwall wrote:
LOL. Yeah, that's good material for speed reading.

I will admit to only sampling small portions of the report. I'll also admit that most of it is beyond me. It is quite technical. However, these guys, who understand the science much better than me, (and you, I would daresay), have actually read it.


"In fact, the IPCC’s massive, complex new report acknowledges that none of the models predicted the hiatus. The authors write that it could be due to climate models over-predicting the response to increasing greenhouse gases, or a failure to account for water vapor in the upper atmosphere.
The bottom line – no one saw it coming."
Professor Anastasios Tsonis, [Meteorologist] of the University of Wisconsin

[/quote]

The quotation is not from Dr. Tsonis. It's from FOX blogger [url=http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/30/un-climate-change-models-warming/]John Roberts[/url].

Tsonis has raised some questions about the models, but the quoted material is not from him.

I won't bother checking the others. If rockwall doesn't bother to read the sources of his links, I can't see any reason for anyone else to do his reading for him.
[/quote]

I suppose, like you and Bob, I could argue for several pages about how I got the quote right and you're wrong. But I'm not so stubborn. You're right. In the article quoting Tsonis, I mistook this portion as the continuation of a quote made by Tsonis just before the author points out this fact about the IPCC report.

Which of course doesn't mean I didn't read the article which I quoted, (as you seem to want to continue lying about), it simply means I made a mistake. But don't let that stop you.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Oct 26, 2013 03:39PM)
So did you get all the quotes from the FOX news site then? You never did provide any links.

Of course, one could always dig a little deeper rather than automatically rely on the "accuracy" of a FOX news blogger. According to Tsonis's co-author. Kyle Swanson:

[quote]What do our results have to do with Global Warming, i.e., the century-scale response to greenhouse gas emissions? VERY LITTLE, contrary to claims that others have made on our behalf. Nature (with hopefully some constructive input from humans) will decide the global warming question based upon climate sensitivity, net radiative forcing, and oceanic storage of heat, not on the type of multi-decadal time scale variability we are discussing here. However, this apparent impulsive behavior explicitly highlights the fact that humanity is poking a complex, nonlinear system with GHG forcing – and that there are no guarantees to how the climate may respond.[/quote]

From the same article:

[quote]..Prof Tsonis is not a climate change ‘denier’. There is, he said, a measure of additional ‘background’ warming due to human activity and greenhouse gases that runs across the MDO cycles. But he added: ‘I do not believe in catastrophe theories. Man-made warming is balanced by the natural cycles, and I do not trust the computer models which state that if CO2 reaches a particular level then temperatures and sea levels will rise by a given amount.’These models cannot be trusted to predict the weather for a week, yet they are running them to give readings for 100 years.’ Prof Tsonis said that when he published his work in the highly respected journal Geophysical Research Letters, he was deluged with ‘hate emails’. He added: ‘People were accusing me of wanting to destroy the climate, yet all I’m interested in is the truth.’ He said he also received hate mail from climate change sceptics, accusing him of not going far enough to attack the theory of man-made warming.[/quote]

http://denierlist.wordpress.com/2013/10/04/anastasios-tsonis/

Note that Tsonis explicitly DOES NOT DENY man-made warming, but instead believes (whether rightly or wrongly, that it is balanced by natural cycles.

I guess FOX, like you, just ignores stuff like this.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 26, 2013 03:53PM)
So does that mean you approve of climate mediation by way of making sure others can't industrialize (for a while) ?

Fur back in fashion?
Message: Posted by: RNK (Jun 17, 2015 08:07AM)
Http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/16/opinions/dinosaurs-tropics-climate-change/index.html

Please read the article. And this is from CNN not FOX! Apparently scientists are able to explain why Dinosaurs avoided the tropics. Well, the article references elevated levels of CO2 as stated in this exert from the article, "Though the carbon levels recorded over 200 million years ago were a few times higher than what they are today, they are predicted to reach those heights again in the next 100-200 years.". And this exert, "“Our major finding is that wild swings in climate and extremes of drought and intense heat have implications for survivability of Triassic vertebrates, including early dinosaurs.”

So, even without humans and our evil processes there were major climate changes and HIGHER CO2 levels than there are today WITH Humans and our evil processes. So the question remains- are humans really contributing to raising CO2 levels since the current levels are still not higher than what they were 200 MILLION years ago!
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jun 17, 2015 08:16AM)
[quote]On Jun 17, 2015, RNK wrote:
Http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/16/opinions/dinosaurs-tropics-climate-change/index.html

Please read the article. And this is from CNN not FOX! Apparently scientists are able to explain why Dinosaurs avoided the tropics. Well, the article references elevated levels of CO2 as stated in this exert from the article, "Though the carbon levels recorded over 200 million years ago were a few times higher than what they are today, they are predicted to reach those heights again in the next 100-200 years.". And this exert, "“Our major finding is that wild swings in climate and extremes of drought and intense heat have implications for survivability of Triassic vertebrates, including early dinosaurs.”

So, even without humans and our evil processes there were major climate changes and HIGHER CO2 levels than there are today WITH Humans and our evil processes. So the question remains- are humans really contributing to raising CO2 levels since the current levels are still not higher than what they were 200 MILLION years ago! [/quote]

Good grief, we've been through this a hundred times already. The answer is easy to find; you just have to have the will to read.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 17, 2015 11:57AM)
It seems to be a lost art around here, Magnus. Science deniers who insist on latching on to this Jurassic era misinterpretation could easily get the facts here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm
Message: Posted by: RNK (Jun 17, 2015 01:33PM)
[quote]On Jun 17, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
It seems to be a lost art around here, Magnus. Science deniers who insist on latching on to this Jurassic era misinterpretation could easily get the facts here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm [/quote]

This article talks about CO2 levels during the Ordovician Era which has no correlation to the time when Dinosaurs first began to pop up in the Triassic Era. There were no glaciation periods in the Era's when dinosaurs where on Earth.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jun 17, 2015 04:10PM)
Nobody doubts that atmospheric chemistry has changed over time. Nobody doubts that the earth has been considerably warmer (and cooler) in the past than it is now.

But none of that has any bearing on whether our current emissions are causing changes today.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jun 18, 2015 12:14PM)
And some of the evidence is pretty shaky that claims it does. See the point?

Now throw in the fact that this is a POLITICAL debate as opposed to a scientific one, and the FACT that BOTH SIDES have fudged, lied and used hysteria to further THEIR OWN AGENDA and you have nothing but an argument that will continue into the next millennium.

Oh and the FACT that there is pretty big money on each side of this debate does not help. Meanwhile NOTHING GETS DONE of any real merit. The earth suffers. Until each side gives up the hysteria, and the lies and the nonsense and oh yea the name calling (Science denier, True believer, warmers, and what not.) it will get nothing but deeper into a pointless quagmire. And again the earth suffers and so does progress.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Jun 18, 2015 01:31PM)
If you want to reduce CO2 please get rid of any pets..The animal kind. Please show me you love the planet and ban all pets. A large dog emits almost as much CO2 as an SUV! :jesterhat:
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 18, 2015 02:08PM)
I definitely know this topic has created a lot of "HOT AIR" from all sides. That could be part of the problem. :)
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jun 18, 2015 02:40PM)
[quote]On Jun 18, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
And some of the evidence is pretty shaky that claims it does. See the point?

Now throw in the fact that this is a POLITICAL debate as opposed to a scientific one, and the FACT that BOTH SIDES have fudged, lied and used hysteria to further THEIR OWN AGENDA and you have nothing but an argument that will continue into the next millennium.

Oh and the FACT that there is pretty big money on each side of this debate does not help. Meanwhile NOTHING GETS DONE of any real merit. The earth suffers. Until each side gives up the hysteria, and the lies and the nonsense and oh yea the name calling (Science denier, True believer, warmers, and what not.) it will get nothing but deeper into a pointless quagmire. And again the earth suffers and so does progress. [/quote]

There's a big difference between being called a 'science denier' and a 'warmist'.

The label 'warmist' is simply a label describing their position. Someone who believes that AGW is man made and causing the Earth to warm at such a rate as to cause dire consequences to the planet and mankind. It's not that different than calling someone who likes to do magic a magician.

But the label 'science denier' is meant to be derogatory and to discredit, and it's not even accurate. Climate skeptics don't deny science anymore than warmists do. They are simply skeptical of many of the claims being made about AGW and the assertions of what needs to be done to 'fix' things.

Also, as far as the money involved. There is no comparison. The amount of money on the skeptical side is infinitesimally small compared to that on the AGW side.

I won't dispute some of your other assertions but those are the 'facts'.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jun 18, 2015 02:51PM)
An interesting history of the use of the term 'climate denier' and how it was chosen specifically to stop debate and be derogatory.

http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060018646

"The term "skeptic" -- modified with "greenhouse" or "climate change" -- had been used mostly by climate change believers since the early 1980s. The first published reference was in 1981 in The New York Times. It gained in prominence after Hansen's testimony, and was the overwhelmingly dominant term by the time the Kyoto Protocol was adopted in 1997, for the first time limiting greenhouse gas emissions internationally.

But then "skeptics" embraced it. Marc Morano, publisher of the Climate Depot blog and a former Inhofe aide, said the term captured the essential points for his side: that there shouldn't be a rush to embrace the widely held scientific view that human emissions are leading to harmful warming, and that the public should entertain other views and other data.

"The reason 'skeptic' is so apt, I believe, is because we were told that there was a consensus and this is no longer up for debate," he said in an interview. "We're skeptical of those claims."

Then it was climate believers' turn to howl in protest.

"After the skeptics adopted that label as a kind of honorific ... the scientists started to make a fuss about that label, because they wanted it for themselves," Nerlich said in an interview. "But the skeptics wanted to keep it, because they say they are the right skeptics.""



"In 2000, "denier" was referenced 10 times in the English-language press.

In 2014, it appeared 3,183 times.

"Ultimately, this is all about having an upper hand in the war of words," said Kert Davies of Greenpeace U.S. "And it's proven out now that it actually does hurt to be called a denier."

"But Morano says the Obama administration and its allies are deliberately using the "denier" label to "intimidate and silence" their political opponents while they drive through their agenda.

The term is being used more frequently, he said, because greens know the last years of the Obama administration are their best chance to win carbon regulations at home and a climate agreement abroad, he said.

"They want a final push to just totally smear and discredit skeptics," he said. "The reins of power right now are on their side.""
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jun 18, 2015 04:19PM)
[quote]On Jun 18, 2015, rockwall wrote:
[quote]On Jun 18, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
And some of the evidence is pretty shaky that claims it does. See the point?

Now throw in the fact that this is a POLITICAL debate as opposed to a scientific one, and the FACT that BOTH SIDES have fudged, lied and used hysteria to further THEIR OWN AGENDA and you have nothing but an argument that will continue into the next millennium.

Oh and the FACT that there is pretty big money on each side of this debate does not help. Meanwhile NOTHING GETS DONE of any real merit. The earth suffers. Until each side gives up the hysteria, and the lies and the nonsense and oh yea the name calling (Science denier, True believer, warmers, and what not.) it will get nothing but deeper into a pointless quagmire. And again the earth suffers and so does progress. [/quote]

There's a big difference between being called a 'science denier' and a 'warmist'.

The label 'warmist' is simply a label describing their position. Someone who believes that AGW is man made and causing the Earth to warm at such a rate as to cause dire consequences to the planet and mankind. It's not that different than calling someone who likes to do magic a magician.

But the label 'science denier' is meant to be derogatory and to discredit, and it's not even accurate. Climate skeptics don't deny science anymore than warmists do. They are simply skeptical of many of the claims being made about AGW and the assertions of what needs to be done to 'fix' things.

Also, as far as the money involved. There is no comparison. The amount of money on the skeptical side is infinitesimally small compared to that on the AGW side.

I won't dispute some of your other assertions but those are the 'facts'. [/quote]

I think we are fat closer to agreement than you think. The main point is it is what causes the stalemate.

Fact is you do not want to ruin the planet. I don't either. Yet we get painted that way. Well I assume you don't want to please correct me if I am wrong LOL.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jun 18, 2015 04:37PM)
I realize that was the crux of your position. I just thought you were being a bit too generous in some of your comparisons. :bg:
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 18, 2015 05:49PM)
It is too late now that we are under the sea. We should have listened to Bob.
Message: Posted by: Devious (Jun 18, 2015 07:31PM)
Some would say that Pop doesn't know he's talking about but we're not one of them.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 18, 2015 07:54PM)
Some would say it depends on what Pop is talking about but others toe the party line.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jun 18, 2015 09:41PM)
I may disagree philosophically with some of what Pop says. But he knows what he is talking about. His positions on everything I have ever seen him post about are quite well thought out.

Intelligent people of good conscience can disagree. That does not necessarily mean one has no idea what he is talking about.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 18, 2015 10:57PM)
I would like to know how intelligent people know that Pop knows what he is talking about when Pop hasn't even said anything yet.
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Jun 18, 2015 11:43PM)
[quote]On Jun 18, 2015, rockwall wrote:
An interesting history of the use of the term 'climate denier' and how it was chosen specifically to stop debate and be derogatory.

[/quote]

A poor choice so far as stopping debate is concerned then. :)

Anyway, over to the Pope...
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Jun 18, 2015 11:54PM)
When the sun comes up we get warmer, so maybe we could make it come up later in the day? :sun:
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 19, 2015 12:10AM)
Well don’t hold your breath as it has been two years since Pop cut and pasted that silly report and hasn’t said a word about it yet.
Message: Posted by: Devious (Jun 19, 2015 02:18AM)
Pop has been waiting future data to respond.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 19, 2015 04:45AM)
In the meantime what we’re left with is a socialist negative feedback loop and a system that exists, solely in order to exist.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jun 19, 2015 04:51AM)
Well not speaking for him but I certainly am tired of the same dogs chasing the same cars.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 19, 2015 01:12PM)
We do have experts here on climate change in one respect. It’s not in science their expertise lie but in law. I mean, one can look into the matter from a human rights point of view.
Message: Posted by: Devious (Jun 19, 2015 03:19PM)
Pop is currently relaxing in unseasonably warm weather San Diego after a local gig at the county fair in Del Mar
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jun 19, 2015 03:27PM)
[quote]On Jun 19, 2015, Destiny wrote:
[quote]On Jun 18, 2015, rockwall wrote:
An interesting history of the use of the term 'climate denier' and how it was chosen specifically to stop debate and be derogatory.

[/quote]

A poor choice so far as stopping debate is concerned then. :)

Anyway, over to the Pope... [/quote]

Not to those who will tell you, "The debate is over!" :eek:
Message: Posted by: Devious (Jun 19, 2015 04:36PM)
I always look forward to Rocks comments.
Message: Posted by: reese (Jun 20, 2015 12:35AM)
[quote]On Jun 18, 2015, Slim King wrote:
If you want to reduce CO2 please get rid of any pets..The animal kind. Please show me you love the planet and ban all pets. A large dog emits almost as much CO2 as an SUV! :jesterhat: [/quote] A typical Slim statement. To which I reply...grow up. (At the age of 60+ it's still remotely possible) Or grow a conscience.
Message: Posted by: Intrepid (Jun 21, 2015 09:28PM)
Beyond the tipping point
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/06/18/a-child-born-today-may-live-to-see-humanitys-end-unless/
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 21, 2015 10:45PM)
Discover and regulate... Like any bottle djin granting wishes.
Unintended side effects vs rogue ecoactivists.
More to blame yet little to offer.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 22, 2015 12:22AM)
Betting against the American Dream?
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jun 22, 2015 01:40PM)
[quote]On Jun 21, 2015, Intrepid wrote:
Beyond the tipping point
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/06/18/a-child-born-today-may-live-to-see-humanitys-end-unless/ [/quote]

Are you sure that article isn't a repeat of something posted earlier on The Onion? It certainly read like it.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 22, 2015 01:44PM)
[quote]On Jun 22, 2015, tommy wrote:
Betting against the American Dream? [/quote]
Which dream are you thinking about?
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Jun 22, 2015 09:54PM)
I'm surprised that other than my earlier rather oblique reference, there has been no discussion of the Pope's stance on the matter.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 22, 2015 09:57PM)
The Pope's stance is admirable. But I think it's amusing that, here in the US, certain politicians are complaining the Pope should stick to religion and stay out of what they perceive as politics. The irony, of course, is that the same politicians don't hesitate to insert religion into their politics.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jun 22, 2015 11:24PM)
Well the pope can start paying taxes then.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 22, 2015 11:52PM)
[quote]On Jun 22, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
Well the pope can start paying taxes then. [/quote]

Last I checked he's not an American citizen, so why should he pay taxes?

But, seriously, don't you see the hypocrisy by those who constantly inject religion into their politics saying that the Pope should stick to religion?

And the Pope, with his Jesuit education and his masters degree in chemistry, has a far better grasp of the science than most politicians.

Further, the Pope, as well as most foreign countries, doesn't view climate change as a political issue. That's mostly in the US. Everyone else sees it for what it is, an impending global problem that must be dealt with.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jun 23, 2015 12:09AM)
Well the church he represents can pay them then.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 23, 2015 01:30AM)
Are you suggesting that the Pope is wrong in following the Biblical edict that we be good stewards of the earth? How is that political?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jun 23, 2015 02:16AM)
I am saying that those who yell the loudest to separate church and state are suspiciously silent when they agree with the agenda.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 23, 2015 09:19AM)
What "agenda" does the Pope have? Loaded words like that really don't apply in this case. That's why the Pope's opinion is so important. He has no connection with either side of the debate in the US. But you really don't see the irony of GOP telling the Pope not to mix politics with religion?

AGW is a moral, not a political, issue for the Pope.
Message: Posted by: RNK (Jun 23, 2015 09:25AM)
[quote]On Jun 23, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
What "agenda" does the Pope have? Loaded words like that really don't apply in this case. That's why the Pope's opinion is so important. He has no connection with either side of the debate in the US. But you really don't see the irony of GOP telling the Pope not to mix politics with religion?

AGW is a moral, not a political, issue for the Pope. [/quote]

Can you please post some support for your statement about GOP mixing religion with politics?

Thanks!
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 23, 2015 09:32AM)
Seriously? You've missed those "Religious freedom" laws they posted allowing discrimination against people? Or you missed all of the anti-choice legislation? Or you've never heard Huckabee state that he would govern based on his religion?

How about those, like Santorum, who are now saying they would not, based on their religious beliefs, accept a Supreme Court ruling in favor of gay marriage?

Or maybe their regular attempts to put creationism into public schools? Or those who continually state the the US is a "Christian" nation?

You really need to read the news at least occasionally.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jun 23, 2015 10:50AM)
Everyone governs based on their beliefs. So what? If those beliefs line up with yours you are OK with it. Cool everyone is the same. But if a candidate is pro choice for religious reasons are you saying it will stop you from voting for him?

If the pontiff came out against this you would attack him to be quiet and it being a moral issue for him would not matter.

If a liberal candidate came to every position you did through religious belief and said so would it stop you from voting for him? Of course not and it shouldn't. You vote your conscience and are not wrong for doing so. Then find reasons to support or attack others. Everyone does it.
Message: Posted by: RNK (Jun 23, 2015 11:41AM)
[quote]On Jun 23, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
Everyone governs based on their beliefs. So what? If those beliefs line up with yours you are OK with it. Cool everyone is the same. But if a candidate is pro choice for religious reasons are you saying it will stop you from voting for him?

If the pontiff came out against this you would attack him to be quiet and it being a moral issue for him would not matter.

If a liberal candidate came to every position you did through religious belief and said so would it stop you from voting for him? Of course not and it shouldn't. You vote your conscience and are not wrong for doing so. Then find reasons to support or attack others. Everyone does it. [/quote]

Very true. But true only if your a right winger. The left winger always expects the free pass. And the right winger gets called a hypocrite. Too funny!
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 23, 2015 11:51AM)
It's only funny when you choose to ignore the evidence. I was asked to provided evidence of the GOP mixing religion with politics.

I did.

Your response? Ignore my answer and say "Well the left does the same thing!" Note how you completely ignore the fact that I answered the question that was asked. Rather than respond to that you ignore and deflect.

Typical.

Danny- You DID notice that I was asked to provide examples of the GOP mixing religion with politics, right? And do you acknowledge that I answered the exact question that was asked of me?

And, still, no one has explained how the Pope's position on AGW has ANYTHING to do with American politics. He views it simply as a moral issue raised by scientific findings and not as a political one.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jun 23, 2015 02:39PM)
Bob I simply made general statements about people. The "right/left" thing I do not assert.

Bob the Catholic Church is and always has been a political entity. Even within itself it has.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 23, 2015 02:47PM)
Of course. Everthing is political in a general sense. We are talking, though, about partisan politics and the Pope's stance on AGW is hardly based on that.

I was simply asked for examples of the GOP injecting religion into politics. I provided several.

I honestly believe that the Pope's encyclical on climate change is based in science and morality as he sees it. He himself is neither right nor left.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jun 23, 2015 03:20PM)
They do it constantly no doubt.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Jun 23, 2015 08:52PM)
Holy smokes ... We set a record here in Orlando ... We hit 100 degrees last week. It hasn't been 100 degrees in 17 years ... This global warming is just crazy!!!! We are reaching levels we experienced almost two decades ago ........THINK!!!!!!!!! Seventeen years ago it was 100 degrees... Don't you think the new record would be something more like 117 or so after all of this time?
Between Ice Ages the temperature rises. It always does. The world is heated by the sun. Always has been. :sun:
There is global warming.
Message: Posted by: RNK (Jun 24, 2015 06:36AM)
[quote]On Jun 23, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
Of course. Everthing is political in a general sense. We are talking, though, about partisan politics and the Pope's stance on AGW is hardly based on that.

I was simply asked for examples of the GOP injecting religion into politics. I provided several.

I honestly believe that the Pope's encyclical on climate change is based in science and morality as he sees it. He himself is neither right nor left. [/quote]

Yes you did. And Bob, if you can honestly say that this is only done by the Right- well...... I would have to say you are delusional.....
Message: Posted by: rowdymagi5 (Jun 24, 2015 02:10PM)
Someone explain to me why reports show that Mars is experiencing global warming? Who is up there polluting Mars?
Message: Posted by: Lewis Marks (Jun 24, 2015 02:31PM)
We are. How many rovers and other pieces of equipment do we have there? :)
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Jun 24, 2015 02:42PM)
The sun heats Mars too.... :sun:
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (Jun 24, 2015 03:43PM)
[quote]On Jun 24, 2015, RNK wrote:
[quote]On Jun 23, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
Of course. Everthing is political in a general sense. We are talking, though, about partisan politics and the Pope's stance on AGW is hardly based on that.

I was simply asked for examples of the GOP injecting religion into politics. I provided several.

I honestly believe that the Pope's encyclical on climate change is based in science and morality as he sees it. He himself is neither right nor left. [/quote]

Yes you did. And Bob, if you can honestly say that this is only done by the Right- well...... I would have to say you are delusional..... [/quote]

This Pope is using Global Warming as a leftist strategy on getting nations to spend more money on poor people. As he says, AGW is going to destroy poor people. His evidence is scantly as is all AGW evidence. The pope is a South American leftist and was very political before becoming Pope. His morality is often based in the fact that some people have too much money and some don't have enough.
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Jun 25, 2015 05:42AM)
[quote]On Jun 24, 2015, The Hermit wrote:

This Pope is using Global Warming as a leftist strategy on getting nations to spend more money on poor people.
[/quote]
Right, because I'm pretty sure that Jesus would have been against helping the poor.



[quote]
His morality is often based in the fact that some people have too much money and some don't have enough. [/quote]

And we all know that Jesus, as a strong capitalist, wasn't opposed to an ever-widening income gap between the rich and the poor.

Ron
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (Jun 25, 2015 10:51AM)
[quote]On Jun 25, 2015, R.S. wrote:
[quote]On Jun 24, 2015, The Hermit wrote:

This Pope is using Global Warming as a leftist strategy on getting nations to spend more money on poor people.
[/quote]
Right, because I'm pretty sure that Jesus would have been against helping the poor.



[quote]
His morality is often based in the fact that some people have too much money and some don't have enough. [/quote]

And we all know that Jesus, as a strong capitalist, wasn't opposed to an ever-widening income gap between the rich and the poor.

Ron [/quote]

There is a big difference between helping the poor and spending money on them. The poor aren't poor because some people are rich. Income gap is BS. There was a pretty big income gap in the middle ages as well when the Church was pretty rich. The Vatican is a pretty posh place as are many of the churches. I believe Jesus also said something about using religion for gain. Let's start by selling the treasures of the Catholic church and giving that money to the poor. It was mostly the poor that financed it.
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (Jun 25, 2015 10:57AM)
[quote]On Jun 25, 2015, R.S. wrote:
[quote]On Jun 24, 2015, The Hermit wrote:

This Pope is using Global Warming as a leftist strategy on getting nations to spend more money on poor people.
[/quote]
Right, because I'm pretty sure that Jesus would have been against helping the poor.



[quote]
His morality is often based in the fact that some people have too much money and some don't have enough. [/quote]

And we all know that Jesus, as a strong capitalist, wasn't opposed to an ever-widening income gap between the rich and the poor.

Ron [/quote]

I don't think he was opposed to income gap. I believe his response was sell everything, give to the poor and follow me. I don't think he said build a 500B business and give less than 10% of your budget to help the poor. I think the church should put their money where their mouth is. Same for mega churches in this country as well.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 25, 2015 11:30AM)
[quote]On Jun 25, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
[quote]On Jun 25, 2015, R.S. wrote:
[quote]On Jun 24, 2015, The Hermit wrote:

This Pope is using Global Warming as a leftist strategy on getting nations to spend more money on poor people.
[/quote]
Right, because I'm pretty sure that Jesus would have been against helping the poor.



[quote]
His morality is often based in the fact that some people have too much money and some don't have enough. [/quote]

And we all know that Jesus, as a strong capitalist, wasn't opposed to an ever-widening income gap between the rich and the poor.

Ron [/quote]

There is a big difference between helping the poor and spending money on them. The poor aren't poor because some people are rich. Income gap is BS. There was a pretty big income gap in the middle ages as well when the Church was pretty rich. The Vatican is a pretty posh place as are many of the churches. I believe Jesus also said something about using religion for gain. Let's start by selling the treasures of the Catholic church and giving that money to the poor. It was mostly the poor that financed it. [/quote]

I think you are right. As soon as you set the example and sell your home, car, and other worldly possessions and give the money to the less fortunate, I think the Catholic Church should follow your example. Go for it. Better yet just find some poor people that need a car or a home and give it to them.
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (Jun 25, 2015 12:52PM)
[quote]On Jun 25, 2015, acesover wrote:
[quote]On Jun 25, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
[quote]On Jun 25, 2015, R.S. wrote:
[quote]On Jun 24, 2015, The Hermit wrote:

This Pope is using Global Warming as a leftist strategy on getting nations to spend more money on poor people.
[/quote]
Right, because I'm pretty sure that Jesus would have been against helping the poor.



[quote]
His morality is often based in the fact that some people have too much money and some don't have enough. [/quote]

And we all know that Jesus, as a strong capitalist, wasn't opposed to an ever-widening income gap between the rich and the poor.

Ron [/quote]

There is a big difference between helping the poor and spending money on them. The poor aren't poor because some people are rich. Income gap is BS. There was a pretty big income gap in the middle ages as well when the Church was pretty rich. The Vatican is a pretty posh place as are many of the churches. I believe Jesus also said something about using religion for gain. Let's start by selling the treasures of the Catholic church and giving that money to the poor. It was mostly the poor that financed it. [/quote]

I think you are right. As soon as you set the example and sell your home, car, and other worldly possessions and give the money to the less fortunate, I think the Catholic Church should follow your example. Go for it. Better yet just find some poor people that need a car or a home and give it to them. [/quote]


I'm not the one talking about helping the poor. Why should I sell anything.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 25, 2015 05:49PM)
[quote]On Jun 25, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
[quote]On Jun 25, 2015, acesover wrote:
[quote]On Jun 25, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
[quote]On Jun 25, 2015, R.S. wrote:
[quote]On Jun 24, 2015, The Hermit wrote:

This Pope is using Global Warming as a leftist strategy on getting nations to spend more money on poor people.
[/quote]
Right, because I'm pretty sure that Jesus would have been against helping the poor.



[quote]
His morality is often based in the fact that some people have too much money and some don't have enough. [/quote]

And we all know that Jesus, as a strong capitalist, wasn't opposed to an ever-widening income gap between the rich and the poor.

Ron [/quote]

There is a big difference between helping the poor and spending money on them. The poor aren't poor because some people are rich. Income gap is BS. There was a pretty big income gap in the middle ages as well when the Church was pretty rich. The Vatican is a pretty posh place as are many of the churches. I believe Jesus also said something about using religion for gain. Let's start by selling the treasures of the Catholic church and giving that money to the poor. It was mostly the poor that financed it. [/quote]

I think you are right. As soon as you set the example and sell your home, car, and other worldly possessions and give the money to the less fortunate, I think the Catholic Church should follow your example. Go for it. Better yet just find some poor people that need a car or a home and give it to them. [/quote]


I'm not the one talking about helping the poor. Why should I sell anything. [/quote]

Why don't you want to help the poor? What do you have against poor people? See how easily things get twisted?
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Jun 26, 2015 08:20AM)
[quote]On Jun 25, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
[quote]On Jun 25, 2015, R.S. wrote:
[quote]On Jun 24, 2015, The Hermit wrote:

This Pope is using Global Warming as a leftist strategy on getting nations to spend more money on poor people.
[/quote]
Right, because I'm pretty sure that Jesus would have been against helping the poor.


[quote]
His morality is often based in the fact that some people have too much money and some don't have enough. [/quote]

And we all know that Jesus, as a strong capitalist, wasn't opposed to an ever-widening income gap between the rich and the poor.

Ron [/quote]

There is a big difference between helping the poor and spending money on them. The poor aren't poor because some people are rich.
[/quote]

I'm pretty sure that the reason they are poor would have been irrelevant to Jesus. And besides, how much can you help the poor without spending any money on them?

[I]Deuteronomy 15:11
For there will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore I command you, ‘You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.’[/I]

So it seems the Pope doesn't have a "leftist strategy" nor a "rightist strategy" - he merely has a biblical strategy.



[quote]
I believe Jesus also said something about using religion for gain. Let's start by selling the treasures of the Catholic church and giving that money to the poor. It was mostly the poor that financed it. [/quote]

I agree!!

Ron
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 26, 2015 08:31AM)
As soon as America picked the ancient Roman system, with the senate, republic etcetera, I knew that sooner or later it would be, too the lions, the Christians.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Jun 26, 2015 09:08AM)
It's hot here in Florida today. Almost as hot as 17 years ago but not quite. :sun:
Message: Posted by: seneca77 (Jun 26, 2015 10:13AM)
[quote]On Jun 26, 2015, Slim King wrote:
It's hot here in Florida today. Almost as hot as 17 years ago but not quite. :sun: [/quote]

As "smart" as you are, Slim/Dave, I'm surprised you don't know the difference between weather and climate.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 26, 2015 12:57PM)
Climate (n.) Look up climate at Dictionary.com

late 14c., "horizontal zone of the earth," Scottish, from Old French climat "region, part of the earth," from Latin clima (genitive climatis) "region; slope of the Earth," from Greek klima "region, zone," literally "an inclination, slope," thus "slope of the Earth from equator to pole," from root of klinein "to slope, to lean" (see lean (v.)).

The angle of sun on the slope of the Earth's surface defined the zones assigned by early geographers. Early references in English, however, are in astrology works, as each of the seven (then) climates was held to be under the influence of one of the planets. Shift from "region" to "weather associated with a region" perhaps began in Middle English, certainly by c. 1600.

Not many people know that.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jun 26, 2015 01:45PM)
[quote]On Jun 26, 2015, seneca77 wrote:
[quote]On Jun 26, 2015, Slim King wrote:
It's hot here in Florida today. Almost as hot as 17 years ago but not quite. :sun: [/quote]

As "smart" as you are, Slim/Dave, I'm surprised you don't know the difference between weather and climate. [/quote]

Well, it's hard to blame him. No one else seems to know the difference either. Whenever any local weather happens you'll see all the news stations touting it as caused by AGW.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 26, 2015 02:15PM)
[quote]On Jun 26, 2015, rockwall wrote:
Whenever any local weather happens you'll see all the news stations touting it as caused by AGW. [/quote]

Do you just make up that nonsense as you go along?
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jun 26, 2015 03:05PM)
Bob, only an idiot wouldn't see that the news does it on a regular basis.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jun 26, 2015 03:18PM)
New paper finds the 18+ year 'pause' of global warming is not due to Bob's favorite excuse, (out of about 70 excuses proposed), that the missing heat is hiding in the deep oceans.

Story here:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2015/05/new-paper-finds-18-year-pause-of-global.html

Full paper here:
http://www.ocean-sci-discuss.net/12/701/2015/osd-12-701-2015.pdf
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 26, 2015 03:26PM)
So Bob, now where shale we look for the warmageddon heat monster?
Message: Posted by: Starrpower (Jun 26, 2015 04:02PM)
[quote]On Jun 26, 2015, seneca77 wrote:
[quote]On Jun 26, 2015, Slim King wrote:
It's hot here in Florida today. Almost as hot as 17 years ago but not quite. :sun: [/quote]

As "smart" as you are, Slim/Dave, I'm surprised you don't know the difference between weather and climate. [/quote]

He's right, Slim. It's not the temperature, it's the CLIMATE! For God's sake, wake up and smell the coffee! Can't you see global warming is taking place without it actually getting any warmer?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 26, 2015 05:10PM)
The warming is in a secret society?

It is hold up in a Bilderberg hotel somewhere perhaps?
Message: Posted by: Randwill (Jun 26, 2015 05:20PM)
[quote]On Jun 26, 2015, Starrpower wrote:
Can't you see global warming is taking place without it actually getting any warmer? [/quote]
Climate change isn't about the temperature at one person's house on one particular day. I suspect you knew this, but if you didn't, now you do.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 26, 2015 05:24PM)
So it's not in his house then.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 26, 2015 05:26PM)
[quote]On Jun 26, 2015, rockwall wrote:
New paper finds the 18+ year 'pause' of global warming is not due to Bob's favorite excuse, (out of about 70 excuses proposed), that the missing heat is hiding in the deep oceans.

Story here:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2015/05/new-paper-finds-18-year-pause-of-global.html

Full paper here:
http://www.ocean-sci-discuss.net/12/701/2015/osd-12-701-2015.pdf [/quote]

What a crock. You don't even bother to try to understand the science. It is a FACT that ocean temperatures and sea levels are rising. It's also obvious that you don't even read my posts, since I've NEVER acknowledged the myth that there's been an 18 year "pause" in warming, let alone tried to provide reasons for it.

Try to keep up.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 26, 2015 05:28PM)
It has never snowed in our house and so maybe the warming is hiding out here.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 26, 2015 05:39PM)
While I seriously doubt that rockwall has actually read the paper he's referred to, here's another that he probably won't read either:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/08/140821-global-warming-hiatus-climate-change-ocean-science/
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 26, 2015 10:21PM)
It will all be answered on Sy Fy on Sharknado 3. Check time and date.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Jun 26, 2015 10:32PM)
[quote]On Jun 26, 2015, seneca77 wrote:
[quote]On Jun 26, 2015, Slim King wrote:
It's hot here in Florida today. Almost as hot as 17 years ago but not quite. :sun: [/quote]

As "smart" as you are, Slim/Dave, I'm surprised you don't know the difference between weather and climate. [/quote]
I didn't use the word weather OR climate... Are you vacationing in Colorado?????
I said HOT!!!!!!
Message: Posted by: Anand Khalsa (Jun 27, 2015 03:26AM)
(I'm going to repost what I posted in another forum about climate change)

[b] Climate Change Denier:[i] "There's no consensus!" [/i] [/b]

The IPCC Third Assessment Report, Working Group 1 (TAR WG1), was the most comprehensive compilation and summary of current climate research ever attempted, and arguably the most thoroughly peer reviewed scientific document in history. While this review was sponsored by the UN, the research it compiled and reviewed was not, and the scientists involved were independent and came from all over the world.

The conclusions reached in this document have been explicitly endorsed by …

Academia Brasileira de Ciencias (Brazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academie des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed or published the same conclusions as presented in the TAR report:

NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
American Institute of Physics (AIP)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)

But if scientists are too liberal and politicians too unreliable, perhaps you find the opinion of key industry representatives more convincing:

BP, one of the largest oil companies in the world, has this opinion:

[i]"There is an increasing consensus that climate change is linked to the consumption of carbon based fuels and that action is required now to avoid further increases in carbon emissions as the global demand for energy increases." [/i]

Shell Oil (yes, as in oil, the fossil fuel) says:
[i] "Shell shares the widespread concern that the emission of greenhouse gases from human activities is leading to changes in the global climate." [/i]

Eighteen CEOs of Canada’s largest corporations had this to say in an open letter to the Prime Minister of Canada:

[i]"Our organizations accept that a strong response is required to the strengthening evidence in the scientific assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). We accept the IPCC consensus that climate change raises the risk of severe consequences for human health and security and the environment. We note that Canada is particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change." [/i]


[b] Climate Change Denier: [i] "IT'S COLLUSION!" [/i] [/b]

So the environazis seized the reigns of industrial power, in addition to infiltrating the U.N., the science academies of every developed nation, and the top research institutes of North America?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 27, 2015 03:42AM)
Yep, that's pretty much what the science deniers claim, Anand. It's a conspiracy!
Message: Posted by: Anand Khalsa (Jun 27, 2015 03:48AM)
[quote]On Jun 27, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
Yep, that's pretty much what the science deniers claim, Anand. It's a conspiracy! [/quote]

It's really scary how much of a partisan split there is on these scientific facts.

This country seems more polarized than ever.
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Jun 27, 2015 09:01AM)
[quote]On Jun 26, 2015, Slim King wrote:
[quote]On Jun 26, 2015, seneca77 wrote:
[quote]On Jun 26, 2015, Slim King wrote:
It's hot here in Florida today. Almost as hot as 17 years ago but not quite. :sun: [/quote]

As "smart" as you are, Slim/Dave, I'm surprised you don't know the difference between weather and climate. [/quote]
I didn't use the word weather OR climate... Are you vacationing in Colorado?????
I said HOT!!!!!! [/quote]

Slim is not interested in hearing our presenting valid arguments. He's just here to play semantic games and to push buttons. ROTFL!!!

Ron
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jun 27, 2015 10:17AM)
[quote]On Jun 26, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]On Jun 26, 2015, rockwall wrote:
New paper finds the 18+ year 'pause' of global warming is not due to Bob's favorite excuse, (out of about 70 excuses proposed), that the missing heat is hiding in the deep oceans.

Story here:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2015/05/new-paper-finds-18-year-pause-of-global.html

Full paper here:
http://www.ocean-sci-discuss.net/12/701/2015/osd-12-701-2015.pdf [/quote]

What a crock. You don't even bother to try to understand the science. It is a FACT that ocean temperatures and sea levels are rising. It's also obvious that you don't even read my posts, since I've NEVER acknowledged the myth that there's been an 18 year "pause" in warming, let alone tried to provide reasons for it.

Try to keep up. [/quote]

I’m not sure what Bob was trying to prove with the article he linked to but I suspect that it’s not that he didn’t think I would read it, it was more likely he was HOPING I wouldn’t read it.

Let’s take a look at this year old article.

First off, Bob says he’s never acknowledged the myth that there’s been an 18 year “pause”, yet the article he links to says, “The current hiatus has lasted about 15 years.” Mabey it’s Bob that doesn’t even read the stuff he posts.

Some other interesting tidbits:
“In this week's issue of Science, Tung and Xianyao Chen at Ocean University of China in Qingdao suggest that much of the missing heat has gone into the deep waters of the Atlantic Ocean. This is in contrast to a previous study that argued the heat went into the Pacific Ocean.”
“There is some heat going into the Atlantic, writes Kevin Trenberth, a researcher at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado, in an email. But Trenberth—who was not involved in the current study—disagrees with how it's getting there.”
Josh Willis, a climate scientist at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, isn't entirely convinced by the new study either. "I think this is an interesting hypothesis," he says.
Yeah, sounds like some strong consensus going there.

Finally, this article was a year old and presented a “hypothesis” for which “may” explain what is causing the hiatus that Bob refuses to acknowledge. Apparently Bob is the one not reading articles as the scientific study I posted about was actually recently done to test this hypothesis and could find nothing to support the hypothesis.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jun 27, 2015 10:48AM)
[quote]On Jun 27, 2015, Anand Khalsa wrote:
[quote]On Jun 27, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
Yep, that's pretty much what the science deniers claim, Anand. It's a conspiracy! [/quote]
This country seems more polarized than ever. [/quote]

They every tech you about a little dust up called The Civil War? Also the period after was fairly polarized.

See the part you miss is the reason it is political is if you want to do something it costs other people's money. Now every politician has been using sky is falling tactics to get people away from their money forever.

Then the "never let a crisis go to waste" crowd want to do things that increase power.

So it is not about if a problem exists but about how to solve it. When you get caught up in "science denier" and all that you become part of the partisan problem. You fall into the division and will forever be divided.

That is exactly what politicians want. Let us argue with each other while they lot the trust.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jun 27, 2015 11:02AM)
[quote]On Jun 27, 2015, Anand Khalsa wrote:

It's really scary how much of a partisan split there is on these scientific facts.

This country seems more polarized than ever. [/quote]

Let’s look at what all the “consensus” at the UN has brought us in the way of “tipping points”.

Back in 1982, we had until the year 2000 to fix things.

As early as 1982, the UN was issuing a two decade tipping point. UN official Mostafa Tolba, executive director of the UN Environment Program (UNEP), warned on May 11, 1982, the “world faces an ecological disaster as final as nuclear war within a couple of decades unless governments act now.” According to Tolba in 1982, lack of action would bring “by the turn of the century, an environmental catastrophe which will witness devastation as complete, as irreversible as any nuclear holocaust.”


In 1989, it was reiterated that we had until 2000.

According to a 1989 article in the Miami Herald, “A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.”


In 2007, they decided to change the date to 2012.

UN IPCC chief Pachauri in 2007: ‘If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment’


In 2009, NASA’s James Hansen was kind enough to give us another year.

“ NASA’s James Hansen Declared Obama Only First Term to Save The Planet! — ‘On Jan. 17, 2009 Hansen declared Obama only ‘has four years to save Earth’”


Luckily, since Obama was able to stop the rise of the Oceans, in 2012 the UN gave us another 4 years.
Tipping points extended again: UN Foundation Pres. Warmist Tim Wirth: 2012 is Obama’s ‘last window of opportunity’ to get it right on climate change


Now we apparently have until 2029

The Boston Globe noted on April 16, 2014: “The world now has a rough deadline for action on climate change. Nations need to take aggressive action in the next 15 years to cut carbon emissions, in order to forestall the worst effects of global warming, says the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”

So, in retrospect, if you didn’t believe them in 1982, Bob would have called you a denier but as it turns out, if you had believed them you were just gullible.

If you didn’t believe them in 1989, again, Bob would have called you a denier but at this point if you HAD believed them you would have been both gullible and a bit foolish.

If you didn’t believe them in 2007, 2009, and 2012, again, Bob would have called you a denier but if you AGAIN believed them, we would have to say that you were not only gullible and a bit foolish but a tab bit stupid to boot.

If you don’t believe the latest date, of course, you can count on Bob to again label you a denier. But anyone still believing this serial scare mongering must be …, well, at this point words elude me.


If you don't see something quite hilarious about the new "end of the world tipping point" being released almost every five years, then you've got no sense of humor! :goof:
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Jun 27, 2015 11:20AM)
Regarding a global warming "pause":

http://climate.nasa.gov/faq/

Go to the "Ask a climate scientist" videos section and click "does the scientific community feel that global warming is decreasing or increasing?"

Ron
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 27, 2015 11:33AM)
Thanks Ron. For those who can be bothered to follow the link, here is the video response from NASA:

[youtube]MmoYStB-Rzw[/youtube]
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jun 27, 2015 11:42AM)
[quote]On Jun 27, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
Thanks Ron. For those who can be bothered to follow the link, here is the video response from NASA:

[youtube]MmoYStB-Rzw[/youtube] [/quote]

Sometimes this stuff just writes itself!

So, the video was published in 2013.

Then, in 2014 we have this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_Willis

"On October 5, 2014, Willis was a co-author on a paper reporting that the warming of the deep ocean had not contributed to a detectable extent to either sea level rise or the Earth's energy budget.[13] Willis said its findings did not challenge global warming because "the sea level is still rising”.[14]"

That is just too hilarious. Thanks for posting Bob.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 27, 2015 11:44AM)
Didn't think you'd understand it. THAT'S what is truly hilarious.

Here is a simply "Yes or No" question for you. Are global sea levels and ocean temperatures rising at a rate unprecedented since the beginning of the industrial age?

Here's another- Since the empirical evidence shows that both have, in fact, risen steadily over the last twenty years, does this show that there has been a "pause" in global warming?
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jun 27, 2015 11:54AM)
What part of "had not contributed" are you having trouble understanding?

Here's a question for you. Are you high?

(Don't worry. It's actually rhetorical. I think we all know the answer.)
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 27, 2015 12:05PM)
That's the kind of stupidly insulting response that comes from someone who cannot answer simple questions.

What is it about "Yes or No" that you don't understand?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 27, 2015 12:07PM)
Willis that same fellow above

Oct. 6, 2014: The cold waters of Earth’s deep ocean have not warmed measurably since 2005, according to a new NASA study, leaving unsolved the mystery of why global warming appears to have slowed in recent years.

Scientists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, California, analyzed satellite and direct ocean temperature data from 2005 to 2013 and found the ocean abyss below 1.24 miles (1,995 meters) has not warmed measurably. Study coauthor Josh Willis of JPL said these findings do not throw suspicion on climate change itself.
"The sea level is still rising," Willis noted. "We're just trying to understand the nitty-gritty details."

In the 21st century, greenhouse gases have continued to accumulate in the atmosphere, just as they did in the 20th century, but global average surface air temperatures have stopped rising in tandem with the gases. The temperature of the top half of the world's oceans -- above the 1.24-mile mark -- is still climbing, but not fast enough to account for the stalled air temperatures.



http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2014/06oct_abyss/
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Jun 27, 2015 12:18PM)
Have the powers that be decided that there will be no climate change ever? Have they decided to stop the climate from changing because they think that it's better for everyone? Have they given a good reason why the climate should never change and they want to accomplish something that has never happened before? What is their goal besides taxation?
One hundred years from now people will laugh at what these scientist said and did.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 27, 2015 12:25PM)
Thank you for the non sequitors.
Message: Posted by: Anand Khalsa (Jun 27, 2015 01:08PM)
How about someone respond to what [b] I ACTUALLY POSTED ABOUT? [/b]
Message: Posted by: slowkneenuh (Jun 27, 2015 01:25PM)
Although the climate may be changing, to associate it with any specific event or influence in "recent" history (last year/decade/century/etc.) may not be practical on something 4.54 billion years old.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 27, 2015 02:20PM)
[quote]On Jun 27, 2015, slowkneenuh wrote:
Although the climate may be changing, to associate it with any specific event or influence in "recent" history (last year/decade/century/etc.) may not be practical on something 4.54 billion years old. [/quote]
The science shows otherwise. The rise in AGW is commensurate with the rise in man-made green house gases since the beginning of the industrial age.

What I fail to understand is why the GOP, many of whom proudly proclaim, "I'm not a scientist," nonetheless feels they are qualified to make scientific determinations. (They've even put creationists on science committees!)
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 27, 2015 02:23PM)
[quote]On Jun 27, 2015, Anand Khalsa wrote:
How about someone respond to what [b] I ACTUALLY POSTED ABOUT? [/b] [/quote]

The science deniers won't respond to the incontrovertible facts you've posted, Anand. Cognitive dissonance will prevent them from even acknowledging it.

Good post, though.
Message: Posted by: Anand Khalsa (Jun 27, 2015 02:27PM)
[quote]On Jun 27, 2015, slowkneenuh wrote:
Although the climate may be changing, to associate it with any specific event or influence in "recent" history (last year/decade/century/etc.) may not be practical on something 4.54 billion years old. [/quote]

There is no climatological theory in which CO2 does not drive temperature. And natural cycle precedents do not exhibit the same extreme changes we’re now witnessing.

At least you're admitting it exists!
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jun 27, 2015 02:59PM)
[quote]On Jun 27, 2015, Anand Khalsa wrote:
How about someone respond to what [b] I ACTUALLY POSTED ABOUT? [/b] [/quote]

I did. ... Why didn't you respond to what I ACTUALLY POSTED ABOUT???
Message: Posted by: Anand Khalsa (Jun 27, 2015 03:17PM)
[quote]On Jun 27, 2015, rockwall wrote:
[quote]On Jun 27, 2015, Anand Khalsa wrote:
How about someone respond to what [b] I ACTUALLY POSTED ABOUT? [/b] [/quote]

I did. [/quote]

You quoted my response to Bob, you did not directly respond to any of the facts I put forth. Sharing information that doesn't address the original information is not responding.
Message: Posted by: Anand Khalsa (Jun 27, 2015 03:19PM)
[quote]On Jun 27, 2015, rockwall wrote:
[quote]On Jun 27, 2015, Anand Khalsa wrote:

It's really scary how much of a partisan split there is on these scientific facts.

This country seems more polarized than ever. [/quote]

Let’s look at what all the “consensus” at the UN has brought us in the way of “tipping points”.

Back in 1982, we had until the year 2000 to fix things.

As early as 1982, the UN was issuing a two decade tipping point. UN official Mostafa Tolba, executive director of the UN Environment Program (UNEP), warned on May 11, 1982, the “world faces an ecological disaster as final as nuclear war within a couple of decades unless governments act now.” According to Tolba in 1982, lack of action would bring “by the turn of the century, an environmental catastrophe which will witness devastation as complete, as irreversible as any nuclear holocaust.”


In 1989, it was reiterated that we had until 2000.

According to a 1989 article in the Miami Herald, “A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.”


In 2007, they decided to change the date to 2012.

UN IPCC chief Pachauri in 2007: ‘If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment’


In 2009, NASA’s James Hansen was kind enough to give us another year.

“ NASA’s James Hansen Declared Obama Only First Term to Save The Planet! — ‘On Jan. 17, 2009 Hansen declared Obama only ‘has four years to save Earth’”


Luckily, since Obama was able to stop the rise of the Oceans, in 2012 the UN gave us another 4 years.
Tipping points extended again: UN Foundation Pres. Warmist Tim Wirth: 2012 is Obama’s ‘last window of opportunity’ to get it right on climate change


Now we apparently have until 2029

The Boston Globe noted on April 16, 2014: “The world now has a rough deadline for action on climate change. Nations need to take aggressive action in the next 15 years to cut carbon emissions, in order to forestall the worst effects of global warming, says the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”

So, in retrospect, if you didn’t believe them in 1982, Bob would have called you a denier but as it turns out, if you had believed them you were just gullible.

If you didn’t believe them in 1989, again, Bob would have called you a denier but at this point if you HAD believed them you would have been both gullible and a bit foolish.

If you didn’t believe them in 2007, 2009, and 2012, again, Bob would have called you a denier but if you AGAIN believed them, we would have to say that you were not only gullible and a bit foolish but a tab bit stupid to boot.

If you don’t believe the latest date, of course, you can count on Bob to again label you a denier. But anyone still believing this serial scare mongering must be …, well, at this point words elude me.


If you don't see something quite hilarious about the new "end of the world tipping point" being released almost every five years, then you've got no sense of humor! :goof: [/quote]

OK I will respond. First, could you tell me what sources you used?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 27, 2015 03:21PM)
Anand- Any you are going to get will either completely ignore or belittle any of the substantive facts you presented.
Message: Posted by: Anand Khalsa (Jun 27, 2015 03:33PM)
[quote]On Jun 27, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
Anand- the only response you are going to get will be a demeaning one that will ignore any of the substantive facts you posted. [/quote]

I'm hoping someone will come forward and address what I have said. You're right though, I doubt they will. I guess it proves the facts I have shared are impossible to refute. Especially when people respond without addressing the actual facts, and instead pull up whatever they can find that shows a discrepancy in general climate prediction.

It's kind of like when a young man adorned with a Confederate, White Nationalist, and Apartheid-era Rhodesian garb, walks into a black church and kills 9 people, states that he's there to kill black people, is witnessed committing the act, and then confesses to not only the act but the motive behind it, and then conservatives are absolutely confused as to why he decided to do it!

I am seeing a pattern...
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jun 27, 2015 03:37PM)
[quote]On Jun 27, 2015, Anand Khalsa wrote:
...

You quoted my response to Bob, you did not directly respond to any of the facts I put forth. Sharing information that doesn't address the original information is not responding. [/quote]

Yes, I quoted your response to Bob, but I was responding to your comments about "consensus". You're young so you're probably unaware of how many times, not just in the last 20 years but in the last 50 years even, that we've been told that the earth will soon be destroyed. And no matter how many times these predictions prove false, the people who made the predictions never admit they were wrong and are generally celebrated by the left.

Do a google search on tipping point. You'll be able to find many more predictions than the few I sighted.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 27, 2015 03:48PM)
The climate hysterics are getting a bit sharp though: they are now making predictions that are coming in a 101 years, when everyone here is dead and so can't prove them wrong.
Message: Posted by: slowkneenuh (Jun 27, 2015 04:00PM)
Although I do have some concerns about global warming, I would have to say that it is lower on my priority list. I am more concerned with this:

http://theconversation.com/the-five-biggest-threats-to-human-existence-27053
Message: Posted by: Anand Khalsa (Jun 27, 2015 04:10PM)
[quote]On Jun 27, 2015, rockwall wrote:
[quote]On Jun 27, 2015, Anand Khalsa wrote:
...

You quoted my response to Bob, you did not directly respond to any of the facts I put forth. Sharing information that doesn't address the original information is not responding. [/quote]

Yes, I quoted your response to Bob, but I was responding to your comments about "consensus". [/quote]

OK. I understand that now.

[quote] You're young [/quote]

Would you like it if I mentioned your age to characterize you or make assumptions about your knowledge?

It's absolutely ridiculous that you mention my age in an intellectual argument to bolster your position.

I respectfully request that you do not bring my age into this conversation. That's unnecessarily personal.

[quote]
so you're probably unaware of how many times, not just in the last 20 years but in the last 50 years even, that we've been told that the earth will soon be destroyed. [/quote]

So obviously I have no knowledge of history due to my age? I am sure you are unaware of the 19th Century because you weren't alive then.

[quote]
And no matter how many times these predictions prove false, the people who made the predictions never admit they were wrong and are generally celebrated by the left.

Do a google search on tipping point. You'll be able to find many more predictions than the few I sighted. [/quote]

I am well aware of the argument that because prior prediction prove false, current predictions must also be false.

This fails to account for the rapid advance and improvement of technology used to measure climate.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jun 27, 2015 04:22PM)
You are sensative about your age. Do you think experience has no part in intelligence? Do you not learn more as you age? Or do you automatically know everything you ever will at 16?

And just because one does not choose to Reggie a point in no way makes it irrefutable. That is a fairly substantial flaw in logic.
Message: Posted by: Anand Khalsa (Jun 27, 2015 04:28PM)
[quote]On Jun 27, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
You are sensative about your age. Do you think experience has no part in intelligence? Do you not learn more as you age? Or do you automatically know everything you ever will at 16?

And just because one does not choose to Reggie a point in no way makes it irrefutable. That is a fairly substantial flaw in logic. [/quote]

Of COURSE experience has a part in intelligence.

Of COURSE I will learn more as I age.

Of COURSE I don't automatically know everything at 16.

I don't claim that to be true, because I DO have a lot to learn.

Comments about my age DO NOT belong in an INTELLECTUAL DISCUSSION.

To belittle me and attempt to bolster one's argument based upon my age is ridiculous.

Using someone else's race, sex, sexual orientation, etc. to belittle what they are saying would cause outrage!

But it's perfectly acceptable to belittle someone based upon their young age?

Now THERE is a flaw in logic.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jun 27, 2015 04:30PM)
[quote]On Jun 27, 2015, Anand Khalsa wrote:
[quote]On Jun 27, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
You are sensative about your age. Do you think experience has no part in intelligence? Do you not learn more as you age? Or do you automatically know everything you ever will at 16?

And just because one does not choose to Reggie a point in no way makes it irrefutable. That is a fairly substantial flaw in logic. [/quote]

Of COURSE experience has a part in intelligence.

Of COURSE I will learn more as I age.

Of COURSE I don't automatically know everything at 16.

I don't claim that to be true, because I DO have a lot to learn.

Comments about my age DO NOT belong in an INTELLECTUAL DISCUSSION.

To belittle me and attempt to bolster one's argument based upon my age is ridiculous.

Using someone else's race, sex, sexual orientation, etc. to belittle what they are saying would cause outrage!

But it's perfectly acceptable to belittle someone based upon their young age.

Now THERE is a flaw in logic. [/quote]

Whose logic was that exactly?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jun 27, 2015 04:32PM)
[quote]On Jun 27, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
You are sensative about your age. Do you think experience has no part in intelligence? Do you not learn more as you age? Or do you automatically know everything you ever will at 16?

And just because one does not choose to Reggie a point in no way makes it irrefutable. That is a fairly substantial flaw in logic. [/quote]

Choose to refute a point sorry.
Message: Posted by: Anand Khalsa (Jun 27, 2015 04:32PM)
[quote]On Jun 27, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]On Jun 27, 2015, Anand Khalsa wrote:
[quote]On Jun 27, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
You are sensative about your age. Do you think experience has no part in intelligence? Do you not learn more as you age? Or do you automatically know everything you ever will at 16?

And just because one does not choose to Reggie a point in no way makes it irrefutable. That is a fairly substantial flaw in logic. [/quote]

Of COURSE experience has a part in intelligence.

Of COURSE I will learn more as I age.

Of COURSE I don't automatically know everything at 16.

I don't claim that to be true, because I DO have a lot to learn.

Comments about my age DO NOT belong in an INTELLECTUAL DISCUSSION.

To belittle me and attempt to bolster one's argument based upon my age is ridiculous.

Using someone else's race, sex, sexual orientation, etc. to belittle what they are saying would cause outrage!

But it's perfectly acceptable to belittle someone based upon their young age.

Now THERE is a flaw in logic. [/quote]

Whose logic was that exactly? [/quote]

It was the logic that lead you to say I was "sensitive about my age" because I respectfully asked that personal characteristics such as age aren't brought into an intellectual conversation.
Message: Posted by: Anand Khalsa (Jun 27, 2015 04:36PM)
[quote]On Jun 27, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]On Jun 27, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
You are sensative about your age. Do you think experience has no part in intelligence? Do you not learn more as you age? Or do you automatically know everything you ever will at 16?

And just because one does not choose to Reggie a point in no way makes it irrefutable. That is a fairly substantial flaw in logic. [/quote]

Choose to refute a point sorry. [/quote]

??? "Choose to refute a point sorry"
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jun 27, 2015 04:36PM)
That calls for you to know the operation of my mind and again you ate wrong.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jun 27, 2015 04:37PM)
[quote]On Jun 27, 2015, Anand Khalsa wrote:
[quote]On Jun 27, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]On Jun 27, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
You are sensative about your age. Do you think experience has no part in intelligence? Do you not learn more as you age? Or do you automatically know everything you ever will at 16?

And just because one does not choose to Reggie a point in no way makes it irrefutable. That is a fairly substantial flaw in logic. [/quote]

Choose to refute a point sorry. [/quote]

??? "Choose to refute a point sorry" [/quote]


I was clarifying a misspelling.
Message: Posted by: Anand Khalsa (Jun 27, 2015 04:38PM)
[quote]On Jun 27, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]On Jun 27, 2015, Anand Khalsa wrote:
[quote]On Jun 27, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]On Jun 27, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
You are sensative about your age. Do you think experience has no part in intelligence? Do you not learn more as you age? Or do you automatically know everything you ever will at 16?

And just because one does not choose to Reggie a point in no way makes it irrefutable. That is a fairly substantial flaw in logic. [/quote]

Choose to refute a point sorry. [/quote]

??? "Choose to refute a point sorry" [/quote]


I was clarifying a misspelling. [/quote]

No problem.
Message: Posted by: Anand Khalsa (Jun 27, 2015 04:40PM)
[quote]On Jun 27, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
That calls for you to know the operation of my mind and again you are wrong. [/quote]

Do you think it is acceptable to bring up the personal characteristics of someone else such as their race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, or age in the context of an intellectual conversation in order to bolster one's argument or to belittle the other person's argument?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jun 27, 2015 05:25PM)
You make an assumption as to WHY he brought up your age.

But to say "you are young and have not experienced..." is a statement of FACT. It upsets you tremendously I get that. But fact is every time I have seen you claim to be belittled, it is a misunderstanding on your part. That is only what I have seen. It might not be all the time but it is the times I have seen.

If someone is talking about something specific that helps if you have EXPERIENCED and that bolsters then sure it matters. If it is a point that when you are having an intellectual conversation about actual experienced based things, that because of your age you have not had a lot of or any experience with then yes it is valid. There are some things you can only get from experience and not from books. It is what it is and you may not like it but there are times that it is valid, and is not belittling. It is just what it is.

I think you are over sensitive about age right now and want to be taken seriously. I take you seriously. You are obviously intelligent. No need to just jump to offended immediately.
Message: Posted by: Anand Khalsa (Jun 27, 2015 05:52PM)
[quote]On Jun 27, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
You make an assumption as to WHY he brought up your age.

But to say "you are young and have not experienced..." is a statement of FACT. It upsets you tremendously I get that. But fact is every time I have seen you claim to be belittled, it is a misunderstanding on your part. That is only what I have seen. It might not be all the time but it is the times I have seen.

If someone is talking about something specific that helps if you have EXPERIENCED and that bolsters then sure it matters. If it is a point that when you are having an intellectual conversation about actual experienced based things, that because of your age you have not had a lot of or any experience with then yes it is valid. There are some things you can only get from experience and not from books. It is what it is and you may not like it but there are times that it is valid, and is not belittling. It is just what it is.

I think you are over sensitive about age right now and want to be taken seriously. I take you seriously. You are obviously intelligent. No need to just jump to offended immediately. [/quote]

I am not offended by it. I feel mentioning personal characteristics of others has no place in an intellectual conversation.

I have chosen to reveal my age and my identity. I guess I have to accept people using my age to evaluate my intelligence and knowledge.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jun 27, 2015 06:05PM)
Anand,

I neither mentioned your age to bolster my argument or to diminish yours. I was simply pointing out that I understood your questioning the number of times we have been warned of a ‘tipping point’ as you don’t have the life experience of having lived the past 40 or 50 years hearing of a new dire threat of the end of the world every five or so years. I would think that you would agree with that.

Anand said, “Using someone else’s race, sex, sexucal orientation, etc. to belittle what they are saying would cause outrage!”

Ha! Not if you’re posting on NVMS thread of the café! Besides, if the point is legitimate, why should it. For instance, landmark will tell you that if you’re white, there is no way that you can form an opinion of the black experience. I could point to countless other examples.

I was attempting to be polite in my response to you. You haven’t, (as yet), proven yourself to be a smug, condescending, self-righteous, self-important twit like at least one other person has here so I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt. However, your continued use of the pejorative, “denier”, is putting you close to the edge. Skeptics neither deny climate, science or global warming for that matter.

Anand said, “I am well aware of the argument that because prior prediction prove false, current predictions must also be false.”

And yet that wasn’t my argument at all. It would be better to state that “Repeated, provably false predictions by a body should call into suspicion continued similar predictions.”

Have you heard the term, “Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me”? If someone tells you something that turns out to be false over and over and you continue to believe their statements, the blame lies with you as much as the person telling you the false statements.

As to the meat of your original post. I think it can be summed up as, “There are a LOT of scientists who endorse the IPCC Assessment Report, so it must be true!”

First off, this is the logical fallacy of ‘appeal to authority’. Secondly, there are also a number of scientists who disagree with major conclusions of the report. And finally, but probably most importantly, what exactly IS the scientific consensus?

If you ask 1000 scientists if the earth has warmed in the last 100 years and has a portion of that warming been caused by man, I suspect that close to 100% would say yes.

However, if you ask the same 1000 scientists if they believe that if nothing is done within the next 100 years, will mankind suffer huge and irreparable damage, (or name your own dire prediction), you are going to get a huge variance of opinion from a small percentage saying, “Yes! Absolutely!”, to a large percentage saying, “Probably not”, and some percentage saying, “Of course not!” Once you get past the question of, “Has the earth warmed?”, you get very little consensus about anything else.

Anand said, “It’s really scary how much of a partisan split there is on these scientific facts.”

I’ll take this statement to say, “this entire topic has become extremely politicized”, and you would be correct. You have one side that wants to use this topic to push for all kinds of government controls and spending and you have another side that doesn’t.
Message: Posted by: Anand Khalsa (Jun 27, 2015 06:25PM)
[quote]On Jun 27, 2015, rockwall wrote:
Anand,

I neither mentioned your age to bolster my argument or to diminish yours. I was simply pointing out that I understood your questioning the number of times we have been warned of a ‘tipping point’ as you don’t have the life experience of having lived the past 40 or 50 years hearing of a new dire threat of the end of the world every five or so years. I would think that you would agree with that.

Anand said, “Using someone else’s race, sex, sexucal orientation, etc. to belittle what they are saying would cause outrage!”

Ha! Not if you’re posting on NVMS thread of the café! Besides, if the point is legitimate, why should it. For instance, landmark will tell you that if you’re white, there is no way that you can form an opinion of the black experience. I could point to countless other examples.

I was attempting to be polite in my response to you. You haven’t, (as yet), proven yourself to be a smug, condescending, self-righteous, self-important twit like at least one other person has here so I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt. However, your continued use of the pejorative, “denier”, is putting you close to the edge. Skeptics neither deny climate, science or global warming for that matter.

Anand said, “I am well aware of the argument that because prior prediction prove false, current predictions must also be false.”

And yet that wasn’t my argument at all. It would be better to state that “Repeated, provably false predictions by a body should call into suspicion continued similar predictions.”

Have you heard the term, “Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me”? If someone tells you something that turns out to be false over and over and you continue to believe their statements, the blame lies with you as much as the person telling you the false statements.

As to the meat of your original post. I think it can be summed up as, “There are a LOT of scientists who endorse the IPCC Assessment Report, so it must be true!”

First off, this is the logical fallacy of ‘appeal to authority’. Secondly, there are also a number of scientists who disagree with major conclusions of the report. And finally, but probably most importantly, what exactly IS the scientific consensus?

If you ask 1000 scientists if the earth has warmed in the last 100 years and has a portion of that warming been caused by man, I suspect that close to 100% would say yes.

However, if you ask the same 1000 scientists if they believe that if nothing is done within the next 100 years, will mankind suffer huge and irreparable damage, (or name your own dire prediction), you are going to get a huge variance of opinion from a small percentage saying, “Yes! Absolutely!”, to a large percentage saying, “Probably not”, and some percentage saying, “Of course not!” Once you get past the question of, “Has the earth warmed?”, you get very little consensus about anything else.

Anand said, “It’s really scary how much of a partisan split there is on these scientific facts.”

I’ll take this statement to say, “this entire topic has become extremely politicized”, and you would be correct. You have one side that wants to use this topic to push for all kinds of government controls and spending and you have another side that doesn’t. [/quote]

I understand now that you didn't mean it that way, but it was hard not to take it that way after having my age be mentioned in virtually every NVMS forum I have posted in.

Do I think doomsday is coming and the world is going to explode? No.

Do I think climate change is going to cause damage to the earth as well as to humans? Yes.

I don't want to push "all kinds of government control". That is the real misconception from your side of the debate.

This isn't a conspiracy.

This might be of some interest:

CONFIRMATION BIAS:

In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias (or confirmatory bias) is a tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions, leading to statistical errors.
Message: Posted by: Intrepid (Jun 27, 2015 06:38PM)
[quote]On Jun 27, 2015, Anand Khalsa wrote:
This country seems more polarized than ever. [/quote]
Than when you were twelve years old? :-)
Sorry, I know your sensitive about your age, but you gave me a chuckle there. And yes, to your point there has been much discussion on gerrymandering and narrowing of media demographics over the years so you make a valid point.

It's also worth noting that the U.S. was pretty polarized in the 60s too, but in different ways that have fortunately come to pass. And I guess you can say that it was polarized in both the 1860s and the 1960s while we're at it.
Message: Posted by: Anand Khalsa (Jun 27, 2015 06:42PM)
[quote]On Jun 27, 2015, Intrepid wrote:
[quote]On Jun 27, 2015, Anand Khalsa wrote:
This country seems more polarized than ever. [/quote]
Than when you were twelve years old? :-)
Sorry, I know your sensitive about your age, but you gave me a chuckle there. And yes, to your point there has been much discussion on gerrymandering and narrowing of media demographics over the years so you make a valid point.

It's also worth noting that the U.S. was pretty polarized in the 60s too, but in different ways that have fortunately come to pass. And I guess you can say that it was polarized in both the 1860s and the 1960s while we're at it. [/quote]

No, not when I was twelve years old, dating back before I was born. As someone with a deep fascination for history, I have independently studied and researched political polarity.

Here is the best representation that I have found in my past research:

[img]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/files/2013/06/Screen-Shot-2013-06-05-at-4.33.26-PM.png[/img]
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Jun 27, 2015 06:45PM)
So how much hotter is it today than 17 years ago???? If the globe is warming then how much? Can you prove why? Because even NASA won't say they know for sure. They are guessing.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jun 27, 2015 06:45PM)
[quote]On Jun 27, 2015, Anand Khalsa wrote:
...
I don't want to push "all kinds of government control". That is the real misconception from your side of the debate.
... [/quote]

Just because YOU don't, that doesn't make it a misconception. (However, I find your statement that you don't a bit hard to believe given your stated socialist leanings.)


[quote]On Jun 27, 2015, Anand Khalsa wrote:
...

CONFIRMATION BIAS:

In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias (or confirmatory bias) is a tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions, leading to statistical errors. [/quote]

Yeah, it goes both ways you realize?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jun 27, 2015 06:47PM)
I still say the Civil War was fairly polarized.
Message: Posted by: Anand Khalsa (Jun 27, 2015 06:47PM)
[quote]On Jun 27, 2015, rockwall wrote:
[quote]On Jun 27, 2015, Anand Khalsa wrote:
...
I don't want to push "all kinds of government control". That is the real misconception from your side of the debate.
... [/quote]

Just because YOU don't, that doesn't make it a misconception. (However, I find your statement that you don't a bit hard to believe given your stated socialist leanings.)


[quote]On Jun 27, 2015, Anand Khalsa wrote:
...

CONFIRMATION BIAS:

In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias (or confirmatory bias) is a tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions, leading to statistical errors. [/quote]

Yeah, it goes both ways you realize? [/quote]

I am a LIBERTARIAN SOCIALIST, like Chomsky. Let me make that clear.

And OF COURSE it goes both ways. At least I am aware of it.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jun 27, 2015 06:51PM)
Being aware and doing something about it are two different stretches of road.
Message: Posted by: Anand Khalsa (Jun 27, 2015 06:54PM)
[quote]On Jun 27, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
Being aware and doing something about it are two different stretches of road. [/quote]

This is true.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Jun 27, 2015 09:29PM)
We will need all the extra CO2 to heal the earth when the next world war comes.
Message: Posted by: Anand Khalsa (Jun 27, 2015 10:48PM)
[quote]On Jun 27, 2015, Slim King wrote:
We will need all the extra CO2 to heal the earth when the next world war comes. [/quote]

Once again, blatant mischaracterization of liberal views.
Message: Posted by: Anand Khalsa (Jun 27, 2015 11:43PM)
Here is what I posted in another climate-change thread:

[b]Evidence?[/b]

[b] LINKS: [/b]

http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-015-1252-7_8

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379199000529

http://works.bepress.com/raymond_bradley/45/

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1417(199611/12)11:6%3C451::AID-JQS275%3E3.0.CO;2-9/abstract

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-005-5352-2

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v421/n6918/abs/nature01286.html

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/25/climate-change-is-real-and-caused-by-humans-majori/?page=all

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.short

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.4296/cwrj2303219

http://cedadocs.badc.rl.ac.uk/981/9/Chapter_8.pdf

http://www.fs.usda.gov/ccrc/

http://www.pnas.org/content/97/4/1406.short

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7066/abs/nature04188.html

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/ipcc2007.asp

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/gridded/data.mlost.html

http://www.wunderground.com/climate/SeaIce.asp

http://www.wunderground.com/climate/SeaLevelRise.asp

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/

http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/global-warming/science-and-impacts/global-warming-science#.VY9cBFUViko

https://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

https://royalsociety.org/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18730/climate-change-evidence-and-causes

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/human-contribution-to-gw-faq.html

[b] IMAGES: [/b]

[img]http://usercontent1.hubimg.com/588012_f520.jpg[/img]

[img]http://www.wrd.org/engineering/images/climate-change-glaciers.jpg[/img]

[img]http://photos.mongabay.com/09/forecast_co2-568.jpg[/img]

[img]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3c/Evidence_CO2.jpg[/img]

[b] ADDITIONAL RESOURCES: [/b]

Regional Patterns of Sea Level Change 1993-2007, NASA Earth Observatory.

"What is an El Niño?" National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Bindoff, N.L., J. Willebrand, V. Artale, A, Cazenave, J. Gregory, S. Gulev, K. Hanawa, C. Le Quéré, S. Levitus, Y. Nojiri, C.K. Shum, L.D. Talley and A. Unnikrishnan. "Observations: Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Level." In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)] (Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press, 2007).

Church, J. A., J.M. Gregory, P. Huybrechts, M. Kuhn, K. Lambeck, M.T. Nhuan, D. Qin, P.L. Woodworth. "Changes in sea level", in Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, edited by J. T. Houghton et al. (New York: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2001): pp. 639-694.

Church, John A. and Neil J. White. "A 20th century acceleration in global sea-level rise." Geophysical Research Letters 33 (2006): 4pp.

Church, J., S. Wilson, P. Woodworth, T. Aarup. "Understanding Sea Level Rise and Variability." Eos 88, No. 4 (2007): 43-44.

Csatho, Bea, Toni Schenk, C.J. Van Der Veen, William B. Krabill. "Intermittent thinning of Jakobshavn Isbræ, West Greenland, since the Little Ice Age." Journal of Glaciology 54, No. 184 (2008): 131-144.

Dowsett, Harry, Robert Thompson, John Barron, Thomas Cronin, Farley Fleming, Scott Ishman, Richard Poore, Debra Willard, Thomas Holtz Jr. "Joint investigations of the Middle Pliocene climate I: PRISM paleoenvironmental reconstructions." Global and Planetary Change 9 (1994): 169-195.

Hansen, J., 2007, "Scientific reticence and sea level rise",, Environ. Res. Lett. 2 (April-June 2007) 024002 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/2/2/024002.

IPCC. "Summary for Policymakers." In: Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds. (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007): 7-22.

Jevrejeva, S., J.C. Moore, A. Grinsted,, and P.L. Woodworth, 2008, "Recent global sea level acceleration started over 200 years ago?", Geophysical Research Letters, 35, L08715, doi:10.1029/2008GL033611, 2008.

Khan, M. National Climate Change Adaptation Policy and Implementation Plan for Guyana. Caribbean: Planning for Adaptation to Global Climate Change, CPACC Component 4. (Georgetown, Guyana: National Ozone Action Unit of Guyana/Hydrometeorological Service, 2001): 74 pp.

Kinver, Mark. "The Ebb and Flow of Sea Level Rise." BBC. January 22, 2008.

Meier, Mark F., Mark B. Dyurgerov, Ursula K. Rick, Shad O'Neel, W. Tad Pfeffer, Robert S. Anderson, Suzanne P. Anderson, Andrey F. Glazovsky. "Glaciers Dominate Eustatic Sea-Level Rise in the 21st Century." Science 317 (2007): 1064-1067.

Milne, G. A.. J. L. Davis, Jerry X. Mitrovica, H.-G. Scherneck, J. M. Johansson, M. Vermeer, H. Koivula. "Space-Geodetic Constraints on Glacial Isostatic Adjustment in Fennoscandia." Science 291 (2001): 2381-2385.

Morrissey, S. K., J. F. Clark, M. W. Bennett, E. Richardson, M. Stute "Effects of Sea Level Rise on Groundwater Flow Paths in a Coastal Aquifer System." Eos Trans. AGU, 89 no 23 (2008), Jt. Assem. Suppl., Abstract H41C-07.

Nicholls, R.J., P.P. Wong, V.R. Burkett, J.O. Codignotto, J.E. Hay, R.F. McLean, S. Ragoonaden and C.D. Woodroffe. "Coastal systems and low-lying areas." In Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds. (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007): 315-356.

Pfeffer, W.T., J.T. Harper, and S. O'Neel, 2008, "Kinematic Constraints on Glacier Contributions to 21st-Century Sea-Level Rise", Science 321 no. 5894, pp. 1340-1343, 5 September 2008. DOI: 10.1126/science.1159099

Rahmstorf, Stefan. "Sea-Level Rise: A Semi-Empirical Approach to Projecting Future." Science 315 (2007): 368-370.

Schneider von Deimling, T., A. Ganopolski, H. Held, S. Rahmstorf. "How Cold Was the Last Glacial Maximum?" Geophysical Research Letters 33 (2006): 5pp.

Shepherd, Andrew and Duncan Wingham. "Recent Sea-Level Contributions of the Antarctic and Greenland Ice Sheets." Science 315 (2007): 1529-1532.

Waelbroeck, C., L. Labeyriea, E. Michela, J.C. Duplessya, J.F. McManusc, K. Lambeckd, E. Balbona, M. Labracheriee. "Sea-level and deep water temperature changes derived from benthic foraminifera isotopic records." Quaternary Science Reviews 21 (2002): 295-305.

Smith, T. M., et al. (2008), Improvements to NOAA's Historical Merged Land-Ocean Surface Temperature Analysis (1880-2006), J. Climate, 21, 2283-2293.

Quayle, R.G., T.C. Peterson, A.N. Basist, and C.S. Godfrey, 1999: An operational near-real-time global temperature index. Geophys.
Res. Lett.. 26, 3 (Feb. 1, 1999), 333-335.

Smith, T. M., and R. W. Reynolds (2004), Improved extended reconstruction of SST (1854-1997), J. Climate, 17, 2466-2477.

Smith, T. M., and R. W. Reynolds (2005), A global merged land air and sea surface temperature reconstruction based on historical observations (1880-1997), J. Climate, 18, 2021-2036.

Smith, T. M., et al. (2008), Improvements to NOAA's Historical Merged Land-Ocean Surface Temperature Analysis (1880-2006), J. Climate, 21, 2283-2293.

Bushuk, M., D. Giannakis, and A. J. Majda (2015). Arctic sea-ice reemergence: The role of large-scale oceanic and atmospheric variability. J. Climate, doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00354.1, in press.

Bushuk, M. and D. Giannakis (2015). Sea-ice reemergence in a model hierarchy. Geophys. Res. Lett., doi:10.1002/2015GL063972, in press.

Schroeder, D., D.L. Feltham, D. Flocco and M. Tsmados, (2014). September Arctic sea ice minimum predicted by spring melt pond fraction. Nature Climate Change, doi:10.1038/nclimate2203.

Stroeve, J., E. Blanchard-Wrigglesworth, V. Guemas, S. Howell, F. Massonnet and S. Tietsche, (2015). Developing user-oriented seasonal sea ice forecasts in a changing Arctic. EOS, doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00354.1, in press.

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers, p. 5

B.D. Santer et.al., "A search for human influences on the thermal structure of the atmosphere," Nature vol 382, 4 July 1996, 39-46

Gabriele C. Hegerl, "Detecting Greenhouse-Gas-Induced Climate Change with an Optimal Fingerprint Method," Journal of Climate, v. 9, October 1996, 2281-2306

V. Ramaswamy et.al., "Anthropogenic and Natural Influences in the Evolution of Lower Stratospheric Cooling," Science 311 (24 February 2006), 1138-1141

B.D. Santer et.al., "Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes," Science vol. 301 (25 July 2003), 479-483.

In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth's natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first speculated that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.

National Research Council (NRC), 2006. Surface Temperature Reconstructions For the Last 2,000 Years. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

Church, J. A. and N.J. White (2006), A 20th century acceleration in global sea level rise, Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L01602, doi:10.1029/2005GL024826.

The global sea level estimate described in this work can be downloaded from the CSIRO website.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp

T.C. Peterson et.al., "State of the Climate in 2008," Special Supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, v. 90, no. 8, August 2009, pp. S17-S18.

I. Allison et.al., The Copenhagen Diagnosis: Updating the World on the Latest Climate Science, UNSW Climate Change Research Center, Sydney, Australia, 2009, p. 11

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm

Levitus, et al, "Global ocean heat content 1955-2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems," Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L07608 (2009).

L. Polyak, et.al., "History of Sea Ice in the Arctic," in Past Climate Variability and Change in the Arctic and at High Latitudes, U.S. Geological Survey, Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product 1.2, January 2009, chapter 7

R. Kwok and D. A. Rothrock, "Decline in Arctic sea ice thickness from submarine and ICESAT records: 1958-2008," Geophysical Research Letters, v. 36, paper no. L15501, 2009

http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html

National Snow and Ice Data Center

World Glacier Monitoring Service

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei.html

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidification%3F

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification

C. L. Sabine et.al., "The Oceanic Sink for Anthropogenic CO2," Science vol. 305 (16 July 2004), 367-371

Copenhagen Diagnosis, p. 36.

National Snow and Ice Data Center

C. Derksen and R. Brown, "Spring snow cover extent reductions in the 2008-2012 period exceeding climate model projections," GRL, 39:L19504

--

[b][i]"The earth is not dying, it is being killed, and those who are killing it have names and addresses."[/i] ~ Utah Phillips [/b]

[b] I urge you to do more research about climate change. [/b]
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jun 27, 2015 11:49PM)
Bold lettering is rude. Please stop.
Message: Posted by: Anand Khalsa (Jun 27, 2015 11:55PM)
[quote]On Jun 10, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
It is discouraging you think it is hostility. If you think THAT was hostile you should stick around and just read some of the threads.
[/quote]

[quote]On Jun 27, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:

I think you are over sensitive about age right now and want to be taken seriously.

[/quote]
Message: Posted by: Anand Khalsa (Jun 28, 2015 12:03AM)
Are [i] italics [/i] any better?
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jun 28, 2015 12:11AM)
[quote]On Jun 28, 2015, Anand Khalsa wrote:
...
[b][i]"The earth is not dying, it is being killed, and those who are killing it have names and addresses."[/i] ~ Utah Phillips [/b]

[b] I urge you to do more research about climate change. [/b] [/quote]

My goodness. That last quote sounds like a threat. Now why would you post that?
Message: Posted by: Anand Khalsa (Jun 28, 2015 12:19AM)
[quote]On Jun 27, 2015, rockwall wrote:
[quote]On Jun 28, 2015, Anand Khalsa wrote:
...
[b][i]"The earth is not dying, it is being killed, and those who are killing it have names and addresses."[/i] ~ Utah Phillips [/b]

[b] I urge you to do more research about climate change. [/b] [/quote]

My goodness. That last quote sounds like a threat. Now why would you post that? [/quote]

I would post that because it's a great quote from a great man. And it's true.

To say I am personally threatening you is slanderous and ludicrous.

I mean, are you serious, a threat?

It also reflects that many say climate change is a hoax because they [i] fear they might be culpable [/i].
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jun 28, 2015 12:38AM)
[quote]On Jun 28, 2015, Anand Khalsa wrote:
[quote]On Jun 27, 2015, rockwall wrote:
[quote]On Jun 28, 2015, Anand Khalsa wrote:
...
[b][i]"The earth is not dying, it is being killed, and those who are killing it have names and addresses."[/i] ~ Utah Phillips [/b]

[b] I urge you to do more research about climate change. [/b] [/quote]

My goodness. That last quote sounds like a threat. Now why would you post that? [/quote]

I would post that because it's a great quote from a great man. And it's true.

To say I am personally threatening you is slanderous and ludicrous.

... [/quote]

Again, you have misinterpreted me.

I didn't say you personally threatened anyone.

I said the QUOTE sounded like a threat. You don't think it does? What about a threatening quote do you find to be great?

(btw, it's fairly common for many of those believing in AGW to post threats to those who are sceptics. you may recall a "PSA" created a few years back showing people, (even kids), being blown up for questioning AGW. It was extremdly offensive although I suspect some here found it quite amusing.)
Message: Posted by: Anand Khalsa (Jun 28, 2015 12:47AM)
[quote]On Jun 27, 2015, rockwall wrote:
[quote]On Jun 28, 2015, Anand Khalsa wrote:
[quote]On Jun 27, 2015, rockwall wrote:
[quote]On Jun 28, 2015, Anand Khalsa wrote:
...
[b][i]"The earth is not dying, it is being killed, and those who are killing it have names and addresses."[/i] ~ Utah Phillips [/b]

[b] I urge you to do more research about climate change. [/b] [/quote]

My goodness. That last quote sounds like a threat. Now why would you post that? [/quote]

I would post that because it's a great quote from a great man. And it's true.

To say I am personally threatening you is slanderous and ludicrous.

... [/quote]

Again, you have misinterpreted me.

I didn't say you personally threatened anyone.

I said the QUOTE sounded like a threat. You don't think it does? What about a threatening quote do you find to be great?

(btw, it's fairly common for many of those believing in AGW to post threats to those who are sceptics. you may recall a "PSA" created a few years back showing people, (even kids), being blown up for questioning AGW. It was extremdly offensive although I suspect some here found it quite amusing.) [/quote]

THE QUOTE BY UTAH PHILLIPS IS AN INCREDIBLE QUOTE. I will stand by that. He's a role model of mine. It was not threatening, it was the TRUTH.

Anyway,

I am spending too much time posting here in NVMS. It's taking up a large part of my day, and I'm exhausted.

I have said everything I have to say about these topics.

I sincerely thank everyone for the discussion/debate.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jun 28, 2015 04:59PM)
The earth is not dying, it is being killed, and those who are killing it have names and addresses." ~ Utah Phillips

[quote]On Jun 28, 2015, Anand Khalsa wrote:
...
THE QUOTE BY UTAH PHILLIPS IS AN INCREDIBLE QUOTE. I will stand by that. He's a role model of mine. It was not threatening, it was the TRUTH.
... [/quote]

You see, that's the sort of non-answer I've come to expect from others here. I was hoping for better from you. I asked what you found so wonderful about the quote and your answer is that it's INCREDIBLE! Wow.

Of course it's a threat. (By Utah Phillips, not necessarily by you.) He's saying we know who you are and where you live and we're going to come and get you and punish you. How in the world is that not a threat? The only things he leaves to the imagination are WHO he's going to punish and HOW he's going to punish them.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Jun 28, 2015 05:33PM)
[quote]On Jun 27, 2015, Anand Khalsa wrote:
[quote]On Jun 27, 2015, Slim King wrote:
We will need all the extra CO2 to heal the earth when the next world war comes. [/quote]

Once again, blatant mischaracterization of liberal views. [/quote]
I didn't even mention anyones views, conservative OR liberal .... paranoid much?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 28, 2015 05:38PM)
The environazi leaders are all psychopaths. There is no doubt it. They have actually already murdered millions of babies in China based on ideas from the Club of Rome publication The Limits of Growth — a 1972 Malthusian work. http://freakonomics.com/2011/11/04/the-academic-origins-of-chinas-one-child-policy/
Message: Posted by: Anand Khalsa (Jun 28, 2015 05:43PM)
I acknowledge that I didn't answer your question directly.

The quote is not a threat.

It is commenting that ALL the people of this earth have direct responsibility for climate change and the destruction of the planet. Nobody is claiming (and neither is the quote) that climate change is being caused by a select few people, and that no one else is culpable.

The quote's message is NOT "we're coming to get you!!"

You read into the quote yourself by saying the quote was trying to say "we're going to come and get you and punish you."

Where does the quote say that we want to come and punish people? Are you kidding me?

The quotes message is: "everyone must take responsibility for what's happening to the planet"

If you knew Utah Philips stances, you would know he's a man of peace and freedom, and doesn't believe in that sort of punishment. He advocates taking personal responsibility for how we treat the earth and changing the way we treat it. He has NEVER advocated punishing people for climate change, EVER. That is so far from what he has said and sang over and over again.
Message: Posted by: Anand Khalsa (Jun 28, 2015 05:46PM)
[img]http://41.media.tumblr.com/7138c86cfe0978028297449e2a94787d/tumblr_mm55pjRQOs1rtfyz6o1_500.jpg[/img]
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jun 28, 2015 06:15PM)
Yea quotes from burnt out hippies. Gotta love em.

I doubt he was threatening anyone. He is a pacifist or at least claims to be. Never saw or heard him do anything to counter that point.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jun 28, 2015 08:24PM)
[quote]On Jun 28, 2015, Anand Khalsa wrote:
I acknowledge that I didn't answer your question directly.

The quote is not a threat.

It is commenting that ALL the people of this earth have direct responsibility for climate change and the destruction of the planet. Nobody is claiming (and neither is the quote) that climate change is being caused by a select few people, and that no one else is culpable.

The quote's message is NOT "we're coming to get you!!"

You read into the quote yourself by saying the quote was trying to say "we're going to come and get you and punish you."

Where does the quote say that we want to come and punish people? Are you kidding me?

The quotes message is: "everyone must take responsibility for what's happening to the planet"

If you knew Utah Philips stances, you would know he's a man of peace and freedom, and doesn't believe in that sort of punishment. He advocates taking personal responsibility for how we treat the earth and changing the way we treat it. He has NEVER advocated punishing people for climate change, EVER. That is so far from what he has said and sang over and over again. [/quote]

I'm not buying it. I believe that YOU don't think it was meant as a threat.

However, when someone who doesn't like what you're doing says, "I know where you live", you can generally take that as a threat. Not that good 'ol Utah would ever do anything. Nah, he was a pacifist. That's the sort of thing an organizer says to his followers hoping someone will do his dirty work for him while maintaining deniability. Kind of like the Mob Boss telling a bunch of his followers, "Man, that guy is causing me a lot of trouble, it sure would be nice if he were out of the way."

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
Message: Posted by: Anand Khalsa (Jun 29, 2015 01:24AM)
I respect your opinion and I also agree to disagree.
Message: Posted by: foolsnobody (Jun 29, 2015 02:05AM)
[quote]On Jun 28, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
Yea quotes from burnt out hippies. Gotta love em.
[/quote]

Utah Phillips was a burnt out WOBBLY not a burnt out hippie. IWW through and through. Dash of anarchy and a whole lot of folksinger. Btw, did you know that the IWW was created on June 27, 1905? So the 110th anniversary of the founding was this past Saturday.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jun 29, 2015 09:47AM)
[quote]On Jun 29, 2015, Anand Khalsa wrote:
I respect your opinion and I also agree to disagree. [/quote]

Oh yeah!?!?! Well, I know where you live! :lol:
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Jun 29, 2015 10:49AM)
[quote]On Jun 29, 2015, rockwall wrote:
[quote]On Jun 29, 2015, Anand Khalsa wrote:
I respect your opinion and I also agree to disagree. [/quote]

Oh yeah!?!?! Well, I know where you live! :lol: [/quote]
ROTFLMAO!!!!! :dancing: :bigdance: :bigdance: :band:
Message: Posted by: Intrepid (Jul 4, 2015 06:34AM)
Hot summer could wipe out Goth population ;-)
http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2014/07/21/hot-summer-could-wipe-out-goth-population-experts-warn/
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jul 4, 2015 11:19AM)
[quote]On Jul 4, 2015, Intrepid wrote:
Hot summer could wipe out Goth population ;-)
http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2014/07/21/hot-summer-could-wipe-out-goth-population-experts-warn/ [/quote]

Just more fear mongering! They will simply go into hibernation and return with a stronger population than ever in the winter. (Although it's true that there are many who will still claim that their numbers are severely diminished.)
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Jul 5, 2015 03:02PM)
There will still be just as many but they will be THINNER according to the satellite pictures.
Message: Posted by: RNK (Jul 8, 2015 10:25AM)
A very interesting article: http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/07/nobel-prize-winning-scientist-says-obama-is-dead-wrong-on-global-warming/

A Noble Prize winner who once supported Obama in GW now changes his tune.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jul 8, 2015 10:35AM)
Here, I'll do it for them.

1. He's not a climate scientist!
2. He's probably being paid by big oil!
3. He's a science denying scientist!

Hmmm, did I miss any?

What this science denying nobel prize winning physicist probably being paid by big oil had to say:

"“Global warming really has become a new religion,” Giaever said. “Because you cannot discuss it. It’s not proper. It is like the Catholic Church.”

Giaever argued that there’s been no global warming for the last 17 years or so (based on satellite records), weather hasn’t gotten more extreme and that global temperature has only slightly risen — and that’s based on data being “fiddled” with by scientists, he said.

“When you have a theory and the theory does not agree with the experiment then you have to cut out the theory. You were wrong with the theory,” Giaever said."
Message: Posted by: Uli Weigel (Jul 8, 2015 10:40AM)
Unfortunately Dr. Ivar Giaever is what you could call a smart stupid person, his Nobel Prize notwithstanding.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ivar-giaever-nobel-physicist-climate-pseudoscientist.html
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jul 8, 2015 10:53AM)
[quote]On Jul 8, 2015, rockwall wrote:
Here, I'll do it for them.

1. He's not a climate scientist!
2. He's probably being paid by big oil!
3. He's a science denying scientist!

Hmmm, did I miss any?

What this science denying nobel prize winning physicist probably being paid by big oil had to say:

"“Global warming really has become a new religion,” Giaever said. “Because you cannot discuss it. It’s not proper. It is like the Catholic Church.”

Giaever argued that there’s been no global warming for the last 17 years or so (based on satellite records), weather hasn’t gotten more extreme and that global temperature has only slightly risen — and that’s based on data being “fiddled” with by scientists, he said.

“When you have a theory and the theory does not agree with the experiment then you have to cut out the theory. You were wrong with the theory,” Giaever said." [/quote]

His specialty is semiconductor physics. Any idea what kind of analysis he's done on climate science?

But the real question is this: When thousands of experts agree on AGW, why do you insist that the couple of dozen who dissent are the ones who are correct? By what criteria do you decide who to believe and who to reject?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jul 8, 2015 11:35AM)
Same as you. Those who agree with your position. Then you do things like claim only a few dozen disagree so as to bolster your position.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Jul 8, 2015 11:39AM)
Pshh. I'll interject- if the majority of scientists disagreed on AGW, I might turn around. (I would be happy to, actually, because it would be more optimistic.) And don't say I'm lying- I've changed opinions before based on scientific evidence: I used to be concerned about GMO's, but after examining scientific concensus, realized I didn't have much to worry about.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jul 8, 2015 12:06PM)
[quote]On Jul 8, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
Same as you. Those who agree with your position. Then you do things like claim only a few dozen disagree so as to bolster your position. [/quote]

Naw. I'm going with the thousands who agree. And I go with the majority opinions in the published research.

I'm not capable of adjudicating the technical arguments.
Message: Posted by: RNK (Jul 8, 2015 12:19PM)
[quote]On Jul 8, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]On Jul 8, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
Same as you. Those who agree with your position. Then you do things like claim only a few dozen disagree so as to bolster your position. [/quote]

Naw. I'm going with the thousands who agree. And I go with the majority opinions in the published research.

I'm not capable of adjudicating the technical arguments. [/quote]

The ones that fear losing that government grant money if they disagree.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jul 8, 2015 12:28PM)
[quote]On Jul 8, 2015, RNK wrote:
[quote]On Jul 8, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]On Jul 8, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
Same as you. Those who agree with your position. Then you do things like claim only a few dozen disagree so as to bolster your position. [/quote]

Naw. I'm going with the thousands who agree. And I go with the majority opinions in the published research.

I'm not capable of adjudicating the technical arguments. [/quote]

The ones that fear losing that government grant money if they disagree. [/quote]

Do you have any idea how research grants work?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jul 8, 2015 12:36PM)
Most of them are pure as the wind driven snow and pauper status. None would ever do anything for money. Only those you disagree with are doing it for money.

We know.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jul 8, 2015 12:43PM)
[quote]On Jul 8, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
Most of them are pure as the wind driven snow and pauper status. None would ever do anything for money. Only those you disagree with are doing it for money.

We know. [/quote]

Apparently you don't know. But thanks for changing the topic in your typical sarcastic, smarmy self-congratulatory way, Danny.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 8, 2015 12:55PM)
[quote]On Jul 8, 2015, RNK wrote:

The ones that fear losing that government grant money if they disagree. [/quote]

We've all heard this right-wing myth before, but I've never seen ANYTHING to support it. Isn't it amazing that NO ONE has ever come forward alleging that he/she was cut off from government grant money for failing to agree to provide specific results? That's ludicrous on its face.

Surely there must be SOMETHING credible you can cite to support your allegation?
Message: Posted by: RNK (Jul 8, 2015 01:44PM)
[quote]On Jul 8, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]On Jul 8, 2015, RNK wrote:

The ones that fear losing that government grant money if they disagree. [/quote]

We've all heard this right-wing myth before, but I've never seen ANYTHING to support it. Isn't it amazing that NO ONE has ever come forward alleging that he/she was cut off from government grant money for failing to agree to provide specific results? That's ludicrous on its face.

Surely there must be SOMETHING credible you can cite to support your allegation? [/quote]

I would venture to say you are right on Bob. No one would be stupid enough to do so.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jul 8, 2015 01:53PM)
[quote]On Jul 8, 2015, RNK wrote:
[quote]On Jul 8, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]On Jul 8, 2015, RNK wrote:

The ones that fear losing that government grant money if they disagree. [/quote]

We've all heard this right-wing myth before, but I've never seen ANYTHING to support it. Isn't it amazing that NO ONE has ever come forward alleging that he/she was cut off from government grant money for failing to agree to provide specific results? That's ludicrous on its face.

Surely there must be SOMETHING credible you can cite to support your allegation? [/quote]

I would venture to say you are right on Bob. No one would be stupid enough to do so. [/quote]

Again, do you have any idea how these grants are awarded?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jul 8, 2015 02:07PM)
[quote]On Jul 8, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]On Jul 8, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
Most of them are pure as the wind driven snow and pauper status. None would ever do anything for money. Only those you disagree with are doing it for money.

We know. [/quote]

Apparently you don't know. But thanks for changing the topic in your typical sarcastic, smarmy self-congratulatory way, Danny. [/quote]

What exactly was "self-congratulatory" about my post John? It never even mentioned me. But keep going. It is hilarious.

Oh and I do know. But I am tired of watching the same dogs chase the same cars.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jul 8, 2015 02:09PM)
[quote]On Jul 8, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]On Jul 8, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]On Jul 8, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
Most of them are pure as the wind driven snow and pauper status. None would ever do anything for money. Only those you disagree with are doing it for money.

We know. [/quote]

Apparently you don't know. But thanks for changing the topic in your typical sarcastic, smarmy self-congratulatory way, Danny. [/quote]

What exactly was "self-congratulatory" about my post John? It never even mentioned me. But keep going. It is hilarious. [/quote]

No, nothing smug about your "pure as the wind and driven snow" BS.

Danny, I--an admitted non-expert--follows the consensus of experts. Why do you refuse to take me at my word? Do you know my mind better than me?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 8, 2015 02:13PM)
[quote]On Jul 8, 2015, RNK wrote:
[quote]On Jul 8, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]On Jul 8, 2015, RNK wrote:

The ones that fear losing that government grant money if they disagree. [/quote]

We've all heard this right-wing myth before, but I've never seen ANYTHING to support it. Isn't it amazing that NO ONE has ever come forward alleging that he/she was cut off from government grant money for failing to agree to provide specific results? That's ludicrous on its face.

Surely there must be SOMETHING credible you can cite to support your allegation? [/quote]

I would venture to say you are right on Bob. No one would be stupid enough to do so. [/quote]

Ridiculous. If anyone was wrongfully cut off from a government grant for refusing to fudge research, I guarantee you that SOMEONE would have said something or sued.

I note that you didn't even attempt to provide any source or citations to support your allegation. I will take that as a concession that none exist.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jul 8, 2015 02:13PM)
[quote]On Jul 8, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]On Jul 8, 2015, RNK wrote:

The ones that fear losing that government grant money if they disagree. [/quote]

We've all heard this right-wing myth before, but I've never seen ANYTHING to support it. Isn't it amazing that NO ONE has ever come forward alleging that he/she was cut off from government grant money for failing to agree to provide specific results? That's ludicrous on its face.

Surely there must be SOMETHING credible you can cite to support your allegation? [/quote]

Bob people make money from government grants. That is not a myth. How, and why they are granted does NOT take away from the FACT that there IS indeed money.

I am NOT saying you must agree or disagree or commenting on what needs to be done to get them. To deny there is money, and good money in government grants is silly. The FACT that most grants supersede party affiliation is never mentioned. My point is that if a guy gets a grant under say President Bush, and then President Obama takes office, the grant is still working. So the idea that somehow it is based on what you agree or disagree with in that particular brand of government is not really holding water.

Research can not be conducted along party lines. (Or should not be.) Certainly it can not be done effectively.

Now getting the grant in the first place may or may not be politically motivated. Certainly the agenda of the green has given some companies a leg up. But I am not saying it is 100% political motivation.

But you can't deny there is money on BOTH sides.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jul 8, 2015 02:14PM)
[quote]On Jul 8, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]On Jul 8, 2015, RNK wrote:
[quote]On Jul 8, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]On Jul 8, 2015, RNK wrote:

The ones that fear losing that government grant money if they disagree. [/quote]

We've all heard this right-wing myth before, but I've never seen ANYTHING to support it. Isn't it amazing that NO ONE has ever come forward alleging that he/she was cut off from government grant money for failing to agree to provide specific results? That's ludicrous on its face.

Surely there must be SOMETHING credible you can cite to support your allegation? [/quote]

I would venture to say you are right on Bob. No one would be stupid enough to do so. [/quote]

Ridiculous. If anyone was wrongfully cut off from a government grant for refusing to fudge research, I guarantee you that SOMEONE would have said something or sued.

I note that you didn't even attempt to provide any source or citations to support your allegation. I will take that as a concession that none exist. [/quote]

I can't imagine that such a secret can be kept.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jul 8, 2015 02:15PM)
[quote]On Jul 8, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]On Jul 8, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]On Jul 8, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]On Jul 8, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
Most of them are pure as the wind driven snow and pauper status. None would ever do anything for money. Only those you disagree with are doing it for money.

We know. [/quote]

Apparently you don't know. But thanks for changing the topic in your typical sarcastic, smarmy self-congratulatory way, Danny. [/quote]

What exactly was "self-congratulatory" about my post John? It never even mentioned me. But keep going. It is hilarious. [/quote]

No, nothing smug about your "pure as the wind and driven snow" BS.

Danny, I--an admitted non-expert--follows the consensus of experts. Why do you refuse to take me at my word? Do you know my mind better than me? [/quote]

I asked what was "self congratulatory" about my post and you answered this. Typical.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jul 8, 2015 02:16PM)
Things that might create a bit of a chilling effect on anyone approaching the government about a grant that goes against the party line of AGW.

1. Having the government declare anyone who disagrees as "not normal".
http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/23/epa-chief-climate-deniers-arent-normal-human-beings/

2. Having the government threaten to sue you if you don't toe the party line.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/dem-senator-whitehouse-justice-dept-should-sue-global-warming-skeptics/

3. Having the President tell you that if you don't believe the party line, that you're "endangering national security".
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/242672-obama-climate-deniers-endangering-national-security

4. Having FEMA threaten you with cutting off funds to your state if you don't include plans to mitigate AGW.
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/18032015/fema-states-no-climate-planning-no-money

5. Having the government target scientists for investigation simply because they don't follow the party line.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/5/democrats-continue-witch-hunt-climate-scientists/


You would think that most scientists looking for grant money have probably gotten the message, wouldn't you?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 8, 2015 02:23PM)
Danny- that side-steps the point completely. I simply asked for ANY evidence to support the allegation that government grants are predicated on the requirement that the research provides certain results.

In the private sector, that's not unusual at all. Big Tobacco, for example, routinely commissioned "research" with the requirement that it prove tobacco to be harmless.

But I'd like to see just ONE example of a government grant related to climate research being contingent on producing a politically dictated result.

Can you provide any examples?

The argument RNK makes is as logical as the following:

Mr, A: "Aliens walk among us."

Mr. B: "Why don't the reveal themselves?"

Mr A: "They'd never be stupid enough to do that."

Mr. B: "Why do you believe it then?

Mr. A: "I just know."


It should also be noted that the huge scientific consensus on AGW is world-wide, thereby casting doubt on the notion that it's a creation of American politics.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jul 8, 2015 02:31PM)
It HAS been thrown about a lot.

Then again so was "I can see Russia from my house".

I can't imagine it is true. I mean I would imagine if it was myself and I got cut off simply because of a wrong result I would fill up the airwaves with the story. I would be on every news outlet, every internet blog, every place anyone could imagine. It would NOT be tough to find the story!
Message: Posted by: RNK (Jul 8, 2015 02:59PM)
Again- if AGW was true and serious with the huge scientific consensus the Bob claims something would have been done by now. Obama with his "magical pen" would simply override everybody and make a law as he did with immigration. But nothing has been done because there is to many holes and disagreements.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jul 8, 2015 03:03PM)
[quote]On Jul 8, 2015, RNK wrote:
Again- if AGW was true and serious with the huge scientific consensus the Bob claims something would have been done by now. Obama with his "magical pen" would simply override everybody and make a law as he did with immigration. But nothing has been done because there is to many holes and disagreements. [/quote]

Please tell us you're joking.
Message: Posted by: RNK (Jul 8, 2015 03:06PM)
[quote]On Jul 8, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]On Jul 8, 2015, RNK wrote:
Again- if AGW was true and serious with the huge scientific consensus the Bob claims something would have been done by now. Obama with his "magical pen" would simply override everybody and make a law as he did with immigration. But nothing has been done because there is to many holes and disagreements. [/quote]

Please tell us you're joking. [/quote]

Yes. Joking.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jul 8, 2015 03:35PM)
[quote]On Jul 8, 2015, RNK wrote:
[quote]On Jul 8, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]On Jul 8, 2015, RNK wrote:
Again- if AGW was true and serious with the huge scientific consensus the Bob claims something would have been done by now. Obama with his "magical pen" would simply override everybody and make a law as he did with immigration. But nothing has been done because there is to many holes and disagreements. [/quote]

Please tell us you're joking. [/quote]

Yes. Joking. [/quote]

Sorry to doubt you. (Whew!)
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Jul 8, 2015 11:22PM)
Did you guys see that new app that tells when Florida will flood????
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Jul 8, 2015 11:22PM)
Did you guys see that new app that tells when Florida will flood????
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jul 9, 2015 01:21AM)
Shares in UK power producer Drax plunged 28% in Wednesday trading after Chancellor George Osborne said the Climate Change Levy exemption for renewable electricity would be removed.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Jul 10, 2015 05:58PM)
[quote]On Jul 9, 2015, tommy wrote:
Shares in UK power producer Drax plunged 28% in Wednesday trading after Chancellor George Osborne said the Climate Change Levy exemption for renewable electricity would be removed. [/quote]
That's pretty telling isn't it!!! ;)
Message: Posted by: Intrepid (Jul 12, 2015 10:07AM)
Will we be hit with a mini ice age in 2020? That is the claim of a study of solar cycles.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3156594/Is-mini-ICE-AGE-way-Scientists-warn-sun-sleep-2020-cause-temperatures-plummet.html
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (Jul 12, 2015 07:58PM)
There appears to be a consensus among astronomers that alien life exists with no shred of proof. SETI has been going for 40 years and nothing. During a panel discussion Monday, some of NASA's top scientists said they believe the space agency is closer than they have ever been to determining if there is life away from Earth.

LA Times
According to the Los Angeles Times, NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, a former astronaut, started the discussion by explaining how the space agency planned on searching for extraterrestrial life. He said during past missions into space he would always keep an eye out for any and all types of alien life, but never found one.

"Do we believe there is life beyond Earth?" he said in his address. "I would venture to say that most of my colleagues here today say it is improbable that in the limitless vastness of the universe we humans stand alone."



Should we accept this consensus? Michael Crichton's essay, Aliens are Causing Global Warming,is still worth reading. http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Crichton2003.pdf
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jul 12, 2015 08:17PM)
[quote]On Jul 12, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
There appears to be a consensus among astronomers that alien life exists with no shred of proof. SETI has been going for 40 years and nothing. During a panel discussion Monday, some of NASA's top scientists said they believe the space agency is closer than they have ever been to determining if there is life away from Earth.

LA Times
According to the Los Angeles Times, NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, a former astronaut, started the discussion by explaining how the space agency planned on searching for extraterrestrial life. He said during past missions into space he would always keep an eye out for any and all types of alien life, but never found one.

"Do we believe there is life beyond Earth?" he said in his address. "I would venture to say that most of my colleagues here today say it is improbable that in the limitless vastness of the universe we humans stand alone."



Should we accept this consensus? Michael Crichton's essay, Aliens are Causing Global Warming,is still worth reading. http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Crichton2003.pdf [/quote]

Out of curiosity, do you doubt that there is life anywhere else in the universe? We don't need Vulcans or Ferengies. Do you think it's likely that there are at least simple life forms such as bacteria, molds and the like?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jul 12, 2015 08:57PM)
What happened to the guy just wanting PROOF and what could be measured and so forth? Now it is belief?
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jul 12, 2015 09:27PM)
Who says we don't need Vulcans and Ferengies! Sacrilege!
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (Jul 12, 2015 09:39PM)
[quote]On Jul 12, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]On Jul 12, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
There appears to be a consensus among astronomers that alien life exists with no shred of proof. SETI has been going for 40 years and nothing. During a panel discussion Monday, some of NASA's top scientists said they believe the space agency is closer than they have ever been to determining if there is life away from Earth.

LA Times
According to the Los Angeles Times, NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, a former astronaut, started the discussion by explaining how the space agency planned on searching for extraterrestrial life. He said during past missions into space he would always keep an eye out for any and all types of alien life, but never found one.

"Do we believe there is life beyond Earth?" he said in his address. "I would venture to say that most of my colleagues here today say it is improbable that in the limitless vastness of the universe we humans stand alone."



Should we accept this consensus? Michael Crichton's essay, Aliens are Causing Global Warming,is still worth reading. http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Crichton2003.pdf [/quote]

Out of curiosity, do you doubt that there is life anywhere else in the universe? We don't need Vulcans or Ferengies. Do you think it's likely that there are at least simple life forms such as bacteria, molds and the like? [/quote]

I can't let you just sit there and be curious. I have no idea if there is anything anywhere. There's LIKELY to be a bigfoot, but I doubt it. To date the evidence is no for alien life. It doesn't matter what I think or what they think - no one knows they only believe, just like AGW. Consensus means nothing. Just pointing out the parallel between AGW and aliens (not the illegal ones). Your beliefs ultimately denote how you behave. It's the same as religion. Fermi Paradox and all - even before SETI
Message: Posted by: RNK (Jul 14, 2015 07:34AM)
Scientists predict a "Mini-Ice age" in 15 years. Why? Because the lack of sun spots. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/van-winkles/winter-is-coming-scientis_b_7787664.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

And it's the Huffington Post to boot, lol.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jul 14, 2015 08:03AM)
[quote]On Jul 14, 2015, RNK wrote:
Scientists predict a "Mini-Ice age" in 15 years. Why? Because the lack of sun spots. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/van-winkles/winter-is-coming-scientis_b_7787664.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

And it's the Huffington Post to boot, lol. [/quote]

This bit of bad reporting hit the internet a few days ago. Hard to say who misread the original article (or if it's a deliberate distortion) but it only takes 30 seconds of fact-checking.

The [url]press release[/url] from the Royal Astronomical Society says

[quote]A new model of the Sun’s solar cycle is producing unprecedentedly accurate predictions of irregularities within the Sun’s 11-year heartbeat. The model draws on dynamo effects in two layers of the Sun, one close to the surface and one deep within its convection zone. Predictions from the model suggest that solar activity will fall by 60 per cent during the 2030s to conditions last seen during the ‘mini ice age’ that began in 1645. Results will be presented today by Prof Valentina Zharkova at the National Astronomy Meeting in Llandudno.[/url]

I cannot imagine any competent journalist could misread "last seen during the mini ice age" as "when it happens we'll have a mini ice age". But here we have it. Either incompetence or mischief, hard to say.

And of course, ideologues copy and paste the misinformation, gleefully declaring that scientists disagree about human contribution to global warming.

Independent thought is dying.
Message: Posted by: Intrepid (Jul 14, 2015 02:55PM)
How global warming and a mini ice age might effect each other if such were to occur.

"According to research conducted by Michael Mann in 2001, a vociferous advocate of man-made global warming, the Maunder minimum of the 1600s was estimated to have shaved 0.3C to 0.4C from global temperatures.

It is worth stressing that most scientists believe long term global warming hasn’t gone away. Any global cooling caused by this natural phenomenon would ultimately be temporary, and if projections are correct, the long term warming caused by carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases would eventually swamp this solar-driven cooling.

But should North Western Europe be heading for a new “little ice age”, there could be far reaching political implications – not least because global temperatures may fall enough, albeit temporarily, to eliminate much of the warming which has occurred since the 1950s."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/entries/6d50a6bd-779a-32d6-bfca-06e4484d6835
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jul 14, 2015 03:02PM)
After an ice age it tends to get warmer and then tends to get cooler as we go into another ice age and then...
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Jul 16, 2015 03:30AM)
:sun: It always gets warmer between Ice Ages ... That's what I've been saying all along.
CO2 is at 0.04%.. It's gone as high as 0.7% before.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 16, 2015 09:52AM)
Amazing how much more knowledgeable you are than all those scientists as NASA. Not.

The fact is that current CO2 values are HIGHER than they've ever been in at least a million years. From NASA:

[quote]Current [atmospheric] CO2 values are more than 100 ppm higher than at any time in the last one million years (and maybe higher than any time in the last 25 million years). This new record represents an increase of 85 ppm in the 55 years since David Keeling began making measurements at Mauna Loa. Even more disturbing than the magnitude of this change is the fact that the rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere has been steadily increasing over the last few decades, meaning that future increases will happen faster. When averaged over 55 years, the increase has been about 1.55 ppm CO2 per year. However, the most recent data suggest that the annual increase is more than 2.75 ppm CO2 per year.

These increases in atmospheric CO2 are causing real, significant changes in the Earth system now, not in some distant future climate, and will continue to be felt for centuries to come. We can study these impacts to better understand the way the Earth will respond to future changes, but unless serious actions are taken immediately, we risk the next threshold being a point of no return in mankind's unintended global-scale geoengineering experiment.

– Dr. Charles Miller

Researcher specializing in the remote sensing of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases; Principal investigator, Carbon in Arctic Reservoirs Vulnerability Experiment (CARVE) mission[/quote]

http://climate.nasa.gov/400ppmquotes/
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jul 16, 2015 04:32PM)
Amazing how much NASA are getting paid off to promote warming BS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8A6q6eGM_Aw
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (Jul 17, 2015 10:01AM)
[quote]On Jul 16, 2015, tommy wrote:
Amazing how much NASA are getting paid off to promote warming BS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8A6q6eGM_Aw [/quote]

They don't make shuttles or send people into space anymore. They got thousands of people with nothing to do. They need GW to appear relevant. If we don't have a space program, why not just disband NASA.
Message: Posted by: Randwill (Jul 17, 2015 11:21AM)
[quote]On Jul 17, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
[quote]On Jul 16, 2015, tommy wrote:
Amazing how much NASA are getting paid off to promote warming BS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8A6q6eGM_Aw [/quote]

They don't make shuttles or send people into space anymore. They got thousands of people with nothing to do. They need GW to appear relevant. If we don't have a space program, why not just disband NASA. [/quote]

Since you are unaware of what NASA does, may I suggest that you visit their website and learn: http://www.nasa.gov/
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (Jul 17, 2015 11:56AM)
That pesky old Sun is messing with AGW. How long before we give up warming and worry about cooling? I know they started climate change because the warming didn't happen. Now we'll find out CO2 causes cooling. Where's that hockey stick again?

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (Jul 17, 2015 12:52PM)
[quote]On Jul 17, 2015, Randwill wrote:
[quote]On Jul 17, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
[quote]On Jul 16, 2015, tommy wrote:
Amazing how much NASA are getting paid off to promote warming BS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8A6q6eGM_Aw [/quote]

They don't make shuttles or send people into space anymore. They got thousands of people with nothing to do. They need GW to appear relevant. If we don't have a space program, why not just disband NASA. [/quote]

Looks like our work is pretty much being done by the Russians

Since you are unaware of what NASA does, may I suggest that you visit their website and learn: http://www.nasa.gov/ [/quote]

Looks like our work is pretty much being done by the Russians

http://www.nasa.gov/launchschedule/
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jul 17, 2015 01:32PM)
[img]http://cdn1.sciencefiction.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/the-shining-frozen-1024x576.jpg[/img]
Message: Posted by: Intrepid (Jul 18, 2015 05:39AM)
[quote]On Jul 12, 2015, Intrepid wrote:
Will we be hit with a mini ice age in 2020? That is the claim of a study of solar cycles.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3156594/Is-mini-ICE-AGE-way-Scientists-warn-sun-sleep-2020-cause-temperatures-plummet.html [/quote]
Maybe not. From the Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/07/14/news-about-an-imminent-mini-ice-age-is-trending-but-its-not-true/
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jul 18, 2015 09:04AM)
[quote]On Jul 18, 2015, Intrepid wrote:
[quote]On Jul 12, 2015, Intrepid wrote:
Will we be hit with a mini ice age in 2020? That is the claim of a study of solar cycles.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3156594/Is-mini-ICE-AGE-way-Scientists-warn-sun-sleep-2020-cause-temperatures-plummet.html [/quote]
Maybe not. From the Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/07/14/news-about-an-imminent-mini-ice-age-is-trending-but-its-not-true/ [/quote]

That's what I said back on the 14th. Apparently the NVMS experts don't bother reading what they quote.
Message: Posted by: Intrepid (Jul 18, 2015 09:59AM)
???
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jul 18, 2015 10:22AM)
[quote]On Jul 18, 2015, Intrepid wrote:
??? [/quote]

The mini ice age news clip is a misreading of the research article, which is about solar activity. The research article refers to similar activity in the past, but makes no claim about future cooling.

But some people are impervious to facts and are uninterested in reading them.
Message: Posted by: Randwill (Jul 18, 2015 10:44AM)
[quote]On Jul 18, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]On Jul 18, 2015, Intrepid wrote:
??? [/quote]

The mini ice age news clip is a misreading of the research article, which is about solar activity. The research article refers to similar activity in the past, but makes no claim about future cooling.

But some people are impervious to facts and are uninterested in reading them. [/quote]
Facts that are contrary to our preconceived beliefs interfere with our ability to construct a reality that pleases us.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jul 18, 2015 11:52AM)
But only everyone else.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jul 18, 2015 01:37PM)
"Come hell or high water: The disaster scenario that is South Florida"

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/come-hell-or-high-water-the-disaster-scenario-that-is-south-florida/article25552300/
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Jul 18, 2015 03:48PM)
Yes .. we are drowning left and right down here!!!! Are headlines reading "5 drown from global warming" or "5 die from terror attack"??????
Message: Posted by: Kaliix (Jul 20, 2015 08:40PM)
Global Warming, or is it climate change now, is one big lie.

How can you tell me that we can predict the temperature in 10, 20 or 100 years when the best models we have can't accurately predict the weather a day or a week in advance with any better than coin flip accuracy?

Please...
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jul 20, 2015 09:30PM)
I can not predict how tall an Oak tree will get. Does rhis mean it is not growing?

Lie in such a harsh word.
Message: Posted by: Kaliix (Jul 20, 2015 09:52PM)
Oak trees have nothing to do with weather and we can't predict the weather tomorrow or next week with any degree of accuracy. If your short term predictions are predicatively worthless more than 12 hours out, how exactly can they be at all accurate in 1 or 10 or 100 years?

Lie is a harsh word but the reality none the less.

Climate change deniers is a bogus term. There is no one denying that the climate changes. It is the only thing climate does. The earth has been several degrees warmer and several degrees cooler for many hundreds of thousands of years in the 5 or so billion years the earth has been in existence, with man having nothing to do with it. Right now, we are about in the middle of that normal temperature range for the planet earth. In fact, it seems that the temperature record over the last 15 years or so hasn't moved statistically greater than the margin of error. It has essentially flat lined even though the predictions of the climate models said temperatures would keep going up. But then there are so many unknown processes and assumption of little understood variables built into those models that it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone paying attention.

So yeah, lie.
Message: Posted by: reese (Jul 20, 2015 10:02PM)
So...you are a scientist and this is your field of study? Also; who are you exactly accusing of being a liar on this thread & why? It's inflammatory to call someone a liar.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jul 20, 2015 10:06PM)
All art is a lie and so you are a philosophical moron.
Message: Posted by: reese (Jul 20, 2015 10:14PM)
From you Tommy, your insults are compliments to me. Which is a round-about way of saying " I love ya man!" Don't know why exactly. I just really enjoy your voice.
Message: Posted by: Kaliix (Jul 20, 2015 10:16PM)
Anthropogenic Global Warming is a lie.

I note that none of you have even attempted to refute the basic logic and truth of my argument. I love that I've already been called a moron by someone who can't make a compelling counter argument. A small victory.

Attack the messenger and his credentials but don't dare counter...

What do my credentials have to do with my argument? I am simply stating easily verifiable fact. The earth has been colder and warmer, we can't predict the weather more than a day out and therefore any attempt to predict even further out into the future is simply not possible. Unless somehow all those incorrect predictions can magically turn true if you keep going long enough. Is that what the argument is?
Message: Posted by: reese (Jul 20, 2015 10:25PM)
Urhh... Tommy called ME a "moron", not YOU. Don't be so sensitive and misrepresent other people's posts. It makes you look like you're not actually reading the thread. I respect Tommy. Especially his hands. ( mine are better though) He's on your side of this particular issue. The non-science side.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jul 20, 2015 10:26PM)
AGW? I refute it THUS!


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100022226/agw-i-refute-it-thus-central-england-temperatures-1659-to-2009/
Message: Posted by: reese (Jul 20, 2015 10:29PM)
See? What'd I tell ya? Jeez Kaliix, pay attention. If you're misreading things here, you're most likely misreading facts elsewhere.
Message: Posted by: Kaliix (Jul 20, 2015 10:31PM)
Tommy didn't quote a message so his reply is open to interpretation. I wasn't be sensitive, I was quite enjoying it but if it wasn't for me well then that's no fun.

[quote]On Jul 20, 2015, reese wrote:
Urhh... Tommy called ME a "moron", not YOU. Don't be so sensitive and misrepresent other people's posts. It makes you look like you're not actually reading the thread. I respect Tommy. Especially his hands. ( mine are better though) He's on your side of this particular issue. The non-science side. [/quote]
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jul 20, 2015 10:31PM)
"Summary: Unprecedented warming did not occur in central England during the first decade of the 21st century, nor during the last decade of the 20th century. As the CET dataset is considered a decent proxy for Northern Hemisphere temperatures, and since global temperature trends follow a similar pattern to Northern Hemisphere temps, then the same conclusion about recent warming can potentially be inferred globally. Based on the CET dataset, the global warming scare has been totally blown out of proportion by those who can benefit from the fear." Namely Rockefeller and Co, who came up with the idea to fit the bill.
Message: Posted by: reese (Jul 20, 2015 10:44PM)
[quote]On Jul 20, 2015, Kaliix wrote:
Tommy didn't quote a message so his reply is open to interpretation. I wasn't be sensitive, I was quite enjoying it but if it wasn't for me well then that's no fun.

[quote]On Jul 20, 2015, reese wrote:
Urhh... Tommy called ME a "moron", not YOU. Don't be so sensitive and misrepresent other people's posts. It makes you look like you're not actually reading the thread. I respect Tommy. Especially his hands. ( mine are better though) He's on your side of this particular issue. The non-science side. [/quote] [/quote] My point is: you misread Tommy's post. Which makes me think you may be misunderstanding other things you read. A natural impression to be had. Have fun!
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jul 20, 2015 10:52PM)
Who I was talking to is superstition.
Message: Posted by: Kaliix (Jul 20, 2015 10:52PM)
I disagree with your assertion that I misread Tommy's post. I thought the liar reference (All art is a lie and so you are a philosophical moron) was made with me in mind since my post was right above yours and I had just stated emphatically that AGW is a lie. I agree now looking at it how it probably was directed towards you but since no reference was made in his post to any other post, there is certainly a case to be made that he could have been referring to me.

[quote]On Jul 20, 2015, reese wrote:
[quote]On Jul 20, 2015, Kaliix wrote:
Tommy didn't quote a message so his reply is open to interpretation. I wasn't be sensitive, I was quite enjoying it but if it wasn't for me well then that's no fun.

[quote]On Jul 20, 2015, reese wrote:
Urhh... Tommy called ME a "moron", not YOU. Don't be so sensitive and misrepresent other people's posts. It makes you look like you're not actually reading the thread. I respect Tommy. Especially his hands. ( mine are better though) He's on your side of this particular issue. The non-science side. [/quote] [/quote] My point is: you misread Tommy's post. Which makes me think you may be misunderstanding other things you read. A natural impression to be had. Have fun! [/quote]
Message: Posted by: reese (Jul 20, 2015 11:06PM)
He wasn't. You misread it. What else do you misread?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jul 20, 2015 11:10PM)
It’s a bit like climate change; you can’t disprove it. Even if it hasn’t moved for 18 years. :)
Message: Posted by: Kaliix (Jul 20, 2015 11:18PM)
Who he was talking to is open to interpretation and I can make a decent case that he was talking to me and that he wasn't being clear. Last I checked I am human and am capable of misinterpreting words in a thread discussion such as this when the subject of someone's post may not be clear. You will have to deal. Maybe I've misread everything and maybe nothing...
Message: Posted by: reese (Jul 20, 2015 11:25PM)
You're right Tommy. Unless you're wrong. About man-made contributions towards climate change. If it's a possibility, it's something the children of our time will have to live with the impact of in the near-future. Won't matter to us oldsters as much as the young folk. So why should we concern ourselves with it?
Message: Posted by: reese (Jul 20, 2015 11:28PM)
[quote]On Jul 21, 2015, Kaliix wrote:
Who he was talking to is open to interpretation and I can make a decent case that he was talking to me and that he wasn't being clear. Last I checked I am human and am capable of misinterpreting words in a thread discussion such as this when the subject of someone's post may not be clear. You will have to deal. Maybe I've misread everything and maybe nothing... [/quote] Why don't you ask Tommy directly what he meant instead of being defensive?
Message: Posted by: Kaliix (Jul 21, 2015 12:05AM)
Why don't you let it go instead of continuing to press the issue?

[quote]On Jul 21, 2015, reese wrote:
[quote]On Jul 21, 2015, Kaliix wrote:
Who he was talking to is open to interpretation and I can make a decent case that he was talking to me and that he wasn't being clear. Last I checked I am human and am capable of misinterpreting words in a thread discussion such as this when the subject of someone's post may not be clear. You will have to deal. Maybe I've misread everything and maybe nothing... [/quote] Why don't you ask Tommy directly what he meant instead of being defensive? [/quote]
Message: Posted by: reese (Jul 21, 2015 12:13AM)
Because you brought it up and aren't truly addressing it. You can be defensive or explore other possibilities, other ways of communicating. Freedom of choice means you have different choices you can make. It's up to you.
Message: Posted by: reese (Jul 21, 2015 12:19AM)
And...why don't you ask Tommy directly what he meant? Wouldn't his honest answer clear things up for you? Tommy will tell you that I'm the moron, not you. If you just ask him directly.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jul 21, 2015 12:29AM)
[img]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cb/Flyingcircus_2.jpg[/img]
Message: Posted by: reese (Jul 21, 2015 12:34AM)
You rock! Anyone that gives me even one belly laugh is a Saint in my book.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Jul 21, 2015 12:47AM)
[quote]On Jul 20, 2015, Kaliix wrote:
Anthropogenic Global Warming is a lie.

I note that none of you have even attempted to refute the basic logic and truth of my argument. I love that I've already been called a moron by someone who can't make a compelling counter argument. A small victory.

Attack the messenger and his credentials but don't dare counter...

What do my credentials have to do with my argument? I am simply stating easily verifiable fact. The earth has been colder and warmer, we can't predict the weather more than a day out and therefore any attempt to predict even further out into the future is simply not possible. Unless somehow all those incorrect predictions can magically turn true if you keep going long enough. Is that what the argument is? [/quote]
100%!!!!
Message: Posted by: RNK (Jul 21, 2015 06:56AM)
[quote]On Jul 21, 2015, Slim King wrote:
[quote]On Jul 20, 2015, Kaliix wrote:
Anthropogenic Global Warming is a lie.

I note that none of you have even attempted to refute the basic logic and truth of my argument. I love that I've already been called a moron by someone who can't make a compelling counter argument. A small victory.

Attack the messenger and his credentials but don't dare counter...

What do my credentials have to do with my argument? I am simply stating easily verifiable fact. The earth has been colder and warmer, we can't predict the weather more than a day out and therefore any attempt to predict even further out into the future is simply not possible. Unless somehow all those incorrect predictions can magically turn true if you keep going long enough. Is that what the argument is? [/quote]
100%!!!! [/quote]

Kaliix- As an educated/working Geologist myself, I have pointed this FACT out many times here and NO ONE will address it. Because they can't. The Earth has gone through many climate changes in it's life. Many of those changes when MAN was not yet on Earth.

So don't look for an answer because you won't get one here.
Message: Posted by: Kaliix (Jul 21, 2015 07:36AM)
I did address it many times. Apparently you can't let it go.

I'm starting to smell a troll...

[quote]On Jul 21, 2015, reese wrote:
Because you brought it up and aren't truly addressing it. You can be defensive or explore other possibilities, other ways of communicating. Freedom of choice means you have different choices you can make. It's up to you. [/quote]
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jul 21, 2015 10:07AM)
[quote]On Jul 21, 2015, RNK wrote:
[quote]On Jul 21, 2015, Slim King wrote:
[quote]On Jul 20, 2015, Kaliix wrote:
Anthropogenic Global Warming is a lie.

I note that none of you have even attempted to refute the basic logic and truth of my argument. I love that I've already been called a moron by someone who can't make a compelling counter argument. A small victory.

Attack the messenger and his credentials but don't dare counter...

What do my credentials have to do with my argument? I am simply stating easily verifiable fact. The earth has been colder and warmer, we can't predict the weather more than a day out and therefore any attempt to predict even further out into the future is simply not possible. Unless somehow all those incorrect predictions can magically turn true if you keep going long enough. Is that what the argument is? [/quote]
100%!!!! [/quote]

Kaliix- As an educated/working Geologist myself, I have pointed this FACT out many times here and NO ONE will address it. Because they can't. The Earth has gone through many climate changes in it's life. Many of those changes when MAN was not yet on Earth.

So don't look for an answer because you won't get one here. [/quote]

It's been addressed many times. It's irrelevant. If you've been sick a hundred times and recovered each time, it does not follow that your next illness is the same as the previous ones, nor does it follow that you will recover.
Message: Posted by: RNK (Jul 21, 2015 10:48AM)
[quote]On Jul 21, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]On Jul 21, 2015, RNK wrote:
[quote]On Jul 21, 2015, Slim King wrote:
[quote]On Jul 20, 2015, Kaliix wrote:
Anthropogenic Global Warming is a lie.

I note that none of you have even attempted to refute the basic logic and truth of my argument. I love that I've already been called a moron by someone who can't make a compelling counter argument. A small victory.

Attack the messenger and his credentials but don't dare counter...

What do my credentials have to do with my argument? I am simply stating easily verifiable fact. The earth has been colder and warmer, we can't predict the weather more than a day out and therefore any attempt to predict even further out into the future is simply not possible. Unless somehow all those incorrect predictions can magically turn true if you keep going long enough. Is that what the argument is? [/quote]
100%!!!! [/quote]

Kaliix- As an educated/working Geologist myself, I have pointed this FACT out many times here and NO ONE will address it. Because they can't. The Earth has gone through many climate changes in it's life. Many of those changes when MAN was not yet on Earth.

So don't look for an answer because you won't get one here. [/quote]

It's been addressed many times. It's irrelevant. If you've been sick a hundred times and recovered each time, it does not follow that your next illness is the same as the previous ones, nor does it follow that you will recover. [/quote]


LOL! Yes. Sure it has. Nice general analogy that is meaningless. Though its understandable since you truly cant give an educated response to the statement.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jul 21, 2015 11:44AM)
[quote]On Jul 21, 2015, RNK wrote:
[quote]On Jul 21, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]On Jul 21, 2015, RNK wrote:
[quote]On Jul 21, 2015, Slim King wrote:
[quote]On Jul 20, 2015, Kaliix wrote:
Anthropogenic Global Warming is a lie.

I note that none of you have even attempted to refute the basic logic and truth of my argument. I love that I've already been called a moron by someone who can't make a compelling counter argument. A small victory.

Attack the messenger and his credentials but don't dare counter...

What do my credentials have to do with my argument? I am simply stating easily verifiable fact. The earth has been colder and warmer, we can't predict the weather more than a day out and therefore any attempt to predict even further out into the future is simply not possible. Unless somehow all those incorrect predictions can magically turn true if you keep going long enough. Is that what the argument is? [/quote]
100%!!!! [/quote]

Kaliix- As an educated/working Geologist myself, I have pointed this FACT out many times here and NO ONE will address it. Because they can't. The Earth has gone through many climate changes in it's life. Many of those changes when MAN was not yet on Earth.

So don't look for an answer because you won't get one here. [/quote]

It's been addressed many times. It's irrelevant. If you've been sick a hundred times and recovered each time, it does not follow that your next illness is the same as the previous ones, nor does it follow that you will recover. [/quote]


LOL! Yes. Sure it has. Nice general analogy that is meaningless. Though its understandable since you truly cant give an educated response to the statement. [/quote]

It is not meaningless. It's what logicians call a model. It shows the fallacy of your reasoning.

Aggression is not the same as logic or evidence.

Premiss: The world has warmedin the past as a result of purely natural causes. (True)
Premiss: The world is currently warming. (True)
RNK's Conclusion: The current warming is due to the same causes as in the past. (Non sequitur.)
Message: Posted by: Kaliix (Jul 21, 2015 11:55AM)
The world is not currently warming. The temperatures have flat lined for the last 15 years. We are within the range of normal that has been established over the last 5 billion or so years. Temperature has naturally fluctuated and have had considerable swings over the course of the planets history. How is it that what we see now, which isn't even a noticeable blip on the historical temperature record, caused by man and not just normal fluctuations?

The earth has been colder and warmer. We can't predict the weather accurately more than a day out and therefore any attempt to predict even further out into the future is simply not possible. Unless somehow all those incorrect predictions can magically turn true if you keep going long enough?
Message: Posted by: RNK (Jul 21, 2015 12:07PM)
[quote]On Jul 21, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]On Jul 21, 2015, RNK wrote:
[quote]On Jul 21, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]On Jul 21, 2015, RNK wrote:
[quote]On Jul 21, 2015, Slim King wrote:
[quote]On Jul 20, 2015, Kaliix wrote:
Anthropogenic Global Warming is a lie.

I note that none of you have even attempted to refute the basic logic and truth of my argument. I love that I've already been called a moron by someone who can't make a compelling counter argument. A small victory.

Attack the messenger and his credentials but don't dare counter...

What do my credentials have to do with my argument? I am simply stating easily verifiable fact. The earth has been colder and warmer, we can't predict the weather more than a day out and therefore any attempt to predict even further out into the future is simply not possible. Unless somehow all those incorrect predictions can magically turn true if you keep going long enough. Is that what the argument is? [/quote]
100%!!!! [/quote]

Kaliix- As an educated/working Geologist myself, I have pointed this FACT out many times here and NO ONE will address it. Because they can't. The Earth has gone through many climate changes in it's life. Many of those changes when MAN was not yet on Earth.

So don't look for an answer because you won't get one here. [/quote]

It's been addressed many times. It's irrelevant. If you've been sick a hundred times and recovered each time, it does not follow that your next illness is the same as the previous ones, nor does it follow that you will recover. [/quote]


LOL! Yes. Sure it has. Nice general analogy that is meaningless. Though its understandable since you truly cant give an educated response to the statement. [/quote]

It is not meaningless. It's what logicians call a model. It shows the fallacy of your reasoning.

Aggression is not the same as logic or evidence.

Premiss: The world has warmedin the past as a result of purely natural causes. (True)
Premiss: The world is currently warming. (True)
RNK's Conclusion: The current warming is due to the same causes as in the past. (Non sequitur.) [/quote]

Again, you cannot provide a logical scientific explanation correlating past climates to todays climate when we know that climates in the past have been warmer and colder than climates today when in the past there was no man to cause the extreme temperature changes. You simply keep dodging and not answering. Again, it's because you can't.
Message: Posted by: RNK (Jul 21, 2015 12:10PM)
[quote]On Jul 21, 2015, Kaliix wrote:
The world is not currently warming. The temperatures have flat lined for the last 15 years. We are within the range of normal that has been established over the last 5 billion or so years. Temperature has naturally fluctuated and have had considerable swings over the course of the planets history. How is it that what we see now, which isn't even a noticeable blip on the historical temperature record, caused by man and not just normal fluctuations?

The earth has been colder and warmer. We can't predict the weather accurately more than a day out and therefore any attempt to predict even further out into the future is simply not possible. Unless somehow all those incorrect predictions can magically turn true if you keep going long enough? [/quote]

It's pointless Kaliix. The deniers have no explanation for the extreme varying climates in the past when no man was on earth. You have a valid point in that we cannot even accurately predict tomorrow's weather let alone telling us MAN is the cause of a warming trend that is not happening.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 21, 2015 12:35PM)
I wonder if RNK and Kaliix would mind telling us where they got their PhDs in climate science? Until then, I'll continue to give more credence to those who actually DO have advanced degrees in the field.

And RNK- it is the minority who disregard the vast world-wide consensus of climate scientists that we refer to as science "deniers."
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jul 21, 2015 12:40PM)
[quote]On Jul 21, 2015, RNK wrote:

Again, you cannot provide a logical scientific explanation correlating past climates to todays climate when we know that climates in the past have been warmer and colder than climates today when in the past there was no man to cause the extreme temperature changes. You simply keep dodging and not answering. Again, it's because you can't. [/quote]

Slow down, cowboy. I was refuting your argument that current change must be caused by the same phenomena as past change. One thing at a time.

If you'd like to see the evidence that current causes are different from those in the past--and that they include anthropogenic causes--go to the IPCC report.
Message: Posted by: RNK (Jul 21, 2015 01:03PM)
[quote]On Jul 21, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
I wonder if RNK and Kaliix would mind telling us where they got their PhDs in climate science? Until then, I'll continue to give more credence to those who actually DO have advanced degrees in the field.

And RNK- it is the minority who disregard the vast world-wide consensus of climate scientists that we refer to as science "deniers." [/quote]

I do know one thing Bob- I have a B.S. and M.S. in Environmental Geology/Geology specializing in Geochemistry. I do not believe you have any education in the environmental field, only what you read from others with no understanding/education of how paleoclimatology works. As I have explained before, I have taken Paleoclimatology classes that teach about the study of climates and historical climates. I understand how the cycle works and what variables have to be considered and accounted for to understand how climatology actually works. I am a lot closer to a PhD in this field than you and magnus, et others are and have a better understanding. You can agree all you want with what others SAY, but I understand what the data means- big difference.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 21, 2015 01:50PM)
I'll go with what the actual Phds and scientists have concluded. You know, like the ones at NASA that just accomplished the incredible Pluto mission.

But I'll bet that Kool-Aid is sure refreshing on hot days like these.

(BTW- do you have any idea how the greenhouse effect works and what contributes to it?)
Message: Posted by: RNK (Jul 21, 2015 02:07PM)
[quote]On Jul 21, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
I'll go with what the actual Phds and scientists have concluded. You know, like the ones at NASA that just accomplished the incredible Pluto mission.

But I'll bet that Kool-Aid is sure refreshing on hot days like these.

(BTW- do you have any idea how the greenhouse effect works and what contributes to it?) [/quote]

Go with whatever you want. You still will never have the understanding as someone who is educated/experienced in the field.

I can explain the whole Hydrogeologic Cycle for you Bob in my sleep. But I will not waste my time doing so. It's inconsequential to the fact that you have no professional experience and education regarding the subject.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jul 21, 2015 02:37PM)
[youtube]pruTqY_JLcg[/youtube]
Message: Posted by: Kabbalah (Jul 21, 2015 04:14PM)
[quote]On Jul 21, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:

I'll go with what the actual Phds and scientists have concluded. You know, like the ones at NASA... [/quote]

March 28, 2012

The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
NASA Administrator
NASA Headquarters
Washington, D.C. 20546-0001

Dear Charlie,

We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.

The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA's history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.

As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA's advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. [b]At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA's current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself[/b].

For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.

Thank you for considering this request.

Sincerely,

(Attached signatures)

CC: Mr. John Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator for Science

CC: Ass Mr. Chris Scolese, Director, Goddard Space Flight Center

Ref: Letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, dated 3-26-12, regarding a request for NASA to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims that human produced CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on climate change.

/s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack – JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years

/s/ Larry Bell – JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years

/s/ Dr. Donald Bogard – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years

/s/ Jerry C. Bostick – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years

/s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman – JSC, Scientist – astronaut, 5 years

/s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years

/s/ Dr. Kenneth Cox – JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years

/s/ Walter Cunningham – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years

/s/ Dr. Donald M. Curry – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44 years

/s/ Leroy Day – Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years

/s/ Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. – JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 years

/s/Charles F. Deiterich – JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years

/s/ Dr. Harold Doiron – JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years

/s/ Charles Duke – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years

/s/ Anita Gale

/s/ Grace Germany – JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years

/s/ Ed Gibson – JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years

/s/ Richard Gordon – JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years

/s/ Gerald C. Griffin – JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space Center, 22 years

/s/ Thomas M. Grubbs – JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years

/s/ Thomas J. Harmon

/s/ David W. Heath – JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years

/s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. – JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years

/s/ James R. Roundtree – JSC Branch Chief, 26 years

/s/ Enoch Jones – JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years

/s/ Dr. Joseph Kerwin – JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years

/s/ Jack Knight – JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Division, MOD, 40 years

/s/ Dr. Christopher C. Kraft – JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space Center, 24 years

/s/ Paul C. Kramer – JSC, Ass.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years

/s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen

/s/ Dr. Lubert Leger – JSC, Ass’t. Chief Materials Division, Engr. Directorate, 30 years

/s/ Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40 years

/s/ Donald K. McCutchen – JSC, Project Engineer – Space Shuttle and ISS Program Offices, 33 years

/s/ Thomas L. (Tom) Moser – Hdq. Dep. Assoc. Admin. & Director, Space Station Program, 28 years

/s/ Dr. George Mueller – Hdq., Assoc. Adm., Office of Space Flight, 6 years

/s/ Tom Ohesorge

/s/ James Peacock – JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years

/s/ Richard McFarland – JSC, Mgr. Motion Simulators, 28 years

/s/ Joseph E. Rogers – JSC, Chief, Structures and Dynamics Branch, Engr. Directorate,40 years

/s/ Bernard J. Rosenbaum – JSC, Chief Engineer, Propulsion and Power Division, Engr. Dir., 48 years

/s/ Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt – JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years

/s/ Gerard C. Shows – JSC, Asst. Manager, Quality Assurance, 30 years

/s/ Kenneth Suit – JSC, Ass’t Mgr., Systems Integration, Space Shuttle, 37 years

/s/ Robert F. Thompson – JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years/s/ Frank Van Renesselaer – Hdq., Mgr. Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, 15 years

/s/ Dr. James Visentine – JSC Materials Branch, Engineering Directorate, 30 years

/s/ Manfred (Dutch) von Ehrenfried – JSC, Flight Controller; Mercury, Gemini & Apollo, MOD, 10 years

/s/ George Weisskopf – JSC, Avionics Systems Division, Engineering Dir., 40 years

/s/ Al Worden – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 15, 9 years

/s/ Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller – JSC, Meteorologist, 5 years
Message: Posted by: Kaliix (Jul 21, 2015 04:33PM)
Attack the messenger right Bob. How about you make an argument instead of attacking someone's credentials.

And there are Nobel Prize winning scientists who say exactly the same thing I do. But that doesn't matter either because what matters is the argument. Do you have a counter argument or not?

[quote]On Jul 21, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
I wonder if RNK and Kaliix would mind telling us where they got their PhDs in climate science? Until then, I'll continue to give more credence to those who actually DO have advanced degrees in the field.

And RNK- it is the minority who disregard the vast world-wide consensus of climate scientists that we refer to as science "deniers." [/quote]
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jul 21, 2015 04:42PM)
[quote]On Jul 21, 2015, Kabbalah wrote:
[quote]On Jul 21, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:

I'll go with what the actual Phds and scientists have concluded. You know, like the ones at NASA... [/quote]

March 28, 2012

The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
NASA Administrator
NASA Headquarters
Washington, D.C. 20546-0001

Dear Charlie,

We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.

The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA's history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.

As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA's advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. [b]At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA's current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself[/b].

For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.

Thank you for considering this request.

Sincerely,

(Attached signatures)

CC: Mr. John Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator for Science

CC: Ass Mr. Chris Scolese, Director, Goddard Space Flight Center

Ref: Letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, dated 3-26-12, regarding a request for NASA to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims that human produced CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on climate change.

/s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack – JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years

/s/ Larry Bell – JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years

/s/ Dr. Donald Bogard – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years

/s/ Jerry C. Bostick – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years

/s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman – JSC, Scientist – astronaut, 5 years

/s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years

/s/ Dr. Kenneth Cox – JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years

/s/ Walter Cunningham – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years

/s/ Dr. Donald M. Curry – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44 years

/s/ Leroy Day – Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years

/s/ Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. – JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 years

/s/Charles F. Deiterich – JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years

/s/ Dr. Harold Doiron – JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years

/s/ Charles Duke – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years

/s/ Anita Gale

/s/ Grace Germany – JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years

/s/ Ed Gibson – JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years

/s/ Richard Gordon – JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years

/s/ Gerald C. Griffin – JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space Center, 22 years

/s/ Thomas M. Grubbs – JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years

/s/ Thomas J. Harmon

/s/ David W. Heath – JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years

/s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. – JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years

/s/ James R. Roundtree – JSC Branch Chief, 26 years

/s/ Enoch Jones – JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years

/s/ Dr. Joseph Kerwin – JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years

/s/ Jack Knight – JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Division, MOD, 40 years

/s/ Dr. Christopher C. Kraft – JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space Center, 24 years

/s/ Paul C. Kramer – JSC, Ass.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years

/s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen

/s/ Dr. Lubert Leger – JSC, Ass’t. Chief Materials Division, Engr. Directorate, 30 years

/s/ Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40 years

/s/ Donald K. McCutchen – JSC, Project Engineer – Space Shuttle and ISS Program Offices, 33 years

/s/ Thomas L. (Tom) Moser – Hdq. Dep. Assoc. Admin. & Director, Space Station Program, 28 years

/s/ Dr. George Mueller – Hdq., Assoc. Adm., Office of Space Flight, 6 years

/s/ Tom Ohesorge

/s/ James Peacock – JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years

/s/ Richard McFarland – JSC, Mgr. Motion Simulators, 28 years

/s/ Joseph E. Rogers – JSC, Chief, Structures and Dynamics Branch, Engr. Directorate,40 years

/s/ Bernard J. Rosenbaum – JSC, Chief Engineer, Propulsion and Power Division, Engr. Dir., 48 years

/s/ Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt – JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years

/s/ Gerard C. Shows – JSC, Asst. Manager, Quality Assurance, 30 years

/s/ Kenneth Suit – JSC, Ass’t Mgr., Systems Integration, Space Shuttle, 37 years

/s/ Robert F. Thompson – JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years/s/ Frank Van Renesselaer – Hdq., Mgr. Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, 15 years

/s/ Dr. James Visentine – JSC Materials Branch, Engineering Directorate, 30 years

/s/ Manfred (Dutch) von Ehrenfried – JSC, Flight Controller; Mercury, Gemini & Apollo, MOD, 10 years

/s/ George Weisskopf – JSC, Avionics Systems Division, Engineering Dir., 40 years

/s/ Al Worden – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 15, 9 years

/s/ Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller – JSC, Meteorologist, 5 years [/quote]

I see one meteorologist and no climate scientists. This convinces you of what, exactly?
Message: Posted by: Kaliix (Jul 21, 2015 04:59PM)
Why do I have to correlate anything? There are proxy measures of how warm and cold the earth has been over the course of geological time. Those fluctuations of temperature by several degrees have been established to be completely normal over the course of the earth's history. Our current average temperature (which is another fallacy) is no where close to the either end of the normal spectrum of temperatures the earth has normally experienced over the 5 billion or so years it's been around. So if we are not even outside the range of normal, and it is normal for temperatures to fluctuate greatly for reasons unknown to us, how is today's temperature even something to worry about? Particularly since it has stayed flat the last 15 years.

The burden of proof is on the global warming crowd. I simply have to show where you're theory is faulty in any way and your theory fails. And again, we can't predict temperature correctly a day or two out with the very best weather models we have. Set your global warming models to today's conditions and they will be unable to predict the weather next week with any degree of accuracy. But you argue that if we let the faulty predictions run for long enough and they will magically be accurate?

You know that atmospheric CO2 has been steadily rising the last 70 years unabated right. Do you know that even with CO2 being pumped into the air by modern industrialization that the temperature was going down for decades until the late 70's and that there was talk of another ice age. Funny how temperature could be dropping but atmospheric CO2 was rising steadily. Funny how we've reached 400 ppm of atmospheric CO2 and yet the last 15 years have shown no warming that is outside of the range of error for that calculation. It's even more amazing if you look at the historical proxy measures of temperature and CO2 concentration that CO2 levels continually lag temperature rise by about 800 years. But you know what almost perfectly matches the temperature fluctuations, solar radiation. Funny how that big ball of fire in the sky seems to be the main driver of earth's climate.


[quote]
Again, you cannot provide a logical scientific explanation correlating past climates to todays climate when we know that climates in the past have been warmer and colder than climates today when in the past there was no man to cause the extreme temperature changes. You simply keep dodging and not answering. Again, it's because you can't. [/quote]
Message: Posted by: Kabbalah (Jul 21, 2015 05:10PM)
[quote]On Jul 21, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:

I see one meteorologist and no climate scientists. This convinces you of what, exactly? [/quote]

It demonstrates that even former NASA employees are disgusted by their agency pretending to be experts in climatology.
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Jul 21, 2015 06:04PM)
Http://www.cbsnews.com/news/climate-change-brought-record-temps-rising-seas-in-2014/
July 16, 2015

[quote]
If the latest report from America's top weather experts is an indication, it's becoming really hard to deny global warming.

Temperatures last year across the world reached record highs, according to the "State of the Climate in 2014" report from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Center for Weather and Climate. Sea levels continued to rise and glaciers kept shrinking while record concentrations of greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide were recorded in the atmosphere.

Some of the results have been released previously but together paint a sobering picture of what humans are doing to the climate. The findings should also bring a sense of urgency - it if wasn't there already - to global talks later this year aimed at tackling global warming by requiring all countries to set emissions targets.

"The variety of indicators shows us how our climate is changing, not just in temperature but from the depths of the oceans to the outer atmosphere," said Thomas R. Karl, director, NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information.

[b]"It's been a pretty persistent and continuous message over the past 10 years at least that we are seeing a planet that is warming,"[/b] Karl told reporters, adding "you'll be hearing much of the same, a number of the indicators will be showing record or near record levels" when the report for 2015 is released.

The report comes on the same day that the Rockefeller Foundation-Lancet Commission on Planetary Health released a report warning that humans were essentially destroying the planet.

In that report, an international team of 15 academics and policymakers warned, "human activity and development have pushed to near breaking point the boundaries of the natural systems that support and sustain human civilizations" and that "rising population, unsustainable consumption and the over-use of natural resources" will exacerbate health challenges in the future.

"We are on the verge of triggering irreversible, global effects, ranging from ocean acidification to biodiversity loss," Sir Andy Haines of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine said. "These environmental changes - which include, but extend far beyond climate change - threaten the gains in health that have been achieved over recent decades and increase the risks to health arising from major challenges as diverse as under-nutrition and food insecurity, freshwater shortages, emerging infectious diseases, and extreme weather events."

[b]The most jarring data from the NOAA climate report was on temperatures, with four separate, global data sets confirming the world saw record high temperatures in 2014, with 20 countries from Europe to Mexico setting records. These were the highest temperatures seen in the past 135 years.[/b]

The hothouse conditions come as atmospheric CO2 concentrations increased by 1.9 parts per million in 2014, reaching a global average of 397.2 ppm for the year. To put this context, this compares with a global average of 354.0 in 1990 when this report was first published a quarter of century ago.

Much of the temperature increases have been blamed on warming seas, [b]with this report finding that the globally average sea surface temperature was the highest on record[/b]. The warmth was particularly striking in the North Pacific Ocean, where temperatures are in part likely driven by a transition of the Pacific decadal oscillation - a recurring pattern of ocean-atmosphere climate variability centered in the region.

Another indicator of the ocean's importance to climate was the fact that it remains a key storage site for the all that additional thermal energy. Oceans absorb over 90 percent of Earth's excess heat from greenhouse gasses, according to the report.

The report also provided reams of evidence that global warming is wreaking havoc on the planet. [b]Global average sea levels rose to a record high in 2014[/b], reflecting trends in sea level growth that have been observed over the past two decades.

The Arctic, among the most vulnerable places to climate change, saw snowmelt occur 20 to 30 days earlier than the 1998-2010 average. The Arctic minimum sea ice extent reached 1.94 million square miles on September 17, the sixth lowest since satellite observations began in 1979.

Glaciers, too, continued to shrink for the 31st year. From the highest peaks in South America to South Asia, the numbers all showed a decline in the mass of glaciers. This loss of glacier area, the report concluded, imperils the lives of 370 million people who depend on glacier runoff to feed rivers and provide water for drinking and agriculture.
[/quote]

Ron
Message: Posted by: Kaliix (Jul 21, 2015 06:52PM)
The "Hottest Year on Record" would be a record of less than 200 years out of the 5,000,000,000 plus years of the earths existence. Also the "record" high temperature rose statistically less than the margin of error. Go back a couple of hundred or million years and you would find temperatures much hotter, by several degrees Celsius, than they are presently. This happened without any influence from man and is NORMAL for our planet.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jul 21, 2015 09:09PM)
This post should have enough in it to hack off both sides of this so called debate.

First off I tell you this. When I was fishing with my dad (More times than I can even count.) he used to tell me that we leave the fish cleaning station cleaner than when we found it. Not a bad thing. We would CONSERVE resources! That is the root of something isn't it?

OK then also I have to say that progress is a GOOD THING. I am an old school street racer and I have been against electric cars because of a horsey power issue. Well Tesla came along and guess what? I absolutely drool for one of those now! WOW. Looks and speed and they are leading the way to the future. It is amazing.

There is a process called "creative destruction" which SHOULD under normal circumstances have us off of burnt dead animal fuel. Much like there is no "buggy whip" industry any more, the same SHOULD happen with cars and gasoline. Wind, solar, electric and mediums to give us fuel that have not been thought of before SHOULD be WELCOMED! But here is the rub. The buggy whip industry was not an industry larger than 90% of the countries on this planet and had no way to get info out there the way it can be done now. Progress SHOULD have us leaving fossil fuels in the rear view mirror. But there are people with a stake in it not happening. There in lies the rub.

You can not (Unless you are a Luddite.) claim progress is bad. Without it the very tools we use to type these words would NOT exist as we know them.

Now to be fair progress is FORWARD in my view and not backwards.

On the other hand I am not a fan of government picking winners and losers. I am not a fan of power grabs, scare tactics (On BOTH sides.) and just general bull.

So what is wrong with leaving our equivalent of a "fish cleaning station" better and cleaner than we found it? I admit readily I have some serious issues with some of the proposals put forth to do such a thing.

I am taking NO position on the "debate".
Message: Posted by: Kaliix (Jul 21, 2015 09:24PM)
Well I guess you failed then Danny as I wasn't hacked off in the slightest. I'm all for humans being good stewards of the environment.

[quote]On Jul 21, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
This post should have enough in it to hack off both sides of this so called debate.

First off I tell you this. When I was fishing with my dad (More times than I can even count.) he used to tell me that we leave the fish cleaning station cleaner than when we found it. Not a bad thing. We would CONSERVE resources! That is the root of something isn't it?

OK then also I have to say that progress is a GOOD THING. I am an old school street racer and I have been against electric cars because of a horsey power issue. Well Tesla came along and guess what? I absolutely drool for one of those now! WOW. Looks and speed and they are leading the way to the future. It is amazing.

There is a process called "creative destruction" which SHOULD under normal circumstances have us off of burnt dead animal fuel. Much like there is no "buggy whip" industry any more, the same SHOULD happen with cars and gasoline. Wind, solar, electric and mediums to give us fuel that have not been thought of before SHOULD be WELCOMED! But here is the rub. The buggy whip industry was not an industry larger than 90% of the countries on this planet and had no way to get info out there the way it can be done now. Progress SHOULD have us leaving fossil fuels in the rear view mirror. But there are people with a stake in it not happening. There in lies the rub.

You can not (Unless you are a Luddite.) claim progress is bad. Without it the very tools we use to type these words would NOT exist as we know them.

Now to be fair progress is FORWARD in my view and not backwards.

On the other hand I am not a fan of government picking winners and losers. I am not a fan of power grabs, scare tactics (On BOTH sides.) and just general bull.

So what is wrong with leaving our equivalent of a "fish cleaning station" better and cleaner than we found it? I admit readily I have some serious issues with some of the proposals put forth to do such a thing.

I am taking NO position on the "debate". [/quote]
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jul 21, 2015 09:34PM)
Then perhaps that should be our starting point?
Message: Posted by: Randwill (Jul 21, 2015 10:08PM)
Much ado about nothing. If we destroy this planet we can always move to another one.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jul 21, 2015 10:15PM)
Good stewards of whose environment? Let us suppose that the government work for the big boys as opposed to the little people and put all the little people into overcrowded cities, seizes all the countryside around the cities, calls it a nature reserve and hands over all these nature reserves to the big boys to protect from the little people. Consequently the little people cannot travel as they are surrounded by protected nature reserves. Given that then we have two different environments: the city and the nature reserves, with the little people in one and the big boys in the other. Are the little people now being good stewards of their environment or of the big boy’s environment? Well the little people are not now traveling and so not causing global warming or doing damage to the countryside are they? But the little people in this deal are exclude from the environment they are being good stewards of are they not?
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Jul 22, 2015 05:36AM)
[quote]On Jul 21, 2015, Kaliix wrote:
The "Hottest Year on Record" would be a record of less than 200 years out of the 5,000,000,000 plus years of the earths existence. Also the "record" high temperature rose statistically less than the margin of error. Go back a couple of hundred or million years and you would find temperatures much hotter, by several degrees Celsius, than they are presently. This happened without any influence from man and is NORMAL for our planet. [/quote]


CO2 levels haven't been this high in over 650,000 years...
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Also:

http://www.epa.gov/climatestudents/basics/past.html
[quote]

Earth's Orbit-
The shape of the Earth's orbit around the sun naturally changes over time, and so does the way the Earth tilts toward the sun. Many of these changes happen in cycles that repeat over tens of thousands of years. These changes affect how much of the sun's energy the Earth absorbs, which in turn affects the Earth's temperature. Over at least the last few million years, these cycles likely caused the Earth to alternate between cold and warm periods. For the last few thousand years, we've been in a relatively warmer period.


The Sun's Energy-
The sun goes through sunspot cycles every 11 years or so. During times when there are sunspots, dark spots—some as big as 50,000 miles wide—move across the surface of the sun. When this happens, the sun gives off slightly more energy, which makes the Earth a bit warmer. The sun also goes through longer term changes that affect how much energy it gives off.

Photosynthesis-
The Earth's first billion years were very different from the conditions today. [b]The sun was cooler then, but the planet was generally warmer. That's because there were a lot of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide and methane, in the atmosphere[/b]. Also, the atmosphere back then contained very little oxygen. It was a very different world—a world without people or the kinds of plants and animals that thrive in today's climate. But photosynthesis, which became common about 2 billion years ago, changed all that. During photosynthesis, plants take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and replace it with oxygen. Photosynthesis permanently changed the atmosphere by adding more oxygen to the air while reducing the amount of greenhouse gases.

Volcanic Eruptions-
When volcanoes erupt, they spew more than red hot lava! They also add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, along with dust, ash, and other particles called aerosols. [b]At certain times during the history of the Earth, some very active volcanoes added a lot of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, causing the planet to get warmer[/b]. However, most of the time, including today, the major effect from volcanoes is actually cooling the Earth because aerosols block some sunlight from reaching us. If an eruption is big enough to launch these particles high into the atmosphere, it can lead to slightly cooler temperatures around the world for a few years.[/quote]

Ron
Message: Posted by: Kaliix (Jul 22, 2015 07:41AM)
So let me ask you then, if CO2 is rising but temperature is falling, then the idea the more CO2 warms the planet is false. Just in the last 15 years, temperature has flat lined but CO2 concentrations have hit, as you suggest, record levels. Therefore you theory is false. What if in the proxy temperature and CO2 records, CO2 levels lags behind temperature rise by hundreds of years, then your theory is false.

So the theory of CO2 causing temperature rise has been shown to be false multiple times. CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere. Physicists can demonstrate that it is physically impossible for CO2 to cause the amount of warming that is attributed to it. Again, your theory is false.

It is also funny to me the hubris man in general and AGW believers in particular exhibit when they believe that Man actually understands the process of weather. Start reading up on the MASSIVE amount of assumptions that are baked into the very models that you point at to support your belief. There many variables in the mix that we simply don't understand. Scientists just use their best guesses as to how they affect weather. Why is it you think that we can't predict the weather more than about 12 hours out with any degree of accuracy? It is because we have a limited understanding of the entire process.

[quote]On Jul 22, 2015, R.S. wrote:
[quote]On Jul 21, 2015, Kaliix wrote:
The "Hottest Year on Record" would be a record of less than 200 years out of the 5,000,000,000 plus years of the earths existence. Also the "record" high temperature rose statistically less than the margin of error. Go back a couple of hundred or million years and you would find temperatures much hotter, by several degrees Celsius, than they are presently. This happened without any influence from man and is NORMAL for our planet. [/quote]


CO2 levels haven't been this high in over 650,000 years...
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Ron [/quote]
Message: Posted by: Kaliix (Jul 22, 2015 07:46AM)
Funny thing about destroying the planet, the planet doesn't seem to want to cooperate. Massive asteroid impacts, volcanoes, and natural disasters, yet the planet rebounds and marches on. Don't you guys get tired of the sky is falling routine.

[quote]On Jul 21, 2015, Randwill wrote:
Much ado about nothing. If we destroy this planet we can always move to another one. [/quote]
Message: Posted by: Randwill (Jul 22, 2015 08:56AM)
[quote]On Jul 22, 2015, Kaliix wrote:
Funny thing about destroying the planet, the planet doesn't seem to want to cooperate. Massive asteroid impacts, volcanoes, and natural disasters, yet the planet rebounds and marches on. Don't you guys get tired of the sky is falling routine.

[/quote]

But if someone convinced you that there was a 3% chance that an intruder was going to break into your home in the middle of the night and shoot you and your family, would you err on the side of caution and buy a gun?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jul 22, 2015 09:20AM)
All climate hysterics live in a sad world of make-believe, based on a story that defies economic, psychological and scientific reality.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 22, 2015 09:48AM)
Tommy, but you're the self-proclaimed king of that world.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jul 22, 2015 10:01AM)
But Bob you're for all the world the roo with your head in the snow.

[img]http://resources0.news.com.au/images/2015/07/17/1227446/484760-61eb2a66-2c78-11e5-a754-a63f13c4fffa.jpg[/img]



Social media flooded with photos as freezing temperatures bring widespread snow:



http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/social-media-flooded-with-photos-as-freezing-temperatures-bring-widespread-snow/story-fnjwvztl-1227445313494
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jul 22, 2015 10:22AM)
[quote]On Jul 22, 2015, Kaliix wrote:
Funny thing about destroying the planet, the planet doesn't seem to want to cooperate. Massive asteroid impacts, volcanoes, and natural disasters, yet the planet rebounds and marches on. Don't you guys get tired of the sky is falling routine.

[quote]On Jul 21, 2015, Randwill wrote:
Much ado about nothing. If we destroy this planet we can always move to another one. [/quote] [/quote]

Funny thing about dishonesty. Nowhere in the report of the OP --or anywhere in the AGW scientific literature for that matter- will you find claims about the planet being destroyed.

Show some integrity.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jul 22, 2015 11:22AM)
[quote]On Jul 22, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]On Jul 22, 2015, Kaliix wrote:
Funny thing about destroying the planet, the planet doesn't seem to want to cooperate. Massive asteroid impacts, volcanoes, and natural disasters, yet the planet rebounds and marches on. Don't you guys get tired of the sky is falling routine.

[quote]On Jul 21, 2015, Randwill wrote:
Much ado about nothing. If we destroy this planet we can always move to another one. [/quote] [/quote]

Funny thing about dishonesty. Nowhere in the report of the OP --or anywhere in the AGW scientific literature for that matter- will you find claims about the planet being destroyed.

Show some integrity. [/quote]

No John but there have been MULTIPLE doomsday predictions put out there to scare people that have not come anywhere near true. It would be integrity on your part to at least admit that.

You wake up in the morning, your paint's peeling, your curtains are gone, and the water is boiling. Which problem do you deal with first? None the building is on fire! (Gotta love a House quote!)

But I will say this. If my house is on fire I do not debate with the men who show up (With experience.) to put it out. I simply let them put it out. If my house is smoking, I do not wait UNTIL it is on fire to do something. I do not do things that COULD cause the house to get started with fire. I take care NOT to let the house get ablaze because ya know I ONLY HAVE ONE, and maybe my kids would like it.

I am not saying our planet is on fire but I am saying that the garbage island is a pretty clear indication of smoke. Space junk is smoke. Polluted rivers is smoke. Declining fisheries is smoke, and so forth.

Now there are logical debates as to HOW things should be done. I say again most of the solutions put forth by the most vocal are not the best ideas I have heard. But if we START at one planet, lets take care of it we should be able to get SOMETHING accomplished wouldn't ya think? I mean Lake Erie was a pretty good example.
Message: Posted by: Kaliix (Jul 22, 2015 11:33AM)
So that there were no doubts, I quoted the poster I was responding to. How do you all of a sudden bring in the OP or AGW literature into the discussion when it was clear I was responding only to one post?

And then you are going to talk to me about showing integrity???

[quote]On Jul 22, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]On Jul 22, 2015, Kaliix wrote:
Funny thing about destroying the planet, the planet doesn't seem to want to cooperate. Massive asteroid impacts, volcanoes, and natural disasters, yet the planet rebounds and marches on. Don't you guys get tired of the sky is falling routine.

[quote]On Jul 21, 2015, Randwill wrote:
Much ado about nothing. If we destroy this planet we can always move to another one. [/quote] [/quote]

Funny thing about dishonesty. Nowhere in the report of the OP --or anywhere in the AGW scientific literature for that matter- will you find claims about the planet being destroyed.

Show some integrity. [/quote]
Message: Posted by: Kaliix (Jul 22, 2015 11:56AM)
Wait, you are arguing that AGW is real. Most people that argue that are liberals. Now I don't know if you are or not, but liberals in general are definitely pro gun control. Are you saying I should purchase a firearm? Btw, condoms have a 97% success rate. If there is a three percent chance of condom failure, would you just play it safe and not have sex so you are protected.

The even bigger problem with you analogy is that the "solutions" for AGW are basically to cut fossil fuel usage dramatically and to substantially restrict developing countries from using fossil fuels. Even then, the effects of that will be minimal at best. Does it not occur to AGW believers that your solution to the problem wouldn't work and are ones that pretty much no one would support anyways?

Even funnier (or sadder) is the best solution to carbon dioxide emissions is nuclear energy, but AGW believers/environmentalists/the left want no part of that either. It is not only possible for it to be safe, but more efficient, with the possibility to use spent reactor fuel as well. [url=http://www.popsci.com/leslie-dewan-and-mark-massie-are-reviving-nuclear-dream]Reviving the Nuclear Dream[/url] shows how this is possible if we embrace actual solutions.

[quote]On Jul 22, 2015, Randwill wrote:
[quote]On Jul 22, 2015, Kaliix wrote:
Funny thing about destroying the planet, the planet doesn't seem to want to cooperate. Massive asteroid impacts, volcanoes, and natural disasters, yet the planet rebounds and marches on. Don't you guys get tired of the sky is falling routine.

[/quote]

But if someone convinced you that there was a 3% chance that an intruder was going to break into your home in the middle of the night and shoot you and your family, would you err on the side of caution and buy a gun? [/quote]
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jul 22, 2015 12:18PM)
The climate hysterics, like most cheats are stupid and bad players and the only way to get them to admit they have marked the cards is to get them in a head lock.

"To capture the public imagination,
we have to offer up some scary scenarios,
make simplified dramatic statements
and little mention of any doubts one might have.
Each of us has to decide the right balance
between being effective,
and being honest."

- Leading greenhouse advocate, Dr Stephen Schneider
( in interview for "Discover" magagzine, Oct 1989)

Then the climate hysteric has the temerity to speak of honesty eh.
Message: Posted by: wwhokie1 (Jul 22, 2015 12:43PM)
[quote]On Jul 22, 2015, Kaliix wrote:
Funny thing about destroying the planet, the planet doesn't seem to want to cooperate. Massive asteroid impacts, volcanoes, and natural disasters, yet the planet rebounds and marches on. Don't you guys get tired of the sky is falling routine.

[quote]On Jul 21, 2015, Randwill wrote:
Much ado about nothing. If we destroy this planet we can always move to another one. [/quote] [/quote]


We are not going to destroy this planet. But we could destroy human life on this planet. Earth will survive and rebound. Humans may not. Guess it depends on our priorities.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jul 22, 2015 12:53PM)
What the climate hysteric want is death. Human life is the problem as they say.
Message: Posted by: Randwill (Jul 22, 2015 12:58PM)
[quote]On Jul 22, 2015, Kaliix wrote:
Wait, you are arguing that AGW is real. Most people that argue that are liberals. Now I don't know if you are or not, but liberals in general are definitely pro gun control. Are you saying I should purchase a firearm? Btw, condoms have a 97% success rate. If there is a three percent chance of condom failure, would you just play it safe and not have sex so you are protected.[/quote]


For some, a 3% chance of a home invasion would be enough for them to justify buying a weapon to protect their home. Those same people might reject a 97% consensus of climate scientists about climate change's detrimental effect on their home, the Earth.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jul 22, 2015 01:11PM)
[quote]On Jul 22, 2015, Kaliix wrote:
Wait, you are arguing that AGW is real. Most people that argue that are liberals. [/quote]

What kind of moronic claim is this?

1. Where is your evidence?
2. How do you define "liberal"?
3. What does political leaning have to do with scientific data?

Get serious.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jul 22, 2015 01:16PM)
Some know and understand there is no real 97% consensus and that it is merely part of the climate hysterics sad make-believe world based on a story that defies economic, psychological and scientific reality, that is BS that the climate hysterics like to throw around to bolster their myth.
Message: Posted by: Kaliix (Jul 22, 2015 01:19PM)
That 97% figure you AGW supporters keep throwing around is BOGUS!!! Please stop saying there is a consensus, there is not. That 97% figure is fraudulent and has been [url=http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136]debunked [/url] many times over. Again, another reason why AGW is a LIE!

If you believe it to be true, please cite a reference so that the results can be verified.

[quote]On Jul 22, 2015, Randwill wrote:
[quote]On Jul 22, 2015, Kaliix wrote:
Wait, you are arguing that AGW is real. Most people that argue that are liberals. Now I don't know if you are or not, but liberals in general are definitely pro gun control. Are you saying I should purchase a firearm? Btw, condoms have a 97% success rate. If there is a three percent chance of condom failure, would you just play it safe and not have sex so you are protected.[/quote]


For some, a 3% chance of a home invasion would be enough for them to justify buying a weapon to protect their home. Those same people might reject a 97% consensus of climate scientists about climate change's detrimental effect on their home, the Earth. [/quote]
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Jul 22, 2015 01:21PM)
Why do they knowingly lie and say 97% when it's been debunked a dozen times?
Message: Posted by: Kaliix (Jul 22, 2015 01:21PM)
I was simply referring to my experience in discussing global warming with people. Most tend to be liberal, that was all that I was saying. How is that a moronic claim?

[quote]On Jul 22, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]On Jul 22, 2015, Kaliix wrote:
Wait, you are arguing that AGW is real. Most people that argue that are liberals. [/quote]

What kind of moronic claim is this?

1. Where is your evidence?
2. How do you define "liberal"?
3. What does political leaning have to do with scientific data?

Get serious. [/quote]
Message: Posted by: Kabbalah (Jul 22, 2015 01:22PM)
[youtube]7W33HRc1A6c[/youtube]
Message: Posted by: Randwill (Jul 22, 2015 01:26PM)
[quote]On Jul 22, 2015, Kaliix wrote:
That 97% figure you AGW supporters keep throwing around is BOGUS!!! Please stop saying there is a consensus, there is not. That 97% figure is fraudulent and has been [url=http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136]debunked [/url] many times over. Again, another reason why AGW is a LIE!

If you believe it to be true, please cite a reference so that the results can be verified.

[quote]On Jul 22, 2015, Randwill wrote:
[quote]On Jul 22, 2015, Kaliix wrote:
Wait, you are arguing that AGW is real. Most people that argue that are liberals. Now I don't know if you are or not, but liberals in general are definitely pro gun control. Are you saying I should purchase a firearm? Btw, condoms have a 97% success rate. If there is a three percent chance of condom failure, would you just play it safe and not have sex so you are protected.[/quote]


For some, a 3% chance of a home invasion would be enough for them to justify buying a weapon to protect their home. Those same people might reject a 97% consensus of climate scientists about climate change's detrimental effect on their home, the Earth. [/quote] [/quote]
Exact percentages of climate scientists consensus aside, the comparison rings true to me. Since you have chosen to jump on the 97% number rather than address my point, I'll assume that you are unable or unwilling to do so.
Message: Posted by: Kaliix (Jul 22, 2015 01:45PM)
I think your question is not relevant to a discussion on global warming. I thought I kind of answered it with the condom analogy. I am a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment, but I do not own a firearm, even though I am an expert shot. If there was a 3% chance of me being shot and killed by a home invasion, my first reaction would be to move, not buy a handgun. If I had no choice, perhaps I would purchase one. However I think your analogy is not useful or relevant to a discussion on AGW. A firearm, like a fire extinguisher, is more of an insurance against a highly unlikely catastrophic event. The solution to AGW is not analogous to insurance.


[quote]On Jul 22, 2015, Randwill wrote:
[quote]On Jul 22, 2015, Kaliix wrote:
That 97% figure you AGW supporters keep throwing around is BOGUS!!! Please stop saying there is a consensus, there is not. That 97% figure is fraudulent and has been [url=http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136]debunked [/url] many times over. Again, another reason why AGW is a LIE!

If you believe it to be true, please cite a reference so that the results can be verified.

[quote]On Jul 22, 2015, Randwill wrote:
[quote]On Jul 22, 2015, Kaliix wrote:
Wait, you are arguing that AGW is real. Most people that argue that are liberals. Now I don't know if you are or not, but liberals in general are definitely pro gun control. Are you saying I should purchase a firearm? Btw, condoms have a 97% success rate. If there is a three percent chance of condom failure, would you just play it safe and not have sex so you are protected.[/quote]


For some, a 3% chance of a home invasion would be enough for them to justify buying a weapon to protect their home. Those same people might reject a 97% consensus of climate scientists about climate change's detrimental effect on their home, the Earth. [/quote] [/quote]
Exact percentages of climate scientists consensus aside, the analogy rings true to me. Since you have chosen to jump on the 97% number rather than address my point, I'll assume that you are unable or unwilling to do so. [/quote]
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 22, 2015 02:09PM)
The consensus is "bogus." You'd better let NASA and all of the following institutions know about that.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/scientific-consensus-on.html#.Va_p8PmrFyE

What's bogus is the bought and paid "research" from those who have tried to turn this truly serious matter into a political football.
Message: Posted by: Steve Suss (Jul 22, 2015 02:30PM)
Don't you just hate people that use facts to back up their argument?LOL
Message: Posted by: Randwill (Jul 22, 2015 03:04PM)
[quote]On Jul 22, 2015, Kabbalah wrote:
[youtube]7W33HRc1A6c[/youtube] [/quote]
Thanks for the clip, Kabbalah. Carlin was a comedian, but a smart comedian. I think he gets it right when he says that the planet isn't going anywhere. We are.
Message: Posted by: Kaliix (Jul 22, 2015 03:07PM)
The one actual survey that was noted on your website Bob was [url=http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9#page-1]debunked almost immediately [/url].

That the organizations listed put out "policy statements" supporting the AGW means little to nothing about what the members of those organization [url=http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/09/14/nobel-prize-winning-physicist-resigns-from-top-physics-group-over-global/]think about global warming[/url]. Those organizations did take a vote of their membership and find that the members they represent voted 97% in favor of the policy statement. They made a political statement to curry political favor from a government that overwhelmingly supports AGW research.

There are many in those organizations that disagree. Science is not consensus and governing political bodies putting out political statements in support of AGW mean little. You don't bite the hand that feeds you and government is wholly supportive of AGW. Conveniently they hold the grant money purse strings too.

[quote]On Jul 22, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
The consensus is "bogus." You'd better let NASA and all of the following institutions know about that.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/scientific-consensus-on.html#.Va_p8PmrFyE

What's bogus is the bought and paid "research" from those who have tried to turn this truly serious matter into a political football. [/quote]
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Jul 22, 2015 07:37PM)
Maybe the study that was funded by the Koch Brothers would be more to your liking?

Ron
Message: Posted by: reese (Jul 22, 2015 08:08PM)
[quote]On Jul 21, 2015, Kaliix wrote:
I did address it many times. Apparently you can't let it go.

I'm starting to smell a troll...

[/quote] No, you didn't address it at all. You ignored it. I find your comment towards me flaming and insulting.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jul 22, 2015 08:09PM)
[quote]On Jul 22, 2015, Kaliix wrote:
The one actual survey that was noted on your website Bob was [url=http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9#page-1]debunked almost immediately [/url].

[/quote]

I'm willing to bet you have no idea what that linked article is about.
Message: Posted by: Kaliix (Jul 22, 2015 09:59PM)
Since you apparently have a reading comprehension problem, it would be futile of me to copy and paste all the times I directly addressed the post you reference. I'm with Ron White on this one...

[quote]On Jul 22, 2015, reese wrote:
[quote]On Jul 21, 2015, Kaliix wrote:
I did address it many times. Apparently you can't let it go.

I'm starting to smell a troll...

[/quote] No, you didn't address it at all. You ignored it. I find your comment towards me flaming and insulting. [/quote]
Message: Posted by: Kaliix (Jul 22, 2015 10:08PM)
[quote]On Jul 22, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]On Jul 22, 2015, Kaliix wrote:
The one actual survey that was noted on your website Bob was [url=http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9#page-1]debunked almost immediately [/url].

[/quote]

I'm willing to bet you have no idea what that linked article is about. [/quote]

I'd be willing to be that even if I explained to you, you wouldn't understand it.

You'll have to do better than that.
Message: Posted by: Kaliix (Jul 22, 2015 10:11PM)
Nice! Bring in the lefts favorite boogeyman. Attack the messenger, obfuscate and deny, anything but actually provide a counter argument. Do you have one of those by the way?

[quote]On Jul 22, 2015, R.S. wrote:
Maybe the study that was funded by the Koch Brothers would be more to your liking?

Ron [/quote]
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jul 22, 2015 10:27PM)
[quote]On Jul 22, 2015, Kaliix wrote:
[quote]On Jul 22, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]On Jul 22, 2015, Kaliix wrote:
The one actual survey that was noted on your website Bob was [url=http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9#page-1]debunked almost immediately [/url].

[/quote]

I'm willing to bet you have no idea what that linked article is about. [/quote]

I'd be willing to be that even if I explained to you, you wouldn't understand it.

You'll have to do better than that. [/quote]

Try me.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jul 22, 2015 10:32PM)
I wouldn't understand if it matters.
Message: Posted by: reese (Jul 22, 2015 10:36PM)
The subject matters and I doubt I would be able to understand that link. Too many twenty dollar words. I'm simple that way.
Message: Posted by: reese (Jul 22, 2015 10:41PM)
[quote]On Jul 22, 2015, Kaliix wrote:
Nice! Bring in the lefts favorite boogeyman. [/quote] If you want to have a discussion among equals, it might be helpful to make it nonpartisan...i.e: don't make it political. If you want to talk down at people from a high horse...well, that's a horse of a different color.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jul 22, 2015 10:44PM)
[quote]On Jul 22, 2015, R.S. wrote:
Maybe the study that was funded by the Koch Brothers would be more to your liking?

Ron [/quote]

That's precisely part of the fun. The authors are defending themselves from critics who take them to task for spreading misinformation. The authors are well-known recipients of massive funding from Koch.

According to Sourcewatch:

David R. Legates "[has] ties to several groups that have supported or emphasized skeptical stands on climate change while they also received regular contributions from ExxonMobil," including "the National Center for Policy Analysis, which has received about $421,000 from ExxonMobil, and the George C. Marshall Institute, which received $630,000." The Competitive Enterprise Institute, "which also once listed Legates as an adjunct scholar, received more than $2 million from ExxonMobil at a time when the company was publicly fighting climate change policies." All three institutions have published works by Legates"

Willie Soon: "has received more than $1.3 million in funding from Big Oil and coal industry sponsors over the past decade, according to a Greenpeace report based on FOIA requests. Since 2002, every grant Dr. Soon received originated with fossil fuel interests, he has has received at least $230,000 from Koch Family Foundations .

In early 2009, Soon's current biographical note stated that he was a "chief science adviser for the Science and Public Policy Institute" (SPPI). Prior to Bob Ferguson founding SPPI in mid 2007, Soon worked with him from mid-2003 at the Center for Science and Public Policy, a project of Frontiers of Freedom (FOF) funded, at least in part, by Exxon."

William M. Briggs. Didn't find anything about his funding. He's a "statistical consultant" with ties to the Heartland Institute.

Christopher Monckton of Brenchley is a well known liar and braggart (check his claims to be a member of the House of Lords, to have received a Nobel Prize, to have been Margaret Thatcher's chief science adviser, and his claims to have calculated the probability that President Obama's birth certificate is fake) . The only dubious funds provided by sourcewatch were the "Australian Association of Mining and Exploration Companies and...coal mining billionaire and AGW denier Gina Rinehart." While speaking in Australia he displayed images of swastikas while next to quotations from scientists who support the claims of AGW.

Your joke hit closer to the truth than you suspected.
Message: Posted by: reese (Jul 22, 2015 11:39PM)
Following the money IS something I can understand. Thanks for the info.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 22, 2015 11:45PM)
[quote]On Jul 22, 2015, Kaliix wrote:
Nice! Bring in the lefts favorite boogeyman. Attack the messenger, obfuscate and deny, anything but actually provide a counter argument. Do you have one of those by the way?

[quote]On Jul 22, 2015, R.S. wrote:
Maybe the study that was funded by the Koch Brothers would be more to your liking?

Ron [/quote] [/quote]

Have you contacted NASA yet to tell them they're wrong? Now let's see, who should I believe, NASA or an anonymous "expert" on a magic forum? But if you're going to make this political ("the left's favorite bogeyman), I won't respond any further as political subjects are prohibited here. We're talking about science, not your political stereotypes.

Yes, Ron. The Koch funded study was interesting. The result were exactly the opposite of what they thought they were paying for. The study actually confirmed AGW.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 22, 2015 11:54PM)
And WHICH study was allegedly debunked? The NASA site I linked refers to 18 studies:

[quote]Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities. In addition, [b]most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.[/b] The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

{List of eighteen studies follows) [/quote]

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

There are MULTIPLE studies listed here as well:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/scientific-consensus-on.html#.VbB02_mrFyE
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Jul 23, 2015 02:53AM)
Hey guys ... How many groups not funded or otherwise not given US currency by US officials are you quoting ???? How many are?
I would say your 97% figure is totally bogus!!!!!
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jul 23, 2015 03:41AM)
[quote]On Jul 23, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
And WHICH study was allegedly debunked? The NASA site I linked refers to 18 studies:

[quote]Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities. In addition, [b]most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.[/b] The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

{List of eighteen studies follows) [/quote]

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

There are MULTIPLE studies listed here as well:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/scientific-consensus-on.html#.VbB02_mrFyE [/quote]

Bob try to keep up please. ANY study one disagrees with has been debunked. Whether it is debunked with facts and proof might be a bit sketchy but when do those matter? I can't keep helping you like this. Eventually you will have to learn to figure this stuff out on your own.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 23, 2015 04:17AM)
[quote]On Jul 23, 2015, Slim King wrote:
Hey guys ... How many groups not funded or otherwise not given US currency by US officials are you quoting ???? How many are?
I would say your 97% figure is totally bogus!!!!! [/quote]

Exclamation points aren't proof of anything, except in your world. Please provide citations indicating which world-wide bodies that published individual reports, received funding from the US government.

I will, if you like, happily provide you with the source of funding for the AGW debunking "studies" commissioned by the Heartland Institute. (You know, the same groups that one commissioned "studies" on behalf of big tobacco stating that cigarette smoke was not harmful.)
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Jul 23, 2015 05:43AM)
[quote]On Jul 22, 2015, Kaliix wrote:
Nice! Bring in the lefts favorite boogeyman. Attack the messenger, obfuscate and deny, anything but actually provide a counter argument. Do you have one of those by the way?

[quote]On Jul 22, 2015, R.S. wrote:
Maybe the study that was funded by the Koch Brothers would be more to your liking?

Ron [/quote] [/quote]

Attack the messenger?? Obfuscate and deny?? I'm actually AGREEING with the results of the Koch study! My point was that since you seemed to be dismissive of studies done by the "left", then you might like this study - a thorough one at that - done by the right. The feeling you may experience here is cognitive dissonance. :-)

My "counter argument" is science. Sorry, but I'm with the vast majority of climate scientists, NASA, and the IPCC on this one (and by the way, about 12-15 years ago I would have leaned on your side of this issue - but I have since come to accept the accumulated evidence). And as Bob said, this should be about the science - not politics. The Koch study was an example where the science was strong enough to overcome the (obviously right-leaning) political ideology of the study's financial backers. Yay science!! :-)

Ron
PS - if this becomes a purely political discussion, I'm out.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 23, 2015 06:49AM)
Ron- It seems pretty obvious to me from Kaliix's response that he is completely unfamiliar with the results of the Koch sponsored study, otherwise he wouldn't have accused you of attacking the messenger.
Message: Posted by: Kaliix (Jul 23, 2015 08:11AM)
The source of money for a study means exactly what in terms of making an argument for or against the logic, procedures and scientific methods involved in producing the results.

By your own admission then, every study funded by the US government is suspect as the US Government is wholly and fully on board the AGW train. The US government has a every incentive to only fund studies that will produce the result it is looking for, which to provide support for their intended outcome, that man is responsible for global warming. Isn't that the same argument you are using for why you are dismissive of the any study funded by someone you don't like, whether it be the Koch Brothers, the Heartland Institute or any other who you disagree with?

[quote]On Jul 22, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]On Jul 22, 2015, R.S. wrote:
Maybe the study that was funded by the Koch Brothers would be more to your liking?

Ron [/quote]

That's precisely part of the fun. The authors are defending themselves from critics who take them to task for spreading misinformation. The authors are well-known recipients of massive funding from Koch.

According to Sourcewatch:

David R. Legates "[has] ties to several groups that have supported or emphasized skeptical stands on climate change while they also received regular contributions from ExxonMobil," including "the National Center for Policy Analysis, which has received about $421,000 from ExxonMobil, and the George C. Marshall Institute, which received $630,000." The Competitive Enterprise Institute, "which also once listed Legates as an adjunct scholar, received more than $2 million from ExxonMobil at a time when the company was publicly fighting climate change policies." All three institutions have published works by Legates"

Willie Soon: "has received more than $1.3 million in funding from Big Oil and coal industry sponsors over the past decade, according to a Greenpeace report based on FOIA requests. Since 2002, every grant Dr. Soon received originated with fossil fuel interests, he has has received at least $230,000 from Koch Family Foundations .

In early 2009, Soon's current biographical note stated that he was a "chief science adviser for the Science and Public Policy Institute" (SPPI). Prior to Bob Ferguson founding SPPI in mid 2007, Soon worked with him from mid-2003 at the Center for Science and Public Policy, a project of Frontiers of Freedom (FOF) funded, at least in part, by Exxon."

William M. Briggs. Didn't find anything about his funding. He's a "statistical consultant" with ties to the Heartland Institute.

Christopher Monckton of Brenchley is a well known liar and braggart (check his claims to be a member of the House of Lords, to have received a Nobel Prize, to have been Margaret Thatcher's chief science adviser, and his claims to have calculated the probability that President Obama's birth certificate is fake) . The only dubious funds provided by sourcewatch were the "Australian Association of Mining and Exploration Companies and...coal mining billionaire and AGW denier Gina Rinehart." While speaking in Australia he displayed images of swastikas while next to quotations from scientists who support the claims of AGW.

Your joke hit closer to the truth than you suspected. [/quote]
Message: Posted by: Kaliix (Jul 23, 2015 08:17AM)
The discussion was on the 97% consensus that you referred to. That 97% figure was only addressed in one study, the first one listed on the NASA page. That was the one I was referring to as the link I provided referenced that particular study and how it was found to be incorrect.

Policy statements are political statements made by a groups governing board and are in no way tied to the opinion of it's members.

[quote]On Jul 23, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
And WHICH study was allegedly debunked? The NASA site I linked refers to 18 studies:

[quote]Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities. In addition, [b]most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.[/b] The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

{List of eighteen studies follows) [/quote]

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

There are MULTIPLE studies listed here as well:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/scientific-consensus-on.html#.VbB02_mrFyE [/quote]
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jul 23, 2015 08:27AM)
[quote]On Jul 23, 2015, Kaliix wrote:
The source of money for a study means exactly what in terms of making an argument for or against the logic, procedures and scientific methods involved in producing the results.

By your own admission then, every study funded by the US government is suspect as the US Government is wholly and fully on board the AGW train. The US government has a every incentive to only fund studies that will produce the result it is looking for, which to provide support for their intended outcome, that man is responsible for global warming. Isn't that the same argument you are using for why you are dismissive of the any study funded by someone you don't like, whether it be the Koch Brothers, the Heartland Institute or any other who you disagree with?

[quote]On Jul 22, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]On Jul 22, 2015, R.S. wrote:
Maybe the study that was funded by the Koch Brothers would be more to your liking?

Ron [/quote]

That's precisely part of the fun. The authors are defending themselves from critics who take them to task for spreading misinformation. The authors are well-known recipients of massive funding from Koch.

According to Sourcewatch:

David R. Legates "[has] ties to several groups that have supported or emphasized skeptical stands on climate change while they also received regular contributions from ExxonMobil," including "the National Center for Policy Analysis, which has received about $421,000 from ExxonMobil, and the George C. Marshall Institute, which received $630,000." The Competitive Enterprise Institute, "which also once listed Legates as an adjunct scholar, received more than $2 million from ExxonMobil at a time when the company was publicly fighting climate change policies." All three institutions have published works by Legates"

Willie Soon: "has received more than $1.3 million in funding from Big Oil and coal industry sponsors over the past decade, according to a Greenpeace report based on FOIA requests. Since 2002, every grant Dr. Soon received originated with fossil fuel interests, he has has received at least $230,000 from Koch Family Foundations .

In early 2009, Soon's current biographical note stated that he was a "chief science adviser for the Science and Public Policy Institute" (SPPI). Prior to Bob Ferguson founding SPPI in mid 2007, Soon worked with him from mid-2003 at the Center for Science and Public Policy, a project of Frontiers of Freedom (FOF) funded, at least in part, by Exxon."

William M. Briggs. Didn't find anything about his funding. He's a "statistical consultant" with ties to the Heartland Institute.

Christopher Monckton of Brenchley is a well known liar and braggart (check his claims to be a member of the House of Lords, to have received a Nobel Prize, to have been Margaret Thatcher's chief science adviser, and his claims to have calculated the probability that President Obama's birth certificate is fake) . The only dubious funds provided by sourcewatch were the "Australian Association of Mining and Exploration Companies and...coal mining billionaire and AGW denier Gina Rinehart." While speaking in Australia he displayed images of swastikas while next to quotations from scientists who support the claims of AGW.

Your joke hit closer to the truth than you suspected. [/quote] [/quote]

You talking to me? If so you haven't paid attention to what I say. I support the peer-reviewed science.

Legates, Soon and Monckton known to be biased? Yes they are. Is Monckton a known liar and fraud? Why yes he is. Has Soon had articles pulled and amended because of his failure to fully disclose his funding sources? Why yes he has. Have emails surfaced where Soon promises certain results to Koch as "deliverables" for his funding? Indeed they have.

Of course, these guys may still be right. But their history of lies, deceit and their connections to fossil-fuel funded denial are relevant, doncha think?
Message: Posted by: Pop Haydn (Jul 23, 2015 07:35PM)
This is the hottest year on record:

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/s/earth-now-hottest-ever-recorded-history-200534538.html
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jul 23, 2015 08:21PM)
:wow:
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Jul 24, 2015 01:53AM)
Looks like they have to wait because there is too much ICE!!!!!
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/ccgs-amundsen-re-routed-to-hudson-bay-to-help-with-heavy-ice-1.3162900?cmp=rss
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Jul 24, 2015 01:56AM)
[quote]On Jul 23, 2015, Pop Haydn wrote:
This is the hottest year on record:

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/s/earth-now-hottest-ever-recorded-history-200534538.html [/quote]

They say in the last 136 years? Who's record??? ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!! :dancing:
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jul 24, 2015 11:19AM)
I forecast that it will always gradually get warmer after an age ice and despite the fact we are coming out of an ice age this winter we will be hit with deep, drifting snow and the coldest temperatures for 100 years again and that a year is a year and the hottest year on record can't be measure until the year is over, unless you are a silly climate hysteric.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jul 27, 2015 08:24AM)
[quote]On Jul 23, 2015, Pop Haydn wrote:
This is the hottest year on record:

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/s/earth-now-hottest-ever-recorded-history-200534538.html [/quote]

I'm pretty sure everyone here will happily disregard this as it's not from a peer-reviewed study.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jul 27, 2015 08:26AM)
[quote]On Jul 23, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
...
You talking to me? If so you haven't paid attention to what I say. I support the peer-reviewed science.
... [/quote]

Well ... as long as the peer-reviewed science supports your beliefs. I'm pretty sure I've posted a few links to peer-reviewed reports that you were happy to discount.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jul 27, 2015 09:42AM)
[quote]On Jul 27, 2015, rockwall wrote:
[quote]On Jul 23, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
...
You talking to me? If so you haven't paid attention to what I say. I support the peer-reviewed science.
... [/quote]

Well ... as long as the peer-reviewed science supports your beliefs. I'm pretty sure I've posted a few links to peer-reviewed reports that you were happy to discount. [/quote]

Mostly I dispute posted articles that

a) do not claim what the linker claims they claim (very common in this forum),
b) are not relevant to the discussion, or
c) are currently under dispute by other scientists, or have been discredited by the field.
Message: Posted by: Pop Haydn (Jul 27, 2015 12:13PM)
Is it so easy to dispense with the research of the NOAA? Rockwall, you still believe these are the people who are trying to take over the world?

"NOAA is an agency that enriches life through science. Our reach goes from the surface of the sun to the depths of the ocean floor as we work to keep citizens informed of the changing environment around them.

"From daily weather forecasts, severe storm warnings and climate monitoring to fisheries management, coastal restoration and supporting marine commerce, NOAA’s products and services support economic vitality and affect more than one-third of America’s gross domestic product. NOAA’s dedicated scientists use cutting-edge research and high-tech instrumentation to provide citizens, planners, emergency managers and other decision makers with reliable information they need when they need it.

"NOAA's roots date back to 1807, when the Nation’s first scientific agency, the Survey of the Coast, was established. Since then, NOAA has evolved to meet the needs of a changing country. NOAA maintains a presence in every state and has emerged as an international leader on scientific and environmental matters.

"NOAA’s mission touches the lives of every American and we are proud of our role in protecting life and property and conserving and protecting natural resources. I hope you will explore NOAA and how our products and services can enrich your own life."
Message: Posted by: Pop Haydn (Jul 27, 2015 12:13PM)
Is it so easy to dispense with the research of the NOAA? Rockwall, you still believe these are the people who are trying to take over the world?

"NOAA is an agency that enriches life through science. Our reach goes from the surface of the sun to the depths of the ocean floor as we work to keep citizens informed of the changing environment around them.

"From daily weather forecasts, severe storm warnings and climate monitoring to fisheries management, coastal restoration and supporting marine commerce, NOAA’s products and services support economic vitality and affect more than one-third of America’s gross domestic product. NOAA’s dedicated scientists use cutting-edge research and high-tech instrumentation to provide citizens, planners, emergency managers and other decision makers with reliable information they need when they need it.

"NOAA's roots date back to 1807, when the Nation’s first scientific agency, the Survey of the Coast, was established. Since then, NOAA has evolved to meet the needs of a changing country. NOAA maintains a presence in every state and has emerged as an international leader on scientific and environmental matters.

"NOAA’s mission touches the lives of every American and we are proud of our role in protecting life and property and conserving and protecting natural resources. I hope you will explore NOAA and how our products and services can enrich your own life."
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jul 27, 2015 01:19PM)
Their search has gone from the surface of the sun to the depths of the ocean floor and still they can't find the warming. Is it in heaven or is it hell?
Message: Posted by: Pop Haydn (Jul 27, 2015 04:11PM)
[quote]On Jul 27, 2015, tommy wrote:
Their search has gone from the surface of the sun to the depths of the ocean floor and still they can't find the warming. Is it in heaven or is it hell? [/quote]

They found it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/05/science/noaa-research-presents-evidence-against-a-global-warming-hiatus.html
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Jul 27, 2015 05:02PM)
New Glacier on Mt. St. Helens grows despite claims of Global Warming.. ;)

http://www.slideshare.net/whitehouse/birth-certificatelongform

https://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=mcafee&type=C211US662D20140705&p=glacier+mt+st+helens
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jul 27, 2015 05:11PM)
[quote]On Jul 27, 2015, Pop Haydn wrote:
Is it so easy to dispense with the research of the NOAA? Rockwall, you still believe these are the people who are trying to take over the world?

... [/quote]

???? Did I ever make such a claim???
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jul 27, 2015 05:12PM)
Anyone here read SeveneveS?

What I'm getting at is that it's not so much the "what if something bad happens" as what can we do ... really?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jul 27, 2015 05:13PM)
[quote]On Jul 27, 2015, Slim King wrote:
New Glacier on Mt. St. Helens grows despite claims of Global Warming.. ;)

http://www.slideshare.net/whitehouse/birth-certificatelongform

https://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=mcafee&type=C211US662D20140705&p=glacier+mt+st+helens [/quote]

Do you do this on purpose? One link goes to Obama's birth certificate and the other is a Yahoo search of "glacier mt st Helens"

I used to think you actually meant the things you post, Slim.

I'm finally getting the message that you simply enjoy the air time.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Jul 27, 2015 05:22PM)
My bad... I was looking at the fake BC before this..
Here is the correct link.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crater_Glacier

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqcjF5C03DI
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jul 27, 2015 05:57PM)
I actually think the climate hysterics know it's a scam.
Message: Posted by: RNK (Jul 28, 2015 06:46AM)
[quote]On Jul 27, 2015, tommy wrote:
I actually think the climate hysterics know it's a scam. [/quote]

Of course they do but they NEED that gov't grant money.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jul 28, 2015 07:48AM)
[quote]On Jul 23, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
And WHICH study was allegedly debunked? The NASA site I linked refers to 18 studies:

[quote]Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities. In addition, [b]most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.[/b] The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

{List of eighteen studies follows) [/quote]

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

There are MULTIPLE studies listed here as well:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/scientific-consensus-on.html#.VbB02_mrFyE [/quote]

Apparantly, Bob is the one who doesn't read the stuff he posts. (And dishonestly posts items in quotes that aren't part of the original quote.)

Notice his quote above from NASA's site which ends with the part that says, "{List of eighteen studies follows)".

If you go to the link Bob provides, you'll see that that last little bit is NOT part of the quote. What DOES follow the section he quotes is the header to another section that states, "Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations".

You'll notice that these two statements are completely different. "Statement's on climate change" is COMPLETELY different than "studies" on the scientific consensus.

Bob wants you to believe that NASA is linking to 18 different studies on the scientific consensus when it is actually ONLY commenting on the study in the OP.
Message: Posted by: NicholasD (Jul 28, 2015 08:47PM)
Hillary Clinton says that global warming is "settled science". If that's the case, shouldn't ALL scientists agree?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jul 28, 2015 09:10PM)
More importantly, why are we paying climate hysterics billions now and more and more every year if it is "settled science" to carry on looking into the question?


Every aspect of climate hysterics claims stinks to high heaven of honesty. That is typical of any scam, as the surface is scratched they do not stand up to close scrutiny,

Have you ever seen a scientific claim like it in your life?

Even people from NASA are saying it is bull.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jul 28, 2015 09:25PM)
[quote]On Jul 28, 2015, RNK wrote:
[quote]On Jul 27, 2015, tommy wrote:
I actually think the climate hysterics know it's a scam. [/quote]

Of course they do but they NEED that gov't grant money. [/quote]

Way more money to be made selling expensive "save the world" programs and teaching folks to "do good"... like snitching when they water their lawns or buying two bottles of water on the wrong day of the week.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Jul 28, 2015 09:53PM)
[quote]On Jul 28, 2015, NicholasD wrote:
Hillary Clinton says that global warming is "settled science". If that's the case, shouldn't ALL scientists agree? [/quote]
Simply saying that proves she's lying.
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (Jul 28, 2015 10:46PM)
To quote Eric hoffer. “Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.” Wonder where we are on this one?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jul 28, 2015 11:28PM)
Met Office caught out over its 'hottest July day ever’ claim
Was the recent 'record' merely caused by a blast of hot air from a passing airliner at Heathrow?


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11733731/Met-Office-caught-out-over-its-hottest-July-day-ever-claim.html

Mystery grows over Met Office’s 'hottest day’
It was odd to base a claimed record of 36.7C (98F) on a single reading at Heathrow airport

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11718504/Mystery-grows-over-Met-Offices-hottest-day.html


American Catholic Schools Embrace Pope’s Climate Change Encyclical

http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/24/american-catholic-schools-embrace-popes-climate-change-encyclical/

Oh god

http://www.ibtimes.com/catholics-philippines-make-climate-change-priority-after-pope-francis-encyclical-2019350
Message: Posted by: RNK (Jul 29, 2015 08:20AM)
[quote]On Jul 28, 2015, Slim King wrote:
[quote]On Jul 28, 2015, NicholasD wrote:
Hillary Clinton says that global warming is "settled science". If that's the case, shouldn't ALL scientists agree? [/quote]
Simply saying that proves she's lying. [/quote]

For her to make such a statement shows her incompetence. So sad.....
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jul 31, 2015 02:13PM)
New study. Consensus is more like 43%?

http://joannenova.com.au/2015/07/less-than-half-of-climate-scientists-agree-with-the-ipcc-95-certainty/

(Note, that 43% number is how many climate scientists that were surveyed believe the IPCC major finding that “It is extremely likely {95%+ certainty} that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. ”)

I found another tidbit in the study that I found even more interesting. Only 36.5% of those surveyed believe that temperature has even 'slightly increased' in the last decade. A full 68% believe the long term warming trend has either changed or can no longer claim that temperatures will continue to increase.

Here's the link to the actual study and not just JoNova's analysis.

http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/pbl-2015-climate-science-survey-questions-and-responses_01731.pdf
Message: Posted by: RNK (Jul 31, 2015 02:16PM)
[quote]On Jul 31, 2015, rockwall wrote:
New study. Consensus is more like 43%?

http://joannenova.com.au/2015/07/less-than-half-of-climate-scientists-agree-with-the-ipcc-95-certainty/

(Note, that 43% number is how many climate scientists that were surveyed believe the IPCC major finding that “It is extremely likely {95%+ certainty} that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. ”)

I found another tidbit in the study that I found even more interesting. Only 36.5% of those surveyed believe that temperature has even 'slightly increased' in the last decade. A full 68% believe the long term warming trend has either changed or can no longer claim that temperatures will continue to increase.

Here's the link to the actual study and not just JoNova's analysis.

http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/pbl-2015-climate-science-survey-questions-and-responses_01731.pdf [/quote]

Can't wait to here the spin the left puts on this......
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jul 31, 2015 02:44PM)
[quote]On Jul 31, 2015, RNK wrote:
[quote]On Jul 31, 2015, rockwall wrote:
New study. Consensus is more like 43%?

http://joannenova.com.au/2015/07/less-than-half-of-climate-scientists-agree-with-the-ipcc-95-certainty/

(Note, that 43% number is how many climate scientists that were surveyed believe the IPCC major finding that “It is extremely likely {95%+ certainty} that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. ”)

I found another tidbit in the study that I found even more interesting. Only 36.5% of those surveyed believe that temperature has even 'slightly increased' in the last decade. A full 68% believe the long term warming trend has either changed or can no longer claim that temperatures will continue to increase.

Here's the link to the actual study and not just JoNova's analysis.

http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/pbl-2015-climate-science-survey-questions-and-responses_01731.pdf [/quote]

Can't wait to here the spin the left puts on this...... [/quote]

The historical Fabius Maximus is famous for trying to starve Hannibal's army into submission. His policy was overturned by the Roman Senate, and armies were sent to be slaughtered by the Carthiginian (and mercenary) army.

Now a collection of retired US Military personnel collectively calling themselves Fabius Maximus gives their word that climate scientists don't agree with a single statement. And we're supposed to conclude what, exactly?

Apart from desperation, that is.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jul 31, 2015 06:53PM)
Huh? and huh? If anything sounds like desperation, it would have to have been that unintelligible horse twaddle.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jul 31, 2015 10:43PM)
I would also call it desperation to completely and utterly misrepresent the claims made within a post in an attempt to make some sort of point.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jul 31, 2015 11:03PM)
Had to find http://fabiusmaximus.com/

will do some reading there tomorrow
Message: Posted by: Gbhunter77 (Aug 1, 2015 01:06AM)
I am by no means well educated. However I do have some questions that perhaps some of you can answer. I studied weather in Europe in my country of birth in particular(Poland). Acording to many sources and records the weather in Poland changed so much that it was summer for over 100 years. Farmers had multiple harvests per year the population swelled due to the abundance of food and people got complacent. Things were not entirely great as new diseases emerged that were more fit for tropical climates. Unfortunately the complacency was a horrible mistake since after the mentioned warm weather Poland was hit with a mini ice age for over 70 years. The cold was so bad that the Baltic froze for years to the point where cities could exist on the water year round. There were stories of people walking to Finland, Sweden and those areas. So why is this not mentioned in the climate change debate?

Also why did no source mention that up until recently China had a massive underground coal fire that pumped massive amounts of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. There are many such fires all over the world a large chunk in the United States.
No one seems to mention that China,India,Mexico and many other countries that the United States and its cohorts use for cheap labour pollute like threre is no tomorrow. There are areas in Mexico that are so toxic people not from the area will die if they enter without breathing equipment. China has been cought dumping raw mercury into rivers from circuit board reclamation plants.

I do not know if this data is available but I would very much like to see the effect that Krakatoa had on the environment in 1883 I think.

I just don't buy it. The Ice caps were shrinking then all of a sudden they stopped grew much bigger and no one mentioned it again. This is why I no longer trust much of mainstream funded science (among other things I know).

I would very much like to hear other views, without the need for attacking or childish name calling.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Aug 1, 2015 01:13AM)
So that 97% figure is really only 43%... Hmmmmmm.. (In my best Ricky Ricardo voice) Somebody got some splanin' to do....
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/07/less-than-half-of-climate-scientists-agree-with-the-ipcc-95-certainty/
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 1, 2015 09:05AM)
[quote]On Jul 31, 2015, rockwall wrote:
I would also call it desperation to completely and utterly misrepresent the claims made within a post in an attempt to make some sort of point. [/quote]

From your original link

[quote]Fabius Maximus deserves credit for finding and analyzing the study. He notes that only 64% agreed that man-made CO2 was the main or dominant driver controlling more than half of the temperature rise. But of this group (1,222 scientists), only 797 said it was “virtually certain” or “extremely likely”. That’s just 43% of climate scientists who fully agree with the IPCC statement. [/quote]

From the [url=http://fabiusmaximus.com/about/authors/]Fabius Maxumus[/url] link in the quoted article.

[quote]
The authors of the FM website
(1) Chet Richards (Colonel, USAF, retired), former Editor

Ph.D. Mathematics. Colonel, USAF, retired. Long-time editor of the original Defense and the National Interest website (archived here — NO relationship to the site now at that address!), and blogs at Fast Transients. He is Adjunct Professor of Strategy and Quantitative Methods at Kennesaw St. University in Atlanta, and author of

A Swift, Elusive Sword: What if Sun Tzu and John Boyd Did a National Defense Review? (2003).
Certain to Win: The Strategy of John Boyd (2004),
Neither Shall the Sword: Conflict in the Years Ahead (2005), and
If We Can Keep It: A National Security Manifesto for the Next Administration (2008).
Alth0ugh he played a decisive role in the creation and early days of the FM website, and still provides valuable guidance, he assumes no responsibility for the material on this website.


(2) Joe Bonham (pseudonym)

Joe completed 5 years in the US Marine Corps, including two tours in Afghanistan. He is now a Sergeant in the National Guard, deploying to the Middle East this Fall.

In the 1938 novel Johnny Got His Gun, by Dalton Trumbo, Joe Bonham was a young soldier serving in World War I, who awoke in a hospital bed after being caught in the blast of an artillery shell. He gradually realizes that he has lost his arms, legs, and face, but that his mind functions perfectly, leaving him a prisoner in his own body, and embarks on a struggle to communicate, and to retain his own sanity.


(3) H. Thomas Hayden (Lt. Colonel, USMC, retired)

He retired after 35 years of service, which included the Agency for International Development, the Marine Corps, defense industry and the Pentagon. His specialties are Intelligence, Counterinsurgency Operations, Anti/Counter-terrorism, and Joint Concepts Development and Experimentation.
His Marine Corps assignments included command of two separate battalions; AC/S G-2, 4th MARDIV & AC/S G-2 FMFEurope; Branch Head, HQMC, Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict (SO/LIC); Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for SO/LIC; and, Senior Program Analysts at HQMC with the Joint Staff and DoD at the Pentagon. Overseas combat assignments included Vietnam, Central America, Gulf War, Somalia and and Colombia.
He has a MBA (Pepperdine Univ) and an MA in International Relations (Univ of Southern California).
He has written two books and is working on a third.
Hayden’s other publications:

Warfighting: Maneuver Warfare in the US Marine Corps (1995)
Shadow War: Special Operations and Low Intensive Conflict (1991)
Contributor to Amphibious Assault: Manoeuver from the Sea, Royal Navy and Royal Marine (2005)
“Counterinsurgency in Iraq started with Fallujah”, Marine Corps Gazette, October 2007
“Winning Hearts and Minds — Afghanistan presents different problems,” Marine Corps Gazette, June 2010
See his past articles at Military.com (he no longer publishes there)
See his news columns at Poliquicks.Com.

(4) Don Vandergriff (Major, US Army, retired)

He retired in 2005 at the rank of Major after 24 years of active duty as an enlisted Marine and Army officer. He now works as a consultant to the municipalities, corporations, and the US Army. See this page for a list of his books and other publications.


(5) G.I. Wilson (Colonel, USMC, retired)

He on retired from the Marine Corps after 30+ years of military service, including several combat tours. He co-authored the seminal paper “The Changing Face of War: Into the Fourth Generation”, Marine Corps Gazette, October 1989 (image here, text here). He has Master of Arts degrees in forensic psychology and in Business and Organizational Security Management. He teaches for the Administration of Justice Department of Palomar College (San Marcos, CA). Also, he consults for ABC-7 Los Angeles, Knowledge and Intelligence Program Professionals KIPP), and the Emergency Response Research Institute (ERRI). See this page for his background, education, and publications.


(6) Marcus J. Ranum

Marcus J. Ranum is Senior Strategist at Tenable Network Security and author of The Myth of Homeland Security (2003).

He is a world-renowned expert on security system design and implementation. He is recognized as an early innovator in firewall technology, and the implementor of the first commercial firewall product. Since the late 1980′s, he has designed a number of groundbreaking security products including the DEC SEAL, the TIS firewall toolkit, the Gauntlet firewall, and NFR’s Network Flight Recorder intrusion detection system.

He has been involved in every level of operations of a security product business, from developer, to founder and CEO of NFR. Marcus has served as a consultant to many FORTUNE 500 firms and national governments, as well as serving as a guest lecturer and instructor at numerous high-tech conferences. In 2001, he was awarded the TISC “Clue” award for service to the security community, and the ISSA Lifetime Achievement Award. Marcus is Chief Of Security for Tenable Security, Inc., where he is responsible for research in open source logging tools, and product training. He serves as a technology advisor to a number of start-ups, established concerns, and venture capital groups.


(7) The pseudonym Fabius Maximus

The current editor of the FM website is Larry Kummer. He has 37 years experience in the finance industry in a variety of role. Until October 2013 he was a vice president and senior portfolio manager at UBS.

He was a Boy Scout leader for 15 years, concluding as Director and VP-Finance of the Mt Diablo-Silverado Council. For 20 years he was an active Republican, working on many campaigns — until the party abandoned its traditional principles.

He began writing about geopolitics in 2003 at the Defense and the National Interest website. The DNI staff set up the FM website when DNI closed down in 2007.[/quote]

And they get their Roman history a bit mixed up.

[quote]

(8) Who was Fabius Maximus?

Fabius Maximus (280 – 203 BC) saved Rome from Hannibal by recognizing Rome’s weakness and the need to conserve its strength. He turned from the easy path of boldness to the long, difficult trek of rebuilding Rome’s power and greatness. His life holds profound lessons for 21st Century Americans.[/quote]

But hey, you provided the links. All I did was read the ***ed things.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Aug 2, 2015 08:03PM)
[quote]On Aug 1, 2015, Slim King wrote:
So that 97% figure is really only 43%... Hmmmmmm.. (In my best Ricky Ricardo voice) Somebody got some splanin' to do....
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/07/less-than-half-of-climate-scientists-agree-with-the-ipcc-95-certainty/ [/quote]
So why did 54% change their minds about Man Made Global Warming?
Message: Posted by: RNK (Aug 3, 2015 06:50AM)
[quote]On Aug 1, 2015, Gbhunter77 wrote:
I am by no means well educated. However I do have some questions that perhaps some of you can answer. I studied weather in Europe in my country of birth in particular(Poland). Acording to many sources and records the weather in Poland changed so much that it was summer for over 100 years. Farmers had multiple harvests per year the population swelled due to the abundance of food and people got complacent. Things were not entirely great as new diseases emerged that were more fit for tropical climates. Unfortunately the complacency was a horrible mistake since after the mentioned warm weather Poland was hit with a mini ice age for over 70 years. The cold was so bad that the Baltic froze for years to the point where cities could exist on the water year round. There were stories of people walking to Finland, Sweden and those areas. So why is this not mentioned in the climate change debate?

Also why did no source mention that up until recently China had a massive underground coal fire that pumped massive amounts of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. There are many such fires all over the world a large chunk in the United States.
No one seems to mention that China,India,Mexico and many other countries that the United States and its cohorts use for cheap labour pollute like threre is no tomorrow. There are areas in Mexico that are so toxic people not from the area will die if they enter without breathing equipment. China has been cought dumping raw mercury into rivers from circuit board reclamation plants.

I do not know if this data is available but I would very much like to see the effect that Krakatoa had on the environment in 1883 I think.

I just don't buy it. The Ice caps were shrinking then all of a sudden they stopped grew much bigger and no one mentioned it again. This is why I no longer trust much of mainstream funded science (among other things I know).

I would very much like to hear other views, without the need for attacking or childish name calling. [/quote]


The weather has always been relatively unpredictable. The Earth goes through cycles, natural cycles. This is what you have read about. Of course it won't be mentioned by the media because is goes against their liberal agenda with control and more taxes.

The main point to remember is that weather forecasters can't accurately predict tomorrow's weather. And throughout history the Earth has gone through major climate shifts when man was NOT here. This being the case, to say MAN is causing the climate to change is laughable, literally.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Aug 3, 2015 09:23AM)
[quote]On Jul 31, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
...
The historical Fabius Maximus is famous for trying to starve Hannibal's army into submission. His policy was overturned by the Roman Senate, and armies were sent to be slaughtered by the Carthiginian (and mercenary) army.

Now a collection of retired US Military personnel collectively calling themselves Fabius Maximus gives their word that climate scientists don't agree with a single statement. And we're supposed to conclude what, exactly?

Apart from desperation, that is. [/quote]

OK, I see what you're doing now.

Since you couldn't discredit the study, and you couldn't discredit the scientists who did the study, you decided to try and discredit the people 'commenting' on the study.

So, instead of dishonestly making up something that the people commenting on the study said, (that climate scientists don't agree with a single statement), why not try actually reading the study itself. (I think that's the exact same advice I've seen you offer to others on these boards btw.)
Message: Posted by: RNK (Aug 3, 2015 09:31AM)
[quote]On Aug 3, 2015, rockwall wrote:
[quote]On Jul 31, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
...
The historical Fabius Maximus is famous for trying to starve Hannibal's army into submission. His policy was overturned by the Roman Senate, and armies were sent to be slaughtered by the Carthiginian (and mercenary) army.

Now a collection of retired US Military personnel collectively calling themselves Fabius Maximus gives their word that climate scientists don't agree with a single statement. And we're supposed to conclude what, exactly?

Apart from desperation, that is. [/quote]

OK, I see what you're doing now.

Since you couldn't discredit the study, and you couldn't discredit the scientists who did the study, you decided to try and discredit the people 'commenting' on the study.

So, instead of dishonestly making up something that the people commenting on the study said, (that climate scientists don't agree with a single statement), why not try actually reading the study itself. (I think that's the exact same advice I've seen you offer to others on these boards btw.) [/quote]

+1 Too funny.....
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 3, 2015 10:28AM)
[quote]On Aug 3, 2015, rockwall wrote:
[quote]On Jul 31, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
...
The historical Fabius Maximus is famous for trying to starve Hannibal's army into submission. His policy was overturned by the Roman Senate, and armies were sent to be slaughtered by the Carthiginian (and mercenary) army.

Now a collection of retired US Military personnel collectively calling themselves Fabius Maximus gives their word that climate scientists don't agree with a single statement. And we're supposed to conclude what, exactly?

Apart from desperation, that is. [/quote]

OK, I see what you're doing now.

Since you couldn't discredit the study, and you couldn't discredit the scientists who did the study, you decided to try and discredit the people 'commenting' on the study.

So, instead of dishonestly making up something that the people commenting on the study said, (that climate scientists don't agree with a single statement), why not try actually reading the study itself. (I think that's the exact same advice I've seen you offer to others on these boards btw.) [/quote]

Apparently not. In fact you appear to be back to your old ways of posting links to things you haven't even read.

The study does not say what the article claims. The "analysis" is nowhere available. But we are assured in the article that Fabius Maximus did a great job of the analysis.

I am mocking your desperation. You find a headline that appeals to your beliefs and you trot it out as if it's the greatest piece of evidence. Yet you cannot be bothered to even read the source material, or to even think about its quality.

The headline suits your agenda.

I really should stop doing you the courtesy of taking your links seriously enough to read them.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 3, 2015 10:51AM)
By the way, the PBL study you didn't bother to read says (among other things)

[quote]Based on these criteria and on the number of respondents, we are confident that our results are representative of the wider scientific field of researchers studying various aspects of climate change. We deliberately surveyed a broad group of scientists; this is different from, for example, an expert elicitation. We checked that our survey respondents were representative of the larger group of invitees, by using various pieces of meta-information. Because the respondents to our survey also included signatories to public statements who are not necessarily published scientists, it is likely that viewpoints that run counter to the prevailing consensus are somewhat (i.e. by a few percentage points) magnified in our results.

...

Consistent with previous studies, we found that the level of agreement with the IPCC position increases with increasing expertise in climate science, as judged by the self-reported number of peer-reviewed publications on climate change. Likewise, this level of agreement is stronger for respondents with self-reported domain expertise. When comparing the level of consensus with those in other surveys, a few factors should be considered: Is it an opinion survey or a literature survey? How is the ‘consensus’ position defined? Who is being surveyed? Considering these factors, our results are in good agreement with those from comparable studies, with some main differences being that our survey is more detailed and our definition of the ‘consensus’ position more specific. The level of detail allowed us to make a number of other inferences regarding, for example, aerosol cooling vs greenhouse warming, the IPCC statement on attribution, and media coverage. The interested reader is referred to our article in [url=http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es501998e]Environmental Science &Technology[/url] for more information.[/quote]
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 3, 2015 11:07AM)
What is "his agenda" John?

Ever notice how everyone but you and those you agree with have "an agenda"?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 3, 2015 11:33AM)
What do you think, Danny?

My agenda is to be honest about evidence. To respect the truth. To align public policy with the best available knowledge.

I'll let rockwall answer for himself. It certainly appears that his agenda is to actively deny the science, which he consistently does by linking to things that he hasn't read, but appear to be damaging to the widely-held scientific consensus on the issue.

Me, I'm worried about pollution and environmental degradation. I'll support any political party that takes these issues seriously. Sadly, I don't see any really serious parties (on environmental issues) in either Canada or the US.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 3, 2015 12:05PM)
So anyone who disagrees with you by definition is trying to be dishonest.

You wonder why things get so contentious and you frame things like that. Go figure.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 3, 2015 12:14PM)
[quote]On Aug 3, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
So anyone who disagrees with you by definition is trying to be dishonest. [/quote]

No.

[quote]You wonder why things get so contentious and you frame things like that. Go figure. [/quote]

Those who misrepresent the facts have either made a mistake or are ignorant or are dishonest.

You've misrepresented what I said: which are you?
Message: Posted by: RNK (Aug 3, 2015 12:29PM)
[quote]On Aug 3, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
What do you think, Danny?
Sadly, I don't see any really serious parties (on environmental issues) in either Canada or the US. [/quote]

Of course, because it's not a serious issue.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Aug 3, 2015 12:30PM)
[quote]On Aug 3, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
...

Apparently not. In fact you appear to be back to your old ways of posting links to things you haven't even read.

... [/quote]

Well, seeing as how I posted a link to the actual study AND posted two other findings in the actual study that I found interesting,

i.e. "I found another tidbit in the study that I found even more interesting. Only 36.5% of those surveyed believe that temperature has even 'slightly increased' in the last decade. A full 68% believe the long term warming trend has either changed or can no longer claim that temperatures will continue to increase."

So, it appears that YOU'RE the one back to YOUR old ways of lying about me not having read what I just posted with absolutely zero proof.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Aug 3, 2015 12:35PM)
So can we now all agree that the 97% figure is 100% bogus?
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Aug 3, 2015 12:44PM)
[quote]On Aug 3, 2015, Slim King wrote:
So can we now all agree that the 97% figure is 100% bogus? [/quote]

Well no, not exactly. Depends on what you're claiming the 97% believe. If you're claiming that 97% agree that the climate has warmed in the last 100 years and that some of that warming can be attributed to man, then that claim is probably pretty accurate. If you're claiming that 97% believe everything claimed within the IPCC report or that there hasn't been a pause in global warming or that climate change is the greatest threat to face modern man, then not so much.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 3, 2015 12:50PM)
[quote]On Aug 3, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]On Aug 3, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
So anyone who disagrees with you by definition is trying to be dishonest. [/quote]

No.

[quote]You wonder why things get so contentious and you frame things like that. Go figure. [/quote]

Those who misrepresent the facts have either made a mistake or are ignorant or are dishonest.

You've misrepresented what I said: which are you? [/quote]

Yea Name calling. You do that every time you lose wind in your sails. Presumably do to global climate change.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 3, 2015 12:54PM)
[quote]On Aug 3, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]On Aug 3, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]On Aug 3, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
So anyone who disagrees with you by definition is trying to be dishonest. [/quote]

No.

[quote]You wonder why things get so contentious and you frame things like that. Go figure. [/quote]

Those who misrepresent the facts have either made a mistake or are ignorant or are dishonest.

You've misrepresented what I said: which are you? [/quote]

Yea Name calling. You do that every time you lose wind in your sails. Presumably do to global climate change. [/quote]

I didn't call you a name. You misrepresent me again.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Aug 3, 2015 01:00PM)
[quote]On Aug 3, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
...
Those who misrepresent the facts have either made a mistake or are ignorant or are dishonest.
... [/quote]

So, when you said, "now a collection of retired US Military personnel ... gives their word that climate scientists don't agree with a single statement.", was that a mistake or ignorance or were you just being dishonest? And which was it when you claimed that I hadn't read the report?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 3, 2015 01:23PM)
Rockwall, if you say that before you posted the links you read the news article, were aware of who the Flavius Maximus team are, and that you read the original research article, then I will admit that I was mistaken.

The evidence to date is that you didn't know/do those things.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Aug 3, 2015 02:54PM)
Did you guys just hear the last sermon on Global Warming?
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Aug 3, 2015 03:35PM)
[quote]On Aug 3, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Rockwall, if you say that before you posted the links you read the news article, were aware of who the Flavius Maximus team are, and that you read the original research article, then I will admit that I was mistaken.

The evidence to date is that you didn't know/do those things. [/quote]

As I already pointed out, it's obvious that I read the report as I commented on items that were ONLY in the report and would have had a hard time commenting on them without having read the report.
Message: Posted by: Kabbalah (Aug 3, 2015 03:37PM)
[quote]On Aug 3, 2015, Slim King wrote:

Did you guys just hear the last sermon on Global Warming? [/quote]

Yes.

[b]It's for the children![/b]

Now, it won't be long before our electric bills necessarily skyrocket.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 3, 2015 03:38PM)
Ok I'll take your word. I don't understand how you didn't understand my initial post. My apologies for my error.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Aug 3, 2015 03:43PM)
I read the original article on JoNova AND I read the report that she was linking to. I didn't read, (or claim to), the link to the Fabius Maximus sight as I preferred to read the original report instead of what someone was claiming the report said so that I could draw my own conclusions. Which is why I highlighted two items from the original report which I found even more interesting than what they were claiming the report said.

I'm still waiting for you to show us the quote where Fabius Maximus made the claim that scientists don't agree on anything.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Aug 3, 2015 03:56PM)
[quote]On Aug 3, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
...

The study does not say what the article claims. The "analysis" is nowhere available. But we are assured in the article that Fabius Maximus did a great job of the analysis.

I am mocking your desperation. You find a headline that appeals to your beliefs and you trot it out as if it's the greatest piece of evidence. Yet you cannot be bothered to even read the source material, or to even think about its quality.
...
[/quote]

I decided to take a look at your second claim, that the study does not say what the article claims and that there is no "analysis". Again, totally wrong. Are you sure you read the article you claim to have read?

"The PBL survey is the first I’ve seen to test agreement with both facets of that statement. First, how much of the global surface warming is caused by anthropogenic (human-caused) emissions of greenhouse gases? (Note AR5 referred to all factors; see “Details” below). Only 1,222 of 1,868 (64% of respondents) agreed with AR5 that the answer was over 50%. If we exclude the 164 (8.8%) “I don’t know” respondents, 72% agree with the IPCC. So far, so good.

Now for the second part of the statement: what is the certainty of this finding? That the IPCC gives these answers is one of its great strengths. Of the 1,222 respondents to the PBL survey who said that the anthropogenic contribution was over 50%, 797 (65%) said it was 95%+ certain (which the IPCC defines as “virtually certain” or “extremely likely”).

Those 797 respondents are 43% of all 1,868 respondents (47% excluding the “don’t know” group). The PBL survey finds that only a minority (a large minority) of climate scientists agree with the AR5 keynote statement."

(Charts included in the analysis from the original study.)

That's what is normally called 'analysis' Magnus. Now, if you disagree with the analysis, you're welcome to explain why but by saying that no analysis exists is, (in your words) either a mistake or ignorance or dishonesty.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 3, 2015 05:07PM)
[quote]On Aug 3, 2015, rockwall wrote:
[quote]On Aug 3, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
...

The study does not say what the article claims. The "analysis" is nowhere available. But we are assured in the article that Fabius Maximus did a great job of the analysis.

I am mocking your desperation. You find a headline that appeals to your beliefs and you trot it out as if it's the greatest piece of evidence. Yet you cannot be bothered to even read the source material, or to even think about its quality.
...
[/quote]

I decided to take a look at your second claim, that the study does not say what the article claims and that there is no "analysis". Again, totally wrong. Are you sure you read the article you claim to have read?

"The PBL survey is the first I’ve seen to test agreement with both facets of that statement. First, how much of the global surface warming is caused by anthropogenic (human-caused) emissions of greenhouse gases? (Note AR5 referred to all factors; see “Details” below). Only 1,222 of 1,868 (64% of respondents) agreed with AR5 that the answer was over 50%. If we exclude the 164 (8.8%) “I don’t know” respondents, 72% agree with the IPCC. So far, so good.

Now for the second part of the statement: what is the certainty of this finding? That the IPCC gives these answers is one of its great strengths. Of the 1,222 respondents to the PBL survey who said that the anthropogenic contribution was over 50%, 797 (65%) said it was 95%+ certain (which the IPCC defines as “virtually certain” or “extremely likely”).

Those 797 respondents are 43% of all 1,868 respondents (47% excluding the “don’t know” group). The PBL survey finds that only a minority (a large minority) of climate scientists agree with the AR5 keynote statement."

(Charts included in the analysis from the original study.)

That's what is normally called 'analysis' Magnus. Now, if you disagree with the analysis, you're welcome to explain why but by saying that no analysis exists is, (in your words) either a mistake or ignorance or dishonesty. [/quote]

I think you have a very poor idea of what "analysis" is, rockwall.

Be that as it may, let's look at the bit you are quoting.

The IPCC statment (which is just above the bit you quoted from the Fabius Maxumus website) says

[quote]It is extremely likely {95%+ certainty} that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together.[quote]

Here's the PBL question:
[img]http://jo.nova.s3.amazonaws.com/graph/psychology/consensus/pbl-1a.jpg[/img]

Do you see a slight difference in the questions? Fabius Maximus and Joanne Nova conveniently ignore the phrase [b]and other anthropogenic forcings together[/b].

Well, duh. Small wonder the numbers aren't the same. They aren't even the same question.

Enjoy your little victories. I'm done with this little sideshow. The PBL study agrees with IPCC so far as I can see. "Fabius Maximus" distorts the questions and makes a statistically dubious move (counting "I don't know" as disagreement).

Knock yourself out. Believe anything you'd like. I'm siding with PBL and IPCC over Joanne Nova and Fabius Maximus, if only because the first two actually know something about climate science, and the second two have no relevant qualifications and have not demonstrated much understanding of the issues.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Aug 3, 2015 05:25PM)
You're correct. There is a 'slight' difference in the question. So slight in fact that I highly doubt that the results of the survey would have been significantly different had the wording been slightly changed to simply say 'anthropogenic factors' period. But speaking of small victories, I'll give you that one.

Wouldn't it be amazing if you submitted the study in the OP to the same sort of analysis as you do any studies that disagree with your agenda?

btw, still waiting for you to show us the quote where Fabius Maximus made the claim that scientists don't agree on anything.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Aug 4, 2015 07:51PM)
Scientists don't agree on anything?
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Aug 6, 2015 01:54PM)
[quote]On Aug 3, 2015, RNK wrote:
[quote]On Aug 3, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
What do you think, Danny?
Sadly, I don't see any really serious parties (on environmental issues) in either Canada or the US. [/quote]

Of course, because it's not a serious issue. [/quote]

Seriously? Whether you take global warming seriously or not, environmental issues are always serious. Unless you WANT to go back to when the rivers caught fire and children and old people were told not to leave their houses because the air was unfit to breathe.
Message: Posted by: RNK (Aug 6, 2015 02:51PM)
[quote]On Aug 6, 2015, ed rhodes wrote:
[quote]On Aug 3, 2015, RNK wrote:
[quote]On Aug 3, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
What do you think, Danny?
Sadly, I don't see any really serious parties (on environmental issues) in either Canada or the US. [/quote]

Of course, because it's not a serious issue. [/quote]

Seriously? Whether you take global warming seriously or not, environmental issues are always serious. Unless you WANT to go back to when the rivers caught fire and children and old people were told not to leave their houses because the air was unfit to breathe. [/quote]


Yes Ed- seriously. If it was such a huge and AGREED upon issue- the government would have acted by now. But it's not and there is NO consensus as the latest articles posted here show. Only our President is just now trying to ram a Clean Air Bill down our throats again without any voting just his pen.

I have been in the environmental business since 1997 and I am well aware of the seriousness of environmental issues. And GW is not an issue nor has it been proven to be.
Message: Posted by: Kabbalah (Aug 6, 2015 03:00PM)
[quote]On Aug 6, 2015, RNK wrote:

Only our President is just now trying to ram a Clean Air Bill down our throats again without any voting just his pen.

[/quote]

Cap and Trade by Executive Order.
Message: Posted by: RNK (Aug 6, 2015 03:14PM)
[quote]On Aug 6, 2015, Kabbalah wrote:
[quote]On Aug 6, 2015, RNK wrote:

Only our President is just now trying to ram a Clean Air Bill down our throats again without any voting just his pen.

[/quote]

Cap and Trade by Executive Order. [/quote]

Amazing, isn't it. By a stroke of a pen!
Message: Posted by: Pop Haydn (Aug 6, 2015 04:11PM)
[quote]On Aug 6, 2015, RNK wrote:
[quote]On Aug 6, 2015, Kabbalah wrote:
[quote]On Aug 6, 2015, RNK wrote:

Only our President is just now trying to ram a Clean Air Bill down our throats again without any voting just his pen.

[/quote]

Cap and Trade by Executive Order. [/quote]

Amazing, isn't it. By a stroke of a pen! [/quote]


Yes! Thank goodness.
Message: Posted by: Kabbalah (Aug 6, 2015 04:45PM)
[quote]On Aug 6, 2015, Pop Haydn wrote:
[quote]On Aug 6, 2015, RNK wrote:
[quote]On Aug 6, 2015, Kabbalah wrote:
[quote]On Aug 6, 2015, RNK wrote:

Only our President is just now trying to ram a Clean Air Bill down our throats again without any voting just his pen.

[/quote]

Cap and Trade by Executive Order. [/quote]

Amazing, isn't it. By a stroke of a pen! [/quote]


Yes! Thank goodness. [/quote]

Yes!

Let's make sure we bankrupt the average American with "necessarily skyrocketing" energy costs to curb an innocuous gas!

This mandate will accomplish absolutely nothing other than costing a fortune and making the environmental retards happy campers.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 6, 2015 05:49PM)
[quote]On Aug 6, 2015, Pop Haydn wrote:
[quote]On Aug 6, 2015, RNK wrote:
[quote]On Aug 6, 2015, Kabbalah wrote:
[quote]On Aug 6, 2015, RNK wrote:

Only our President is just now trying to ram a Clean Air Bill down our throats again without any voting just his pen.

[/quote]

Cap and Trade by Executive Order. [/quote]

Amazing, isn't it. By a stroke of a pen! [/quote]


Yes! Thank goodness. [/quote]

Regardless of where one stands on this particular issue do you think this is how the government of our country should run? Keep in mind president stands for those times your team is not in power.
Message: Posted by: Pop Haydn (Aug 6, 2015 07:23PM)
Yes, I think it is the President's job to use every legal power at his disposal to do what he thinks is best for the country. Obama has used his executive powers less than Bush, less than Clinton. I think he should have been more aggressive in his first four years. When Bush or Clinton overreached, the Supreme Court pulled them back. Same with Obama. This tyranny stuff is ridiculous and wrong. It is a fake outrage intended to distract because the Republicans haven't been able to get anything done at all in eight years, even now that they have both houses. They are incapable of ruling, and have become the Gang that Couldn't Shoot Straight.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 6, 2015 07:54PM)
[quote]On Aug 6, 2015, Kabbalah wrote:
[quote]On Aug 6, 2015, RNK wrote:

Only our President is just now trying to ram a Clean Air Bill down our throats again without any voting just his pen.

[/quote]

Cap and Trade by Executive Order. [/quote]

Be careful. Members have been known to be banned for introducing politics into discussions.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 6, 2015 09:22PM)
Executive orders are not intended to be used as they have to bypass the process of making laws by any administration.
Message: Posted by: RNK (Aug 7, 2015 07:37AM)
[quote]On Aug 6, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
Executive orders are not intended to be used as they have to bypass the process of making laws by any administration. [/quote]

This doesn't apply to the Left. They are allowed to overlook the rules. Pop doesn't understand this yet.
Message: Posted by: NicholasD (Aug 7, 2015 09:15AM)
[quote]On Aug 6, 2015, Pop Haydn wrote:
[quote]On Aug 6, 2015, RNK wrote:
[quote]On Aug 6, 2015, Kabbalah wrote:
[quote]On Aug 6, 2015, RNK wrote:

Only our President is just now trying to ram a Clean Air Bill down our throats again without any voting just his pen.

[/quote]

Cap and Trade by Executive Order. [/quote]

Amazing, isn't it. By a stroke of a pen! [/quote]


Yes! Thank goodness. [/quote]

So, one man gets to do this. Gee, and I thought we were a Democracy. What if he's wrong?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 7, 2015 10:30AM)
[quote]On Aug 7, 2015, RNK wrote:
[quote]On Aug 6, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
Executive orders are not intended to be used as they have to bypass the process of making laws by any administration. [/quote]

This doesn't apply to the Left. They are allowed to overlook the rules. Pop doesn't understand this yet. [/quote]

Dangerous road to walk down trying to assume what Pop does and does not know. He is quite intelligent.

He may have a viewpoint and I don't agree but he is always well read and well thought out. He is no poser.
Message: Posted by: RNK (Aug 7, 2015 10:36AM)
[quote]On Aug 7, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]On Aug 7, 2015, RNK wrote:
[quote]On Aug 6, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
Executive orders are not intended to be used as they have to bypass the process of making laws by any administration. [/quote]

This doesn't apply to the Left. They are allowed to overlook the rules. Pop doesn't understand this yet. [/quote]

Dangerous road to walk down trying to assume what Pop does and does not know. He is quite intelligent.

He may have a viewpoint and I don't agree but he is always well read and well thought out. He is no poser. [/quote]

If Pop totally understood then he would have understood why the Republicans can't get anything done- it's called a pen and VETO and would not have made such a statement. Well, not to mention how spineless most of the Republicans have become too.

Further- reading studies and understanding the data that's translated requires formal education. Didn't know Pop had a degree in the environmental field.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Aug 7, 2015 10:41PM)
It's starting to cool off a bit now. :patty:
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 8, 2015 12:07AM)
[quote]On Aug 7, 2015, Slim King wrote:
It's starting to cool off a bit now. :patty: [/quote]

That is called evening Slim. It is way cooler when the sun goes down.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Aug 8, 2015 11:02AM)
Exactly as I thought!!!! :wavey:
Message: Posted by: Pop Haydn (Aug 11, 2015 06:08PM)
[img]http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff250/MantisOahu/atlasgif_ngsversion_839176c388ff4330133df7955f73315d_zpshhfcwpwv.gif[/img]
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Aug 11, 2015 06:23PM)
Http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2014/0919/Antarctic-ice-at-record-high-growth-Arctic-continues-to-lose
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Aug 11, 2015 06:25PM)
Http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2014/0919/Antarctic-ice-at-record-high-growth-Arctic-continues-to-lose
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-22/antarctic-sea-ice-continues-to-expand/5760642
http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/12/global-cooling-antarctic-sea-ice-coverage-continues-to-break-records/
The sun heats the earth ... always has... ;)
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 11, 2015 07:36PM)
Nobody has debated that point. Not once.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 11, 2015 07:42PM)
[img]http://formerfatdudes.com/media/2014/01/headbangingtshirt-e1389731844136.jpg[/img]
Message: Posted by: Pop Haydn (Aug 12, 2015 12:59PM)
Thanks for the sources you provided, Slim!

Here is what they said:

"The findings were seized upon by climate change sceptics such as Australian commentator Andrew Bolt and US radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh.

"Mr Limbaugh, a popular conservative commentator, used his Facebook page to make his point: "The Antarctic ice sheet has reached record levels in the midst of so-called climate change and global warming. It's the same thing at the North Pole. Arctic ice sheet levels are at record levels. The North Pole is supposed to have been melted by now, according to Al Gore."

"But Dr Lieser said the growing extent of sea ice was, in fact, a symptom of global warming."
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Aug 12, 2015 09:21PM)
I don't think that Slim bothers to read or understand the source material that he cites. That's particularly evident here.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 12, 2015 09:29PM)
You are making an assumption that there is actually "source material" in the classic sense of the tetm in the first place.

It is an agenda a backed up with nothing. It is enough to follow his line of alleged reasoning.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Aug 13, 2015 09:15AM)
[quote]On Aug 12, 2015, Pop Haydn wrote:
...
"But Dr Lieser said the growing extent of sea ice was, in fact, a symptom of global warming." [/quote]

If it is, in fact, a symptom of global warming, then I'm sure it must have been predicted. Funny though, I can't seem to find any such predictions. Maybe you can help us out Pop.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 13, 2015 09:20AM)
[quote]On Aug 13, 2015, rockwall wrote:
[quote]On Aug 12, 2015, Pop Haydn wrote:
...
"But Dr Lieser said the growing extent of sea ice was, in fact, a symptom of global warming." [/quote]

If it is, in fact, a symptom of global warming, then I'm sure it must have been predicted. Funny though, I can't seem to find any such predictions. Maybe you can help us out Pop. [/quote]

Did you look? Did you ask anyone knowledgeable in the area? Or is this another assertion on your part?

I'll save you some time. Here's [url=http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.167.119&rep=rep1&type=pdf]Zhang (2007)[/url].

[quote]Estimates of sea ice extent based on satellite observations show an increasing Antarctic sea ice cover from 1979 to 2004 even though in situ observations show a prevailing warming trend in both the atmosphere and the ocean. This riddle is explored here using a global multicategory thickness and enthalpy distribution sea ice model coupled to an ocean model. Forced by the NCEP–NCAR reanalysis data, the model simulates an increase of 0.20  1012 m3 yr1 (1.0% yr1) in total Antarctic sea ice volume and 0.084  1012 m2 yr1 (0.6% yr1) in sea ice extent from 1979 to 2004 when the satellite observations show an increase of 0.027  1012 m2 yr1 (0.2% yr1) in sea ice extent during the same period. The model shows that an increase in surface air temperature and downward longwave radiation results in an increase in the upper-ocean temperature and a decrease in sea ice growth, leading to a decrease in salt rejection from ice, in the upper-ocean salinity, and in the upper-ocean density. The reduced salt rejection and upper-ocean density and the enhanced thermohaline stratification tend to suppress convective overturning, leading to a decrease in the upward ocean heat transport and the ocean heat flux available to melt sea ice. The ice melting from ocean heat flux decreases faster than the ice growth does in the weakly stratified Southern Ocean, leading to an increase in the net ice production and hence an increase in ice mass. This mechanism is the main reason why the Antarctic sea ice has increased in spite of warming conditions both above and below during the period 1979–2004 and the extended period 1948–2004.[/quote]

I'm sure Dr. Zhang knew about the media circus that would occur in 2015 and just made all this up to preserve his future grants ;)
Message: Posted by: Pop Haydn (Aug 13, 2015 09:32AM)
Here ya' go, Rockwall! This should help explain it to you:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/increasing-Antarctic-Southern-sea-ice-intermediate.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm

http://ecowatch.com/2015/05/28/nasa-antarctica-ice-shelf/
Message: Posted by: Pop Haydn (Aug 13, 2015 09:41AM)
Here it is on video:

[youtube]MPnj9eR7t0g[/youtube]
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Aug 13, 2015 09:44AM)
Pop, maybe you misunderstood the question. All of your quotes attempt to explain WHY sea ice started increasing. I'm looking for a prediction that sea ice WOULD increase BEFORE it started. (I would also hope you could find something in the peer reviewed papers also. Not some ex cartoonists blog!)
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 13, 2015 09:51AM)
[quote]On Aug 13, 2015, rockwall wrote:
Pop, maybe you misunderstood the question. All of your quotes attempt to explain WHY sea ice started increasing. I'm looking for a prediction that sea ice WOULD increase BEFORE it started. (I would also hope you could find something in the peer reviewed papers also. Not some ex cartoonists blog!) [/quote]

And I gave you a 2007 peer-reviewed article, which you promptly ignored (quelle surprise).
Message: Posted by: Pop Haydn (Aug 13, 2015 10:03AM)
[youtube]8xdOTyGQOso[/youtube]
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Aug 13, 2015 12:12PM)
[quote]On Aug 13, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]On Aug 13, 2015, rockwall wrote:
Pop, maybe you misunderstood the question. All of your quotes attempt to explain WHY sea ice started increasing. I'm looking for a prediction that sea ice WOULD increase BEFORE it started. (I would also hope you could find something in the peer reviewed papers also. Not some ex cartoonists blog!) [/quote]

And I gave you a 2007 peer-reviewed article, which you promptly ignored (quelle surprise). [/quote]

calm down. Always one to assume the worst. I've been at the airport on my phone. I didn't notice your post. I'll get to it later
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Aug 13, 2015 02:00PM)
[quote]On Aug 12, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
I don't think that Slim bothers to read or understand the source material that he cites. That's particularly evident here. [/quote]
I don't think you can read between the lines to see the real truth. Shallow thoughts.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Aug 13, 2015 02:25PM)
Ok, I'm back home and have had a chance to look at Magnus's link.

Apparantly Magnus also doesn't understand the word 'prediction'. Maybe you and Pop should have a talk with Bob. It's possible he could help.

Again, the paper you present makes no predictions that I can see but instead explains WHY all the previous predictions were wrong and why Antarctic sea ice has increased from 1979 to 2004. (Isn't it great when scientists can go back and look at what ACTUALLY happened VS what they were telling us what was GOING to happen and explain it all like they were never wrong about it in the first place? I'll bet it's lots easier to get your models to agree with WHAT happened after the fact than getting them to make a proper prediction BEFORE the fact!)

Anyway, at least ZHANG was smart enough not to make any predictions on what would happen in the future in this particular paper and possibly endanger his future grants.
Message: Posted by: Kabbalah (Aug 13, 2015 02:36PM)
How can Pop Haydn, a man that has studied scams for so many years, fall for the biggest scam ever?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 13, 2015 05:29PM)
[quote]On Aug 13, 2015, rockwall wrote:
Ok, I'm back home and have had a chance to look at Magnus's link.

Apparantly Magnus also doesn't understand the word 'prediction'. Maybe you and Pop should have a talk with Bob. It's possible he could help.

Again, the paper you present makes no predictions that I can see but instead explains WHY all the previous predictions were wrong and why Antarctic sea ice has increased from 1979 to 2004. (Isn't it great when scientists can go back and look at what ACTUALLY happened VS what they were telling us what was GOING to happen and explain it all like they were never wrong about it in the first place? I'll bet it's lots easier to get your models to agree with WHAT happened after the fact than getting them to make a proper prediction BEFORE the fact!)

Anyway, at least ZHANG was smart enough not to make any predictions on what would happen in the future in this particular paper and possibly endanger his future grants. [/quote]

So providing an explanation in 2007 of why Antarctic sea ice will increase in area with the current level of temperature increase, and having the Antarctic sea ice do exactly that is not a good enough prediction for you?

OK. Not surprised. But OK.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 13, 2015 05:30PM)
[quote]On Aug 13, 2015, Kabbalah wrote:
How can Pop Haydn, a man that has studied scams for so many years, fall for the biggest scam ever? [/quote]

Screaming that scientists worldwide are part of a scam doesn't make for compelling evidence.

Given the choice between scientists around the world and talking heads on FOX, I know who I trust.

It's a bit like the anti-evolution gang. No amount of science will penetrate some skulls.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Aug 13, 2015 05:36PM)
[quote]On Aug 13, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
...
So providing an explanation in 2007 of why Antarctic sea ice will increase in area with the current level of temperature increase, and having the Antarctic sea ice do exactly that is not a good enough prediction for you?

OK. Not surprised. But OK. [/quote]

Try not to be so dense Magnus.

Why was it a surprise that in 2007 Antarctic sea ice was increasing if the models had always predicted it? (They hadn't)

Did he say that antarctic sea ice would continue to increase? (No)

Are you saying that antarctic sea ice will continue to increase forever because of AGW? (Or is it your prediction that sea ice will continue to increase until it doesn't? Now THERES a prediction mentalists would love to be able to get away with!)
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 13, 2015 05:53PM)
[quote]On Aug 13, 2015, rockwall wrote:
[quote]On Aug 13, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
...
So providing an explanation in 2007 of why Antarctic sea ice will increase in area with the current level of temperature increase, and having the Antarctic sea ice do exactly that is not a good enough prediction for you?

OK. Not surprised. But OK. [/quote]

Try not to be so dense Magnus.

Why was it a surprise that in 2007 Antarctic sea ice was increasing if the models had always predicted it? (They hadn't)

Did he say that antarctic sea ice would continue to increase? (No)

Are you saying that antarctic sea ice will continue to increase forever because of AGW? (Or is it your prediction that sea ice will continue to increase until it doesn't? Now THERES a prediction mentalists would love to be able to get away with!) [/quote]

You win, Rockwall. All I did was provide a 2007 paper that showed a) why the ice area was growing b) showed why it would continue growing under the same conditions. It lines up with the current evidence.

Of course, it didn't put it in an envelope on the stage anticipating a moron's demand that the prediction fit his agenda.

Enjoy yourself. I have wasted far too much time on you.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 13, 2015 11:34PM)
Scam is such a harsh word and it makes me uncomfortable because on a lot of levels it is just untenable. I mean the number of people who would have to be actively involved is just enormous.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Aug 14, 2015 08:49AM)
[quote]On Aug 13, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]On Aug 13, 2015, rockwall wrote:
[quote]On Aug 13, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
...
So providing an explanation in 2007 of why Antarctic sea ice will increase in area with the current level of temperature increase, and having the Antarctic sea ice do exactly that is not a good enough prediction for you?

OK. Not surprised. But OK. [/quote]

Try not to be so dense Magnus.

Why was it a surprise that in 2007 Antarctic sea ice was increasing if the models had always predicted it? (They hadn't)

Did he say that antarctic sea ice would continue to increase? (No)

Are you saying that antarctic sea ice will continue to increase forever because of AGW? (Or is it your prediction that sea ice will continue to increase until it doesn't? Now THERES a prediction mentalists would love to be able to get away with!) [/quote]

You win, Rockwall. All I did was provide a 2007 paper that showed a) why the ice area was growing b) showed why it would continue growing under the same conditions. It lines up with the current evidence.

Of course, it didn't put it in an envelope on the stage anticipating a moron's demand that the prediction fit his agenda.

Enjoy yourself. I have wasted far too much time on you. [/quote]

Now THIS is how to do predictions. I asked 3 questions AND gave the predictions within the same post. (If I had held onto my predictions, someone could have said I made them up later.) Let's see how I did.

1. Why was it a surprise that in 2007 Antarctic sea ice was increasing if the models had always predicted it? (They hadn't)
Magnus admits that the paper in 2007 simply tried to explain why sea ice had expanded despite no one having expected this previously.

Did he say that antarctic sea ice would continue to increase? (No)
Magnus admits that he didn't state that sea ice would continue to expand.

Are you saying that antarctic sea ice will continue to increase forever because of AGW? (Or is it your prediction that sea ice will continue to increase until it doesn't? Now THERES a prediction mentalists would love to be able to get away with!)
Magnus says the paper 1"showed why it would continue growing under the same conditions."
Sounds an awful lot like "will continue to increase until it doesn't" doesn't it? That's not a prediction with extra outs, that's a prediction with unlimited outs! Boy, that's asking a lot.

So according to Magnus, if sea ice continues to grow it's because, "it will continue to grow under the same conditions" and if it stops growing, well then obviously we no longer have the same conditions, right? No matter what happens, Magnus will happily proclaim that what happens is exactly what was predicted. How conveeeeeeenient. I suppose that's why the now 18 year pause we're in was predicted by the scientists also. After all, I suppose the temperature will continue to rise until it doesn't.

Three out of three is not bad. I could have easily gotten four out of four if only I'd thought to add in the obligatory, "I have wasted far too much time on you.", that Magnus nearly always throws out once he's been shown to be wrong over and over again and he's tired of looking like a ...
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Aug 14, 2015 02:18PM)
Rockwall is pretty darn smart!!!!!
SLAM DUNK!!!!!!!!
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Aug 15, 2015 11:19AM)
A few more thoughts on Magnus's claim that having a scientist attempt to explain why sea ice grew during a particular period amounts to a prediction that it will continue to grow.

First off, Magnus must have never heard the phrase, "past performance does not guarantee future results"

Secondly, there's probably a very good reason shy Dr. Zhang DIDN'T go on to say in his report that sea ice would continue to grow for X number of years. Because HE DIDN'T KNOW! (And didn't want to look foolish making a prediction of something that he knew could very likely change.) While it is relatively easy to make a computer model give you the results that have already happened, it's infinitely more difficult to create a model to accurately PREDICT what will happen in the future. Which, btw, is why all the models predicting future temperature rise have failed so miserably.

So, when Magnus claims that Dr. Zhang's paper predicted current ice growth, I think it's safe to say that he has either made a mistake or is ignorant or is being dishonest.
Message: Posted by: RNK (Aug 17, 2015 09:18AM)
[quote]On Aug 15, 2015, rockwall wrote:

So, when Magnus claims that Dr. Zhang's paper predicted current ice growth, I think it's safe to say that he has either made a mistake or is ignorant or is being dishonest. [/quote]

Surely can't be dishonest.......
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Aug 20, 2015 06:52PM)
This just out...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/july-2015-was-the-hottest-month-on-modern-record-1.3197748

[quote]

[b]July 2015 was the hottest month on modern record[/b]

NOAA says 2015 will likely end up the hottest year on record, beating last year

Earth just keeps getting hotter. July was the planet's warmest month on record, smashing old marks, U.S. weather officials said.

And it's almost a dead certain lock that this year will beat last year as the warmest year on record, they said.

July's average temperature was 16.6 Celsius (61.86 degrees Fahrenheit), beating the previous global mark set in 1998 and 2010 by 0.08 C, according to figures released Thursday by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. That's a large margin for weather records, with previous monthly heat records broken by a 20th of a degree or less.

"It just reaffirms what we already know: that the Earth is warming," said NOAA climate scientist Jake Crouch. "The warming is accelerating and we're really seeing it this year."

NOAA records go back to 1880. Separate calculations by NASA and the Japanese weather agency also found July 2015 to be a record.

The first seven months of 2015 were the hottest January-to-July span on record, according to NOAA. The seven-month average temperature of 14.7 Celsius ( 58.43 F) is 0.85 degrees warmer than the 20th-century average and 0.09 degrees warmer than the old record set in 2010.

Given that the temperatures have already been so high already — especially the oceans, which are slow to cool — NOAA climate scientist Jessica Blunden said she is "99 per cent certain" that 2015 will be the hottest on record for the globe. The oceans would have to cool dramatically to prevent it, and they are trending warmer, not cooler, she said.

Crouch, Blunden and other scientists outside of the government said these temperatures are caused by a combination of man-made climate change and a strong, near-record El Nino. An El Nino is a warming of the equatorial Pacific Ocean that alters weather worldwide for about a year.

The oceans drove the globe to record levels. Not only were the world's oceans the warmest they've been in July, but they were 0.75 degrees warmer than the 20th-century average.

It was the hottest July on record in Austria, where records go back to 1767. Parts of France had temperatures that were on average 4 degrees above normal and temperatures hit 38.2 C in the Netherlands, which is a rarity. And an Iranian city had a heat index (the "feels like" temperature) of 74 Celsius (165 F), which was still not quite record.

Nine of the 10 hottest months on record have happened since 2005, according to NOAA. Twenty-two of the 25 hottest months on record have occurred after the year 2000. The other three were in 1998 and 1997.

This shows that despite what climate change doubters say, there is no pause in warming since 1998, Blunden said.

It doesn't matter if a month or a year is No. 1 or No. 2 or No. 5 hottest on record, said University of Georgia climate scientist Marshall Shepherd.

"The records are getting attention but I worry the public will grow weary of reports of new records each month," Shepherd said in an email. "I am more concerned about how the Earth is starting to respond to the changes and the implications for my children."[/quote]


Ron
Message: Posted by: Pop Haydn (Aug 20, 2015 07:36PM)
NASA Data on causes of global warming:

Http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
Message: Posted by: Pop Haydn (Aug 20, 2015 08:09PM)
Methodology

NASA's Model

Researchers who study the Earth's climate create models to test their assumptions about the causes and trajectory of global warming. Around the world there are 28 or so research groups in more than a dozen countries who have written 61 climate models. Each takes a slightly different approach to the elements of the climate system, such as ice, oceans, or atmospheric chemistry.

The computer model that generated the results for this graphic is called "ModelE2," and was created by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which has been a leader in climate projections for a generation. ModelE2 contains something on the order of 500,000 lines of code, and is run on a supercomputer at the NASA Center for Climate Simulation in Greenbelt, Maryland.

A Global Research Project
GISS produced the results shown here in 2012, as part of its contribution to an international climate-science research initiative called the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase Five. Let's just call it "Phase-5."

Phase-5 is designed both to see how well models replicate known climate history and to make projections about where the world’s temperature is headed. Initial results from Phase-5 were used in the 2013 scientific tome published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

There are more than 30 different kinds of experiments included in Phase-5 research. These tests address questions like, what would happen to the Earth’s temperature if atmospheric carbon dioxide suddenly quadrupled?

Or, what would the world’s climate be like through 2300 if we keep burning fossil fuels at the current rate?

Phase-5 calls for a suite of "historical" experiments. Research groups were asked to see how well they could reproduce what's known about the climate from 1850-2005. They were also asked to estimate how the various climate factors—or "forcings"—contribute to those temperatures. That's why this graphic stops in 2005, even though the GISS observed temperature data is up-to-date. The years 2005-2012 were not a part of the Phase-5 "historical" experiment.

A Word About Temperatures

Climate scientists tend not to report climate results in whole temperatures. Instead, they talk about how the annual temperature departs from an average, or baseline. They call these departures "anomalies." They do this because temperature anomalies are more consistent in an area than absolute temperatures are. For example, the absolute temperature atop the Empire State Building may be different by several degrees than the absolute temperature at New York’s LaGuardia Airport. But the differences from their own averages are likely to be about the same. It means that scientists can get a better idea about temperature with fewer monitoring stations. That’s particularly useful in places where measurement is very difficult (ie, deserts).
The simulation results are aligned to the observations using the 1880-1910 average. What's most important about these temperatures are the trends—the shape and trajectory of the line, and not any single year’s temperature.

What the Lines Show

The black "observed" line is the GISS global land and ocean temperature record, which can be found here. It starts in 1880.
The colored temperature lines are the modeled estimates that each climate factor contributes to the overall temperature. Each factor was simulated five times, with different initial conditions; each slide here shows the average of five runs. GISS researchers laid out their historical simulations in detail last year in this article. The modeled years 1850-1879 from the Phase-5 "historical" experiment are not shown because the observed data begins in 1880.

Confidence Ranges

Researchers do not expect their models to reproduce weather events or El Niño phases exactly when they happened in real life. They do expect the models to capture how the whole system behaves over long periods of time.

For example, in 1998 there was a powerful El Niño, when the equatorial Pacific Ocean warms ( we're in another one of that scale now). A simulation wouldn't necessarily reproduce an El Niño in 1998, but it should produce a realistic number of them over the course of many years.

The temperature lines represent the average of the model’s estimates. The uncertainty bands illustrate the outer range of reasonable estimates.

In short, the temperature lines in the modeled results might not line up exactly with observations. For any year, 95% of the simulations with that forcing will lie inside the band.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Aug 20, 2015 08:45PM)
[quote]On Aug 20, 2015, Pop Haydn wrote:
NASA Data on causes of global warming:

Http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/ [/quote]


Pretty convincing! (Of course, it's easy to be convincing when you're faking the data.)

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/27/bloombergs-made-up-climate-widget/
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 20, 2015 08:47PM)
That is a lot of people to be involved in a hoax.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Aug 20, 2015 08:48PM)
I'm only talking about 2 people Danny. The two who wrote the article on Bloomberg.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Aug 20, 2015 09:15PM)
For a good time read the plot summary of Neal Stepahenson's book SeveneveS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seveneves

what if we only had two years to do something?
What can we do better in the mean time?
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Aug 20, 2015 09:59PM)
Only 2 years!?!? It'll take 10 years to complete the environmental impact study!
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Aug 21, 2015 01:38PM)
Http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/27/bloombergs-made-up-climate-widget/

"For another, if you read the “methodology” section of the Bloomberg piece, you’ll discover why Roston & Migliozzi showed no separate scale for their GHG levels. It’s because, despite the “greenhouse gases” label on their graph, they did not actually graph greenhouse gas levels.

That’s right. even though the graph’s caption says, “It Really Is Greenhouse Gases,” they really did not graph greenhouse gases.

Instead, they graphed what GISS’s favorite computer model apparently calculated that temperatures ought to have been"

From Pop's own quote about methodology:

"What the Lines Show

The black "observed" line is the GISS global land and ocean temperature record, which can be found here. It starts in 1880.
The colored temperature lines are the modeled estimates that each climate factor contributes to the overall temperature. Each factor was simulated five times, with different initial conditions; each slide here shows the average of five runs."
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (Aug 21, 2015 01:59PM)
The planet will be so much better off with the extinction of humanity.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Aug 21, 2015 02:28PM)
[quote]On Aug 21, 2015, Steve_Mollett wrote:
The planet will be so much better off with the extinction of humanity. [/quote]

Well, you know, we've already past so many 'tipping points' where if we hadn't done anything by then, then it would be too late that all we really have left is to sit back and say ...

[img]https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4148/4833789697_92737e677b_b.jpg[/img]
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Aug 22, 2015 01:18PM)
Hey guys .. remember when the Global Warming Blackmailers (Al Gore and his buddies) said that we'd have all these HURRICANES???
Not a single hurricane in Florida for OVER TEN YEARS.... First time this has happened in over 150 years!!!!! :bunny: :bunny: :bunny: :bunny: :bunny: :bunny: :bunny: :bunny: :bunny: :bunny: :bunny: :bunny: :bunny: :bunny:
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 22, 2015 03:33PM)
[quote]On Aug 21, 2015, Steve_Mollett wrote:
The planet will be so much better off with the extinction of humanity. [/quote]
Nothing says starting a trend won't help.
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Aug 22, 2015 05:39PM)
[quote]On Aug 22, 2015, Slim King wrote:
Hey guys .. remember when the Global Warming Blackmailers (Al Gore and his buddies) said that we'd have all these HURRICANES???
Not a single hurricane in Florida for OVER TEN YEARS.... First time this has happened in over 150 years!!!!! :bunny: :bunny: :bunny: :bunny: :bunny: :bunny: :bunny: :bunny: :bunny: :bunny: :bunny: :bunny: :bunny: :bunny: [/quote]


First, Al Gore is not a climate scientist. Secondly, as far as major hurricanes in Florida, there have been FOUR 10 year periods since 1896 in which a major hurricane was absent:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Florida_hurricanes

1896-1906
1950-1960
1965-1975
1975-1985


Nationwide, here is the frequency of hurricanes by decade:

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/All_U.S._Hurricanes.html

2000 - 2009 - 32
1990 - 1999 - 33
1980 - 1989 - 29
1970 - 1979 - 22
1960 - 1969 - 36
1950 - 1959 - 40
1940 - 1949 - 51
1930 - 1939 - 36
1920 - 1929 - 30
1910 - 1919 - 43
1900 - 1909 - 29
1890 - 1899 - 41
1880 - 1889 - 45
1870 - 1879 - 36
1860 - 1869 - 27
1850 - 1859 - 32

With the average frequency being 35 per decade. So the last decade is not at all unusual.

Also, from
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes
[quote]
Global Warming and Hurricanes
F. Synthesis and Summary

In summary, neither our model projections for the 21st century nor our analyses of trends in Atlantic hurricane and tropical storm counts over the past 120+ yr support the notion that greenhouse gas-induced warming leads to large increases in either tropical storm or overall hurricane numbers in the Atlantic. A new modeling study projects a large (~100%) increase in Atlantic category 4-5 hurricanes over the 21st century, but we estimate that this increase may not be detectable until the latter half of the century.

Therefore, we conclude that despite statistical correlations between SST and Atlantic hurricane activity in recent decades, it is premature to conclude that human activity--and particularly greenhouse warming--has already caused a detectable change in Atlantic hurricane activity. ("Detectable" here means the change is large enough to be distinguishable from the variability due to natural causes.) However, human activity may have already caused some some changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observation limitations, or are not yet properly modeled (e.g., aerosol effects on regional climate).

We also conclude that it is likely that climate warming will cause hurricanes in the coming century to be more intense globally and to have higher rainfall rates than present-day hurricanes. In our view, there are better than even odds that the numbers of very intense (category 4 and 5) hurricanes will increase by a substantial fraction in some basins, while it is likely that the annual number of tropical storms globally will either decrease or remain essentially unchanged. These assessment statements are intended to apply to climate warming of the type projected for the 21st century by IPCC AR4 scenarios, such as A1B.

The relatively conservative confidence levels attached to these projections, and the lack of a claim of detectable anthropogenic influence at this time contrasts with the situation for other climate metrics, such as global mean temperature. In the case of global mean surface temperature, the IPCC 5th Assessment Report (2013) presents a strong body of scientific evidence that most of the global warming observed over the past half century is very likely due to human-caused greenhouse gas emissions. [/quote]

So hurricane activity is not necessarily a good metric of AGW to begin with. Besides, there appears to be sufficient evidence to support AGW even if one ignores hurricane activity.

Oh, and July 2015 was the hottest month ever recorded! And this year may be on track to surpass 2014 as the hottest year ever!

Ron
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Aug 22, 2015 06:13PM)
Slim ignored that last part even though it's been front page news the last few days.