The Magic Caf
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Study shakes foundation of climate theory! (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6 [Next]
Doug Higley
View Profile
V.I.P.
Here and There
7165 Posts

Profile of Doug Higley
So it gets a degree or two warmer. Better crops! More growing areas.

And it's not that we don't understand what you said or that there is change...there has ALWAYS been change...it is that we know that many of these scientists are tied to FUNDING based on a preset agenda. Follow the money. I trust the Sun to alter the weather. I trust SOME scientists to tell me why. And I couldn't care less that I can't do anything about it...niether can anyone else. There are REAL problems to be concerned with. Let the hysterical ninnies run around in an imagined sweat. So what. Sue me.
I'll take my baloney on some bread with mustard...and a tropical vacation in Wales.
Higley's Giant Flea Pocket Zibit
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
The last U.S. administration significantly cut funding for research into global climate change. And I suspect that the vast majority of private sector funding tends to go towards the scientists on the anti-global warming side of the argument.

So, yes, I am in agreement (!) with Doug on this score. Follow the money indeed.
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
Tom Bartlett
View Profile
Special user
Our southern border could use
763 Posts

Profile of Tom Bartlett
Quote:
On 2009-08-09 14:33, balducci wrote:
The last U.S. administration significantly cut funding for research into global climate change. And I suspect that the vast majority of private sector funding tends to go towards the scientists on the anti-global warming side of the argument.

So, yes, I am in agreement (!) with Doug on this score. Follow the money indeed.
You need to provide some substantial proof if you are going to make such an erroneous claim. The last U.S. administration did not cut funding for research into global climate change it increased the funding and don’t ask me to prove my statement till you have proven yours.
Our friends don't have to agree with me about everything and some that I hold very dear don't have to agree about anything, except where we are going to meet them for dinner.
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
That is fair enough, Tom. I made my statement based on a NSF report I read a year or two back. Perhaps I misremember some details. I'll see if I can find it again, or something like it, on-line.
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
MagicSanta
View Profile
Inner circle
Northern Nevada
5845 Posts

Profile of MagicSanta
Of course if there is a man caused reason for global warming it is all the fault of the libs. Lets look at what have caused the problems with carbons.
1. The anti nuke nuts in the 70s who demanded we use good ol' dirty oil and coal, thus destroying land and the air, freakin' hippie earth haters.

2. The greenies who thought reforrestation should be a natural event rather than evil non greenies planting trees and grasses and thus increasing the amount of trees and reducing erosion, freakin' greenie earth haters.

3. The numb skulls who demanded, via law makers even, that the auto companies in the US focus on electric cars rather than the clearly more efficient and logicial hybrid cars thus halting development of a type of engine that would have been years ahead of where it is now, freakin' numb skull earth haters.

So I speak on behalf of conservatives when I say that we are sick of you lefty, numby, green, hippies screwing up our planet.
Steve_Mollett
View Profile
Inner circle
Eh, so I've made
3006 Posts

Profile of Steve_Mollett
Of course if there is a main reason for global warming, and many other global ills, it is all the fault of the humans who thought 'civilization' would be an improvement.
Feh!
So I speak on behalf of all absurdists, nihilists and cynics who think all partisan, biased, agenda-driven, self-important members of humanity are patently nuts.
Author of: GARROTE ESCAPES
The absurd is the essential concept and the first truth.
- Albert Camus
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
Quote:
On 2009-08-09 16:59, Tom Bartlett wrote:
Quote:
On 2009-08-09 14:33, balducci wrote:
The last U.S. administration significantly CUT funding for research into global climate change. And I suspect that the vast majority of private sector funding tends to go towards the scientists on the anti-global warming side of the argument.

So, yes, I am in agreement (!) with Doug on this score. Follow the money indeed.
You need to provide some substantial proof if you are going to make such an erroneous claim. The last U.S. administration did not cut funding for research into global climate change it increased the funding and don’t ask me to prove my statement till you have proven yours.

Okay, two charts are linked to below. Note that the vertical scales are different, and one uses more recent data than the other, but both are in agreement that overall spending for the Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) over all government agencies fell significantly since 1999. According to what I have read, that is the program that researches into climate change in order to understand it better.

http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/ccsp08cht.pdf

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/file-......9-08.pdf

The above is more or less what I was talking about. Research funding into climate change itself, in order to better understand it and determine whether or not it is occurring and if so why and how. So it appears I am correct on my claim, so far as it goes.

But see also this report:

http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/ccsp08p.htm

It points out that funding to the Climate Change Technology Program (CCTP) increased under Bush. This program is not concerned with research into understanding climate change, though, but rather on development oriented efforts "to coordinate programs that attempt to respond to or mitigate the effects of climate change".

That would support your position, if this sort of spending is what you are talking about.
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
Payne
View Profile
Inner circle
Seattle
4570 Posts

Profile of Payne
Quote:

You need to provide some substantial proof if you are going to make such an erroneous claim. The last U.S. administration DID NOT CUT funding for research into global climate change it increased the funding and don’t ask me to prove my statement till you have proven yours.




From http://www.nrdc.org/bushRecord/airenergy_warming.asp

"Bush administration slashes funding for global warming research

June 03, 2004: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration faces debilitating budget cuts for fiscal year 2005 thanks to the Bush administration's reluctance to combat global warming. A budget document from the NOAA's Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research reveals that the president's fiscal year 2005 budget will virtually eliminate the agency's research on abrupt climate change and its effects on human health. NOAA's climate change program would be cut from $70 million in fiscal year 2004 to $59 million in fiscal year 2005, including major cuts to paleoclimatology and educational outreach programs."

"Bush budget cuts for international global warming programs more significant than reported

July 12, 2001: The Bush administration's new "Federal Climate Change Expenditures Report to Congress" indicates that U.S. assistance to developing countries to help curb global warming has been cut nearly 25 percent -- from $165 million down to $124 million -- according to recent media reports. But a fuller analysis reveals that actual cuts may be even more significant. In fact, the administration reduced critical energy assistance projects by 32 percent and eliminated two programs designed to promote U.S. transfer of energy efficiency and renewable technologies."
"America's Foremost Satirical Magician" -- Jeff McBride.
MagicSanta
View Profile
Inner circle
Northern Nevada
5845 Posts

Profile of MagicSanta
Good! Smart move. What is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admistration going to do about global warming other than issue press releases? I bet they didn't lay off a single person or lose a single project from it. The money would be better spent by other agencies and research groups. Freakin' cherry pickin', hippie, green, lib, earth haters.
Steve_Mollett
View Profile
Inner circle
Eh, so I've made
3006 Posts

Profile of Steve_Mollett
Earth-destroying, control-freak humans!
Author of: GARROTE ESCAPES
The absurd is the essential concept and the first truth.
- Albert Camus
MagicSanta
View Profile
Inner circle
Northern Nevada
5845 Posts

Profile of MagicSanta
Yeah! Hey Steve....your photo looks like that showman on here out of the UK. I like it. Scary.
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20983 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
I have nothing to day about scientific methodology as of late I believe it is simply losing its varnish.

I will note that when it got warmer in the midevil time period it was called the "Midevil Optimum Period", not the "Midevil Global Warming Disaster".

This is not a scientific conclusion needless to say, more an observation. (which is what science is SUPPOSED to be based on righ?)
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
Tom Bartlett
View Profile
Special user
Our southern border could use
763 Posts

Profile of Tom Bartlett
I still think it was wrong for Bush to buy into all the "man made" global warming crap in the first place but.

Al Gore: Let's research and try to understand global warming or climate change (Isn’t change is good?) maybe we can get it to want to change back! That way we can sell carbon offsets and give the money to the U.N.!

Bush: Let's kick some global warming but and reduce the amount of carbon admissions! Smile



Quote:
On 2009-08-09 22:28, Payne wrote:
Quote:
You need to provide some substantial proof if you are going to make such an erroneous claim. The last U.S. administration did not cut funding for research into global climate change it increased the funding and don’t ask me to prove my statement till you have proven yours.

From http://www.nrdc.org/bushRecord/airenergy_warming.asp

"Bush administration slashes funding for global warming research

June 03, 2004: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration faces debilitating budget cuts for fiscal year 2005 thanks to the Bush administration's reluctance to combat global warming. A budget document from the NOAA's Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research reveals that the president's fiscal year 2005 budget will virtually eliminate the agency's research on abrupt climate change and its effects on human health. NOAA's climate change program would be cut from $70 million in fiscal year 2004 to $59 million in fiscal year 2005, including major cuts to paleoclimatology and educational outreach programs."

"Bush budget cuts for international global warming programs more significant than reported

July 12, 2001: The Bush administration's new "Federal Climate Change Expenditures Report to Congress" indicates that U.S. assistance to developing countries to help curb global warming has been cut nearly 25 percent -- from $165 million down to $124 million -- according to recent media reports. But a fuller analysis reveals that actual cuts may be even more significant. In fact, the administration reduced critical energy assistance projects by 32 percent and eliminated two programs designed to promote U.S. transfer of energy efficiency and renewable technologies."
Do you have any other source than the unbalanced one you provided? Can you show specific bills singed by him that cut funding in any of the areas you have sited and who wrote the bill?
Our friends don't have to agree with me about everything and some that I hold very dear don't have to agree about anything, except where we are going to meet them for dinner.
Steve_Mollett
View Profile
Inner circle
Eh, so I've made
3006 Posts

Profile of Steve_Mollett
Right you are! Your turn to offer another unbalanced one in rebuttal! Smile
Author of: GARROTE ESCAPES
The absurd is the essential concept and the first truth.
- Albert Camus
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20983 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
I do know one thing. If we do everything they tell us, it will result in less than a one degree difference in 20 years and that is the optimists talking.

But it is pretty clear it will destroy our economy. Not a trade I am sure we should make.

Many of the "proposals" seem to be very costly, with no regulation on the biggest offenders such as China. Also many of the "proposals" will absolutely result in loss of prosperity.

It is easy to take a position of "we want to help the environment". Great who does not? Is there really a mainstream group who is for pollution? Not one I can find. But if it turns out like the DDT ban, and costs literally millions of lives for no reason, is that a good thin? That is what happens when you leap way too soon and scientific methodology is based on personal philosophy.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
One degree of global average temperature is substantial Danny.

As for wrecking the economy, I'll follow Tom B and ask for strong evidence.

John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
EsnRedshirt
View Profile
Special user
Newark, CA
895 Posts

Profile of EsnRedshirt
We've been saying for years that we want to get off of an economy based on foreign oil, right? Well, "going green" is a good way to accomplish that. Plus, the infrastructure it requires will generate a lot of new jobs.

As for electric vs hybrid cars- there are many people for whom current and upcoming electric vehicles are not an option. I drive about 25 miles to work each day, and if an electric car has a range of 30 miles, I'd be stuck unless there's an electric outlet in the parking lot at work or a battery exchange station somewhere on the way. The US has an economy centered around oil and cheap gasoline; suburbs will be our downfall.

As for effects of temperature change- among other things, a one degree shift in temperature would probably wreak havoc on a lot of the microclimates in Northern CA, significantly impacting the production and quality of our wine. We'd be forced to drink French wine, instead (oh, the horror!) assuming the shift didn't affect them in the same way.
Self-proclaimed Jack-of-all-trades and google expert*.

* = Take any advice from this person with a grain of salt.
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20983 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Give me a substitute for Oil please. One that is ready right now that can be put in place and we lose nothing.

Want off forign oil? Drill in America.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
Quote:
On 2009-08-10 14:50, Dannydoyle wrote:
Give me a substitute for Oil please. One that is ready right now that can be put in place and we lose nothing.

Want off forign oil? Drill in America.

Nothing wrong with drilling in America. At least generally speaking.

But I'm curious, how much oil could increased drilling activity in America actually produce? Presently America imports something like 66% of its crude oil:

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_su......bl_m.htm

It seems very unlikely to me that increased drilling in America could offset more than a small part of what America presently imports:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petro......ort.html

Even including optimistic estimates about ANWR and offshore drilling etc., America just does not have that sort of an oil reserve.

If I am wrong, someone please provide some credible links to disprove me.
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
EsnRedshirt
View Profile
Special user
Newark, CA
895 Posts

Profile of EsnRedshirt
Dannydoyle- there isn't an instant substitute. That's the problem. Which is why we need to start weaning ourselves off it.

balducci's right; America doesn't have enough oil. Even if we did, offshore drilling would take at least a decade to produce results.
Self-proclaimed Jack-of-all-trades and google expert*.

* = Take any advice from this person with a grain of salt.
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Study shakes foundation of climate theory! (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2022 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.05 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL