Forum: Internet Links
Topic: More proof "environmentalists" are fill of shit
started by: GORDON
Posted by GORDON on May 27 2006,20:44
Remember how it was an absolute certainty that the ozone hole was caused by pollution?

< Ozone hole repairing faster than can be explained by elimination of CFC's. >

Straight from NASA.

Now let's hear all about how global warming is caused by man.
Posted by TheCatt on May 28 2006,04:42
Did you read the article?

Q
U
O
T
E		 It concludes that about half of the recent trend is due to CFC reductions.


I.e. Man is affecting the environment.  Does this mean you are willing to concede that half the temperature changes are due to man's activities?  i.e. That there is global warming?

Posted by GORDON on May 28 2006,09:11
Yes, I read the article, and the point I took from it was that there was more change than could be explained by CFC's, and the rest was a mystery.  I believe "mystery" was even in the title of the article.  Therefore anyone who sold you as fact that man alone can change the environment is absolutely brimming over the top with horseshit.

Glad you're back.
Posted by GORDON on May 28 2006,10:11
(GORDON @ May 28 2006,12:11)
Q
U
O
T
E		I believe "mystery" was even in the title of the article.

Oops, double checked... "puzzle," not "mystery."

And if you can prove the ozone hole somehow changed global temps, I'll listen.  Last I heard it just let in more UV waves to the ice and peeps were concerned it could mutate the dna of... stuff that lives in Antarctica.

I don't think anyone ever thought the ozone hole was going to change the climate, there was just concern for people if it got bigger and caused skin cancer.

Calling Al Gore.
Posted by TheCatt on May 28 2006,19:03
I don't think the point has EVER been that man alone can change the environment.  The point is man CAN change the environment.
Posted by TPRJones on May 28 2006,19:26
Big deal.  So can beavers, ants, grasses, and every other living thing that has ever existed.
Posted by TheCatt on May 29 2006,05:35

(--TPRJones @ May 28 2006,22:26)
QUOTE
Big deal.  So can beavers, ants, grasses, and every other living thing that has ever existed.

Order of magnitude.

Posted by GORDON on May 29 2006,08:35
I just wish that in 100 years we could dig up and bitchslap all of the "we're destroying the planet!" idiots.

For that matter, I wish I could bitchslap all of the "Lake Erie will never support life again!" idiots from the 60's.

And the "we're entering  new ice age!" idiots from the 80's.

Once... just once I'd like to see an idiot look back at his/her doom and gloom predictions and say, "You know, that was pretty dumb of me to say all that."

But like I've said before, in America in 1946 nobody would ever admit being against America's involvement in the war, even though plenty were.
Posted by Vince on May 29 2006,09:43
My problem the the ozone stuff was always that we NEVER had a clue as to what was going on there.  One time they were watching a 40,000 acre thinning patch over one of the poles and within a couple of days it just sort of filled up.

Plus the whole CFC thing was always an unproven theory.  They couldn't even make CFC's react to ozone in a controlled lab environment.
Posted by TPRJones on May 29 2006,11:08
Plus, don't forget that there's evidence in the ice cores they've dug up in Antartica that there've been high levels of UV down there on and off since forever.  I figure the dinosaurs must have been using CFCs way too much, it's the only possible explanation.
Posted by TPRJones on May 29 2006,11:11

(--TheCatt @ May 29 2006,05:35)
QUOTE

(--TPRJones @ May 28 2006,22:26)
QUOTE
Big deal.  So can beavers, ants, grasses, and every other living thing that has ever existed.

Order of magnitude.

I strongly disagree.  Let's see, the blue algeas pretty much completely changed the atmosphere of the planet, the Sahara desert is believed to have been created by overpopulations of grazing animals, and I vaguely recall something about the rapid spread of hearty short-blade grasses being partially responsible for the extension of the dinosaurs.

The point is, ecologies change.  It's what they do.  The idea that ecologies stay in some sort of eternal balance is total bullshit.  If that were true, we wouldn't be here, the dinasours would never have evolved, and the world would still be a lifeless chunk of rock.  To think that humans are the key to all climatelogical changes without any evidence is simple egoism.

Posted by TheCatt on May 29 2006,12:04
Next time I want remember what it's like to be stoned stupid, I'll just revisit this thread and the last few posts.

Posted by GORDON on May 29 2006,12:45
Next time I want to see the religion of enviromentalism, I'll do the same.
Posted by TPRJones on May 29 2006,12:51
I find it ironic that there's such a similarity in how the right-wing hard-core Christians view the environment and how the left-wing treehuggers view the environment.  Both think that ecologies never change and evolve.  The Christians think it was all created a few thousand years ago exactly as it is now, and will be so until the end of times.  The treehuggers ... well, I'm not sure where they get the idea that ecologies should be expected to remain stable, since they are supposed to believe in science and everything in science defies that concept.

I guess the Christians are actually more logical, they just have wacky premises.
Posted by GORDON on May 29 2006,12:59
< Environmentalism as Religion >

I know that because it is Chricton it will be dismissed out of hand, but whatever.

Q
U
O
T
E		So I can tell you some facts. I know you haven't read any of what I am about to tell you in the newspaper, because newspapers literally don't report them. I can tell you that DDT is not a carcinogen and did not cause birds to die and should never have been banned. I can tell you that the people who banned it knew that it wasn't carcinogenic and banned it anyway. I can tell you that the DDT ban has caused the deaths of tens of millions of poor people, mostly children, whose deaths are directly attributable to a callous, technologically advanced western society that promoted the new cause of environmentalism by pushing a fantasy about a pesticide, and thus irrevocably harmed the third world. Banning DDT is one of the most disgraceful episodes in the twentieth century history of America. We knew better, and we did it anyway, and we let people around the world die and didn't give a damn.

I can tell you that second hand smoke is not a health hazard to anyone and never was, and the EPA has always known it. I can tell you that the evidence for global warming is far weaker than its proponents would ever admit. I can tell you the percentage the US land area that is taken by urbanization, including cities and roads, is 5%. I can tell you that the Sahara desert is shrinking, and the total ice of Antarctica is increasing. I can tell you that a blue-ribbon panel in Science magazine concluded that there is no known technology that will enable us to halt the rise of carbon dioxide in the 21st century. Not wind, not solar, not even nuclear. The panel concluded a totally new technology-like nuclear fusion-was necessary, otherwise nothing could be done and in the meantime all efforts would be a waste of time. They said that when the UN IPCC reports stated alternative technologies existed that could control greenhouse gases, the UN was wrong.

I can, with a lot of time, give you the factual basis for these views, and I can cite the appropriate journal articles not in whacko magazines, but in the most prestigious science journals, such as Science and Nature. But such references probably won't impact more than a handful of you, because the beliefs of a religion are not dependent on facts, but rather are matters of faith. Unshakeable belief.

...

Environmentalism needs to be absolutely based in objective and verifiable science, it needs to be rational, and it needs to be flexible.

...

The second reason to abandon environmental religion is more pressing. Religions think they know it all, but the unhappy truth of the environment is that we are dealing with incredibly complex, evolving systems, and we usually are not certain how best to proceed. Those who are certain are demonstrating their personality type, or their belief system, not the state of their knowledge.



I would like to see his sources, though.    I'm too lazy to look or them myself.  I want them handed to me.
Posted by Selby on May 29 2006,20:01
I don't know... whenever my grandmother lit up I got sick as a dog around her and had trouble breathing.  So whether second-hand smoke is harmful or not being a scientific fact or not doesn't matter to me, I just know how I feel about the stuff.
Posted by Vince on May 29 2006,21:52
(GORDON @ May 29 2006,14:59)
Q
U
O
T
E		I would like to see his sources, though.    I'm too lazy to look or them myself.  I want them handed to me.

Chricton is an MD.  He never practiced medicine because his first novel, The Andromeda Strain was bought for publication in his last year of college.  He finished his degree and became an author instead.

Which is what he wanted to do when he first went to college.  The a lit teacher in his freshman year told his class that only one out of every 10,000 hopeful authors ever get a book published.  So he decided to become a doctor instead.
Posted by Leisher on May 30 2006,06:13
I know his sources on the second hand smoke: the World Health Organization. They did a huge report on second hand smoke and couldn't find a single death attributed to second hand smoke. Those commercials that talk about 50,000 a year die from second hand smoke get their info from...(drum roll) this very same WHO report. It's called massaging the numbers. If a smoker has a heart attack, they (the people behind the commercials) claim he/she died of second hand smoke.

It IS smoke, and as such, HAS to be harmful in some way, they just haven't found that link.

So if someone is getting sick from being exposed to second hand smoke, it's most likely because they're allergic to something in it or it's a mental thing.
Posted by Malcolm on May 30 2006,08:27
Animals & plants can't set off nukes.  We could absolutely fuck over this planet if we wanted & make it uninhabitable for the next few hundred thousand years at a minimum.  & we could do it in a matter of months or years.

Posted by GORDON on May 30 2006,08:48
(Malcolm @ May 30 2006,11:27)
Q
U
O
T
E		Animals & plants can't set off nukes.  We could absolutely fuck over this planet if we wanted & make it uninhabitable for the next few hundred thousand years at a minimum.  & we could do it in a matter of months or years.

Eh.  That's an extreme case.  If we wanted we could probably divert an asteroid to smash into the planet, too.

And besides, in those scenarios it isn't the planet that's going to die, it's humans.  The planet will go on just fine.

Besides, there's a non-permanent nuclear reaction over my head right now, speaking of 'nature can't set off nukes.'
Posted by GORDON on May 31 2006,08:57
Al Gore on his new environmental-collapse-movie: it's fake but accurate.

Q
U
O
T
E		"In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis." -- Al Gore


So basically... he has had to exaggerate the truth in order to scare people into doing... something.
Posted by Cakedaddy on May 31 2006,09:34
Lost two grandparents to cancer.  Grandpa smoked, grandma never did.  Gramps was a heavy smoker.  Again, they both died of cancer and there was no history of cancer before them.  I can't prove second hand smoke killed grandma, but, I believe it did.  I guess it could all be one big coincidence too.
Posted by thibodeaux on May 31 2006,10:13
(GORDON @ May 31 2006,08:57)
Q
U
O
T
E		So basically... he has had to exaggerate the truth in order to scare people into doing... something.

Remember this the next time somebody accuses Bush of using fear to control us, etc. etc.
Posted by Leisher on May 31 2006,10:16
Q
U
O
T
E		Lost two grandparents to cancer.  Grandpa smoked, grandma never did.  Gramps was a heavy smoker.  Again, they both died of cancer and there was no history of cancer before them.  I can't prove second hand smoke killed grandma, but, I believe it did.  I guess it could all be one big coincidence too.


One of my good friends growing up lost his mom to lung cancer, but she didn't smoke, his dad did. I'm not saying I don't believe second hand smoke is dangerous, I just was pointing out that the WHO has never found a link to it. Maybe their tests are setup incorrectly?

Now to go along with this point, has anyone seen the commercials that are adjusted to fit whatever city they are running in that are anti-smoking?

"Donald Fox of Toledo died of throat cancer at the age of 38. He didn't even smoke!" - That's a direct quote from the commercial. I want to see the science behind that statement.

Cancer doesn't just attack lungs. Nor is a cancer only caused by smoke. So if this guy died of throat cancer, how did they tie it to smoking or second hand smoke? Where is the proof?
Posted by TheCatt on May 31 2006,10:24
(Cakedaddy @ May 31 2006,12:34)
Q
U
O
T
E		Lost two grandparents to cancer.  Grandpa smoked, grandma never did.  Gramps was a heavy smoker.  Again, they both died of cancer and there was no history of cancer before them.  I can't prove second hand smoke killed grandma, but, I believe it did.  I guess it could all be one big coincidence too.

The California EPA (study from 1997) believes in the dangers of second-hand smoke too.

I read some of it, but damn it was long and boring.
Posted by GORDON on May 31 2006,10:26
I am immediately dubious of anything and everything that comes out of California.
Posted by Leisher on May 31 2006,11:12
Q
U
O
T
E		I am immediately dubious of anything and everything that comes out of California.


Ditto.

In fact, at lunch today San Francisco was brought up during a discussion on small town America. Basically, their morally and intellectually superior attitude towards the rest of the nation was brought up when discussing lifestyles of the farmers and such.

The following comment was made: "If they're so fucking smart, why'd they built their city on an unstable fault line."

Good point.
Posted by GORDON on May 31 2006,12:22
Besides, Al Gore said it was OK to lie in order to persuade people to what you feel is the truth.  How do I know the California EPA isn't lying?
Posted by TheCatt on May 31 2006,14:34
(GORDON @ May 31 2006,15:22)
Q
U
O
T
E		Besides, Al Gore said it was OK to lie in order to persuade people to what you feel is the truth.  How do I know the California EPA isn't lying?

True, we all know Bush did.
Posted by GORDON on May 31 2006,14:39
Only because Sean Penn told you so.  < I should have listened sooner. >

Posted by Vince on May 31 2006,20:52
Cancer occurs in animals in the wild that are nowhere near humans or their second hand smoke.  Whenever a strand of DNA breaks and bonds back together in the wrong place there's a chance that it will become a cancer cell.

That's all cancer is.
Posted by GORDON on May 31 2006,20:54
(Vince @ May 31 2006,23:52)
Q
U
O
T
E		Whenever a strand of DNA breaks and bonds back together in the wrong place there's a chance that it will become a cancer cell.

Doesn't even have to be that dramatic.  Any mutation of any little byte of DNA data could create a viable cancerous cell.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 13 2006,19:45
< Bill Clinton: "Republicans cause hurricanes!" >
Posted by DoctorChaos on Jun. 14 2006,05:23
(GORDON @ Jun. 13 2006,22:45)
Q
U
O
T
E		< Bill Clinton: "Republicans cause hurricanes!" >

He always did have the best smoke.
Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 14 2006,05:44
(GORDON @ Jun. 13 2006,22:45)
Q
U
O
T
E		< Bill Clinton: "Republicans cause hurricanes!" >

His statement does appear accurate.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 14 2006,07:11
Only if you believe the universe will soon be filled with elephants and bees can't fly.

Or are just looking to get elected By Any Means Necessary.
Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 14 2006,07:40
(GORDON @ Jun. 14 2006,10:11)
Q
U
O
T
E		Only if you believe the universe will soon be filled with elephants and bees can't fly.

Or are just looking to get elected By Any Means Necessary.

You and reality need to get reacquainted.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 14 2006,08:22
And your fanatic is showing.
Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 14 2006,08:30
(GORDON @ Jun. 14 2006,11:22)
Q
U
O
T
E		And your fanatic is showing.

Riiiiiiiight, cuz I think elephants will take over the universe. wtf?
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 14 2006,08:39
That is a little... parable? about people who don't know all of the factors of a situation before they decide they know all the facts.

If you look at one certain set of facts, it says elephants reproduce at X interval and take up Y amount of space.  With only that set of data you can calculate exactly how long it would take for elephants to fill the universe, and according to the data and numbers within our set you'd be correct.

Problem is, there's more to it than that, and elephants can't fill the universe.

Hard core "we're destroying the planet" environmentalists are the "elephants will fill the universe" people.  They don't have anywhere near all the facts to make the conclusion they have drawn.  The recent "I wonder why the ozone hole is filling so fast" thread highlights that.  As well as the absolute, known facts that the sun is hotter which in turn is heating up other planets like Jupiter, which was also discussed in another thread.

But fanatics don't want to hear that.  Man is destroying the planet, and Bill Clinton is the priest saying the GOP is designing it.

All righty then.  I hope I don;t get stuck in the kool-aide line when they start forcing peeps to drink.
Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 14 2006,09:07
Well, again, even in the ozone link, roughly half the activity was caused by man.  Therefore, man is impacting the environment.

Republican policies favor carbon dioxide, mercury, SOx and NOx emissions.  As such, they impact the environment.  Do we know definitively the extent to which human activities and these emissions impact the environment?  No.  Never said that.  Does most evidence indicate that they do/can impact the environment?  Yes.  Hell, even regulated utilities are saying that.

Those on the "nothing humans do, or can do will impact the environment" have already drunk the koolaid.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 14 2006,10:45
I wish that just once Al Gore would admit that the environment has been changing since before the Earth cooled, has always been changing, and will always be changing.

The earth absolutely positively will enter a new ice age.  Ice ages are cyclical.  We're overdue for an ice age.  But for some reason republicans are going to be the cause of it.  I want him to say it.  In a movie.

Why anyone listens to Gore and the rest of these assholes is beyond me.
Posted by DoctorChaos on Jun. 14 2006,11:14
Oh this is bullshit!  Republicans, Democrats it's out of our hands now that other nations are becoming industrialized.  The gas and oil prices shot up in part to what is going on in the Middle East.  China has become a HUGE consumer of oil.  They are also now acknowloging that the uncapped industrialization is causing massive pollution.

Yes, man does impact the environment.  There was an article (transcriped somewhere on this site) that provided strong evidence (notice I didn't say proof) that farming caused a green house effect that staved off an ice age.
Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 14 2006,11:44
Catt, how do you account for the history of the ozone layer from before mankind was around?  UV levels have risen and dropped down there since the dawn of time according to ice core samples they've studied, and the speed and degree of change seen in the recent interval is nothing unusual.  How do you account for that, since thre was no industry around to effect it?
Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 14 2006,11:53
(TPRJones @ Jun. 14 2006,14:44)
Q
U
O
T
E		Catt, how do you account for the history of the ozone layer from before mankind was around?  UV levels have risen and dropped down there since the dawn of time according to ice core samples they've studied, and the speed and degree of change seen in the recent interval is nothing unusual.  How do you account for that, since thre was no industry around to effect it?

Did you read the article?
Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 14 2006,12:32
Yes, and I'm trying to figure out why they are ignoring the historical evidence that the ozone layer goes through big cycles even well before industrialization.  Since you were ignoring the same evidence, I was hoping you could explain why.
Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 14 2006,13:59
(TPRJones @ Jun. 14 2006,15:32)
Q
U
O
T
E		Yes, and I'm trying to figure out why they are ignoring the historical evidence that the ozone layer goes through big cycles even well before industrialization.  Since you were ignoring the same evidence, I was hoping you could explain why.

Re-read the article.
Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 14 2006,14:56
I did.  Maybe you could quote for me what it is you've got in mind?  

I see that it is about how scientists are surprised that something other than man's meddling seems to be responsible for impacts on the environment.  I don't see where they address the facts of the historical record, though.  To me the article reads as if the recent lowpoint in ozone levels is some sort of unusual occurance, rather than an established natural phenomenon.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 14 2006,19:35
And these aint even Americans saying this:

< http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm >

Q
U
O
T
E		Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

...
Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."


But wait, i thought Gore said ALL scientists agree?

The entire article is basically calling Al Gore a big fat stinking liar.

Which al gore himself has admitted to being.

Trust me... if any actual evidence existed, he wouldn't have to make shit up.

Posted by Vince on Jun. 14 2006,19:45
I loved that article.  Made me tingley in my pants.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 21 2006,06:34
Al Gore is still lying, or something.  Nah, probably just crazy.

< http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/6/20/134405.shtml?s=ic >

Q
U
O
T
E		Gore went further. Asked by Rose "Do you know any credible scientist who says ‘wait a minute – this hasn’t been proven,’ is there still a debate?” Gore replied, "The debate’s over. The people who dispute the international consensus on global warming are in the same category now with the people who think the moon landing was staged on a movie lot in Arizona.”


Ok, Al.  Just put the gun down... you're in a safe place....

Scary to think this guy was almost president.
Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 21 2006,08:17
Well, that's just retarded, Al.
Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 22 2006,09:07
< Scientists say it's getting hot in here, so take off all your clothes. >
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 22 2006,09:21
Q
U
O
T
E		A panel of top climate scientists told lawmakers that the Earth is running a fever and that "human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming." Their 155-page report said average global surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere rose about 1 degree during the 20th century.


A panel?

Of TOP scientists?

TOP???

Holy shit, maybe this is for real.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 22 2006,10:28
And on a related note...

The USA gets a lot of flack from the EU for not signing Kyoto.

< The EU signed, and isn't even close to honoring it. >

How bout that.
Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 22 2006,10:35
Best acronym ever
Q
U
O
T
E		Friends of the Earth Europe reacted bitterly.

FEE
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 22 2006,19:31
I liked what Lileks had to say about this stuff:

Q
U
O
T
E		I am not susceptible to disaster scenarios. I do not believe we have ten years to prevent the inevitable collapse of civilization. As long as I can remember I have been fed end-times scenarios – death by ice, death by fire, death by famine, death by smothering from heaps of clambering humans scrabbling for purchase on an overpopulated world, death by full-scale nuclear exchange, death by unstoppable global AIDS, death by a two-degree rise in temperatures, death by radon, death by alar, death by inadvertent Audi acceleration, death by juju. Doesn’t mean we won’t die of juju. But somehow we survive. The only thing I take away is a vague wistful wonder what it would be like to live in an era when things were generally so bad that the futurists spent their time assuring us it would be better. Say what you will about the past, but at least they had a future. All I’ve ever had, according to the experts, is a grim narrow window of heedless ignorance bliss followed by a dystopian irradiated world characterized by scarcity, mutation, and quite possibly intelligent chimps. You have no future. Oh, and don’t smoke!
Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 22 2006,19:47
Q
U
O
T
E		Say what you will about the past, but at least they had a future.


Nah, not really.  Humanity has always been less than ten years from oblivion.  We've just replaced signs and portents proclaiming the end of the world with pseudoscience proclaiming the end of the world.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 22 2006,19:47
Which pretty much equates to signs and portents, anyway.
Posted by Vince on Jun. 22 2006,19:52
The following paragraph in this stupid fuck article made me weep for modern science.

Q
U
O
T
E		The scientists said they had less confidence in the evidence of temperatures before 1600. But they considered it reliable enough to conclude there were sharp spikes in carbon dioxide and methane, the two major "greenhouse" gases blamed for trapping heat in the atmosphere, beginning in the 20th century, after remaining fairly level for 12,000 years.


This is the biggest departure from not only science, but simple logic.

More or less they're saying, "We think it's warmer, therefore it's a spike in carbon dioxide and methane".

They aren't accounting for any other possible causes.

"During a complete solar eclipse, I can't see my shadow.  Therefore if I can't see my shadow we must be in a complete solar eclipse."

New storms have bubbled up to the surface of Jupiter.  Most astronomers agree that it's because Jupiter is warming up.  Am I the only one that sees the possibility that the sun is actually heating up?  Out of 9 planets in our solar system we're seeing an increase in temperature on two of the planets (though at this point the rise on Jupiter is probably more substantiated).

Surely I'm not the only one that it's occured to that a rise in temp here might not be isolated to this planet, given what they're seeing on Jupiter.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 22 2006,19:55
But that theory doesn't gain you anything politically, and therefor monetarily.
Posted by Vince on Jun. 22 2006,20:10
Yup.  I've always said to "follow the money".

Told a couple of reporters that back in the early 70's, too.

Oops.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 22 2006,20:11
Oh, I thought you got the name 'Deep Throat' for the other reason.
Posted by Leisher on Jun. 23 2006,07:21
The following two articles were on the Yahoo front page at the same time this morning:

< Earth is hottest it's been in 2000 years. >

< Earth temp at 400 year high. >

So...which is it?
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 27 2006,18:03
More TOP scientists speak!

< http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060627/ap_on_sc/gore_s_science;_ylt=Angbtg1HjXzqQVCWWVbkHNus0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MzV0MTdmBHNlYwM3NTM- >

Posted by Leisher on Jun. 27 2006,20:37
I saw that article earlier and chuckled.

19 top scientists!
(but 100 were contacted)
Most said Gore's movie was accurate.
(but most hadn't seen the movie)

Notice how they don't say the other 81 haven't seen the movie? That means some of those top scientists didn't agree.

I'm not saying Gore's film is bullshit (yet), but the article seemed to try pretty hard to make it sound legit.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 27 2006,20:41
Any scientist, top or otherwise, who can say he is absolutely, 100% certain that man is changing the environment is a crackpot.  Period.

Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 28 2006,05:07
(Leisher @ Jun. 27 2006,23:37)
Q
U
O
T
E		I saw that article earlier and chuckled.

19 top scientists!
(but 100 were contacted)
Most said Gore's movie was accurate.
(but most hadn't seen the movie)

Notice how they don't say the other 81 haven't seen the movie? That means some of those top scientists didn't agree.

That does not mean some of those top scientists didn't agree.  That conclusion has no supporting evidence.

The movie is in limited release, and some people just aren't going to answer questions.  

So, Gordon, what is the issue with "top" scientists?  Do you think they should poll "crackpot" scientists or "home-trained" scientists or "crappy" scientists instead?
Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 28 2006,05:09
(GORDON @ Jun. 27 2006,23:41)
Q
U
O
T
E		Any scientist, top or otherwise, who can say he is absolutely, 100% certain that man is changing the environment is a crackpot.  Period.

I think this goes back to your definition of WMDs in Iraq.  You have a much looser standard for WMDs than, say, the White House or most of America.  However, you have a much tighter definition of "changing the environment" in order to make a statement like that.  The scientists who would make such a statement are not crackpots, they prolly just have a different view of it.  "Changing" the environment doesn't mean "responsible for 100% of environmental changes."  It means altering, affecting, modifying.  Having an impact on.
Posted by Leisher on Jun. 28 2006,06:14
Q
U
O
T
E		That does not mean some of those top scientists didn't agree.  That conclusion has no supporting evidence.

The movie is in limited release, and some people just aren't going to answer questions.


I went to go quote why I made that conclusion, but the article was changed. Originally, the part where it discusses "most of the scientists" was in the third paragraph, not the second. Thus, it was originally saying most of the 100 agreed with Gore's accuracy, not the 19.

In their defense, I'll say that maybe the author realized the problem and fixed it.

I will point out that the author specifically mentions that among the 100 scientists contacted were "vocal skeptics of climate change theory". However, he doesn't mention if any of the 19 scientists who agreed with the film were those vocal skeptics. I wonder why he mentioned them then?

And while you mention the movie is in limited release and some people are going to refuse to answer the question, I notice you didn't bring up the possibility of scientists saying they weren't going to go see it at all. Another point not covered by the article.

I'm not arguing that there isn't global warming or that Gore's film is inaccurate, I'm just pointing out that the article Gordo linked to is rather friendly to Gore and his film.

After all, "the end of the world" sells more papers than "everything's going to be just fine."
Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 28 2006,06:33
Agreed.
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 28 2006,08:23
(GORDON @ Jun. 27 2006,22:41)
Q
U
O
T
E		Any scientist, top or otherwise, who can say he is absolutely, 100% certain that man is changing the environment is a crackpot.  Period.

Are you joking?  Man indeed changes the environment.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 28 2006,08:24
(TheCatt @ Jun. 28 2006,08:09)
Q
U
O
T
E
(GORDON @ Jun. 27 2006,23:41)
Q
U
O
T
E		Any scientist, top or otherwise, who can say he is absolutely, 100% certain that man is changing the environment is a crackpot.  Period.

I think this goes back to your definition of WMDs in Iraq.  You have a much looser standard for WMDs than, say, the White House or most of America.  However, you have a much tighter definition of "changing the environment" in order to make a statement like that.  The scientists who would make such a statement are not crackpots, they prolly just have a different view of it.  "Changing" the environment doesn't mean "responsible for 100% of environmental changes."  It means altering, affecting, modifying.  Having an impact on.

No, because science is the search for fact, not gut instinct.  It is simply impossible for human-caused global warming to be beyond hypotheses, much less theory, much less Law.  It can't be tested.  It can't be reproduced.  It can't really be measured, because it can't be simulated on the scales required.  It is science, but it's tough to really do anything with, much less state with 100% certainty about ANYTHING.

And I still don't know why the fact the other planets are heating up is being ignored.  Seems like a big-ass I JUST FOUND A FLAW IN YOUR THEORY to me.

No scientific theory can ever be proven, only disproven.  And the above paragraph puts a serious "um, excuse me..." in it.

So no, I don't have any kind of definition of global warming.  From the things I've read, the earth probably is a degree warmer this century than last.  Never mind we're still coming out of that mini ice age in the 1500's.  Just ignore that completely.

My problem is these TOP scientists, whatever that means... is there a scientist hierarchy?  Or is that phrase a construct of the propagandists?  Can throw all good science out the window in order to get their headlines and their funding.

"Environmentalism" is often referred to as a religion, and I agree.  The science involved is about as valid as that used to "prove" Creationism.

So I say again... any scientist that believes with 100% certainty that man is heating up the environment is a crackpot.  A good scientist would never say that.  He would say, "There is evidence to suggest man is a driving force behind global warming, but we really don't have the solid evidence, and frankly there are a lot of indicators that can't be explained by the presence of man."  But hey... you can't scare the masses, sway the legislators, and secure the funding with that kind of level-headed statement, can you.  

If the science was there, why would you have to make a propaganda movie to get people to believe it?

There's no room for sensationalism in science.  I find it offensive.

I feel like I'm arguing about evolution again.  jesus fuck.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 28 2006,08:25
(Malcolm @ Jun. 28 2006,11:23)
Q
U
O
T
E
(GORDON @ Jun. 27 2006,22:41)
Q
U
O
T
E		Any scientist, top or otherwise, who can say he is absolutely, 100% certain that man is changing the environment is a crackpot.  Period.

Are you joking?  Man indeed changes the environment.

You fucking people fucking know what I mean.  We're talking about global warming.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 28 2006,08:40
(Leisher @ Jun. 28 2006,09:14)
Q
U
O
T
E
Q
U
O
T
E		That does not mean some of those top scientists didn't agree.  That conclusion has no supporting evidence.

The movie is in limited release, and some people just aren't going to answer questions.


I went to go quote why I made that conclusion, but the article was changed. Originally, the part where it discusses "most of the scientists" was in the third paragraph, not the second. Thus, it was originally saying most of the 100 agreed with Gore's accuracy, not the 19.

In their defense, I'll say that maybe the author realized the problem and fixed it.

I will point out that the author specifically mentions that among the 100 scientists contacted were "vocal skeptics of climate change theory". However, he doesn't mention if any of the 19 scientists who agreed with the film were those vocal skeptics. I wonder why he mentioned them then?

And while you mention the movie is in limited release and some people are going to refuse to answer the question, I notice you didn't bring up the possibility of scientists saying they weren't going to go see it at all. Another point not covered by the article.

I'm not arguing that there isn't global warming or that Gore's film is inaccurate, I'm just pointing out that the article Gordo linked to is rather friendly to Gore and his film.

After all, "the end of the world" sells more papers than "everything's going to be just fine."

Turns out the US senate called the author on his "all top scientists agree" bullshit.

< http://newsbusters.org/node/6138 >

Q
U
O
T
E		The Republican majority on the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works released a joint press release about an AP article entitled "Scientists OK Gore’s Movie for Accuracy."

The press release takes issue with the scientists the AP cited, as well as scientists it ignored.

   Begin quoted bit --->  The June 27, 2006 Associated Press (AP) article titled “Scientists OK Gore’s Movie for Accuracy” by Seth Borenstein raises some serious questions about AP’s bias and methodology.

   AP chose to ignore the scores of scientists who have harshly criticized the science presented in former Vice President Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth.”

   In the interest of full disclosure, the AP should release the names of the “more than 100 top climate researchers” they attempted to contact to review “An Inconvenient Truth.” AP should also name all 19 scientists who gave Gore “five stars for accuracy.” AP claims 19 scientists viewed Gore’s movie, but it only quotes five of them in its article. AP should also release the names of the so-called scientific “skeptics” they claim to have contacted.

   The AP article quotes Robert Correll, the chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group. It appears from the article that Correll has a personal relationship with Gore, having viewed the film at a private screening at the invitation of the former Vice President. In addition, Correll’s reported links as an “affiliate” of a Washington, D.C.-based consulting firm that provides “expert testimony” in trials and his reported sponsorship by the left-leaning Packard Foundation, were not disclosed by AP. See < http://www.junkscience.com/feb06.htm >

   The AP also chose to ignore Gore’s reliance on the now-discredited “hockey stick” by Dr. Michael Mann, which claims that temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere remained relatively stable over 900 years, then spiked upward in the 20th century, and that the 1990’s were the warmest decade in at least 1000 years. Last week’s National Academy of Sciences report dispelled Mann’s often cited claims by reaffirming the existence of both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. See Senator Inhofe’s statement on the broken “Hockey Stick.”

   Gore’s claim that global warming is causing the snows of Mt. Kilimanjaro to disappear has also been debunked by scientific reports. For example, a 2004 study in the journal Nature makes clear that Kilimanjaro is experiencing less snowfall because there’s less moisture in the air due to deforestation around Kilimanjaro.
Posted by Leisher on Jun. 28 2006,11:42
Propoganda versus science.

Who will win?
Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 28 2006,11:51
(GORDON @ Jun. 28 2006,08:25)
Q
U
O
T
E
(Malcolm @ Jun. 28 2006,11:23)
Q
U
O
T
E
(GORDON @ Jun. 27 2006,22:41)
Q
U
O
T
E		Any scientist, top or otherwise, who can say he is absolutely, 100% certain that man is changing the environment is a crackpot.  Period.

Are you joking?  Man indeed changes the environment.

You fucking people fucking know what I mean.  We're talking about global warming.

I would have to agree that, without a doubt, the activities of man do impact the global environment.  So do the activities of beavers, aligators, lions, bears, and butterflies that flap their wings in Brasil causing typhoons in Japan.  Of course there is an effect.

I have seen no evidence of any sort to indicate that that effect is big enough to be expressed without having to use scientific notation to get enough decimal places in to get to the significant digits.  Not a single shred.  Everything has been "gut instinct" sort of crackpot theories, not scientific studies.
Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 28 2006,12:01
(GORDON @ Jun. 28 2006,11:40)
Q
U
O
T
E		Turns out the US senate called the author on his "all top scientists agree" bullshit.

< http://newsbusters.org/node/6138 >

No, it didn't.  "The Republican majority on the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works " did.

And, shouldn't they name the "scores of scientists who have harshly criticized the science" in the movie, also for fairness?  Why only demand names of the other side?
Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 28 2006,12:07
Yeah, why bother asking < scientists. >
Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 28 2006,12:11
Now, now, if you can claim with a straight face that "all leading scientists agree" then you have to admit that the "the Republican majority on the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works" is enough to be able to claim that "all leading Senators agree".  Both speak just to the opinions of a key group and ignore the rest.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 28 2006,12:13
Eh, this is why I stopped arguing about the existence of god.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 28 2006,12:41
And no matter how snippy anyone gets in this conversation, it will never make the science behind the absolutist statements of these TOP SCIENTISTS valid.

And that really can't be argued.  There are exact rules to science, and these TOP SCIENTISTS aren't following them.

Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 28 2006,13:59
(TPRJones @ Jun. 28 2006,15:11)
Q
U
O
T
E		Now, now, if you can claim with a straight face that "all leading scientists agree" then you have to admit that the "the Republican majority on the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works" is enough to be able to claim that "all leading Senators agree".  Both speak just to the opinions of a key group and ignore the rest.

General agreement (consensus) is all that has ever been claimed, not "all"
Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 28 2006,14:09
Q
U
O
T
E		Gore went further. Asked by Rose "Do you know any credible scientist who says ‘wait a minute – this hasn’t been proven,’ is there still a debate?” Gore replied, "The debate’s over. The people who dispute the international consensus on global warming are in the same category now with the people who think the moon landing was staged on a movie lot in Arizona.”


I admit, he never uses the specific word "all", but it sure does seem to me that he's talking about more than just a "general consensus".
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 28 2006,14:11
And again, a theory can only be disproven, not proven.  Every good scientist knows that.  Gore said "proven."  You know what that means.

Posted by Vince on Jun. 28 2006,17:29
(GORDON @ Jun. 27 2006,22:41)
Q
U
O
T
E		Any scientist, top or otherwise, who can say he is absolutely, 100% certain that man is changing the environment is a crackpot.  Period.

There was a good rebuttal of that Yahoo article on one of the .gov pages.  The main scientist they quoted is an activist with his hand out.  They pointed out other problems with the article as well.

Oops.  I see later you quoted that article.

New storm spots on Jupiter.

Next topic...

Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 29 2006,07:08
(TPRJones @ Jun. 28 2006,17:09)
Q
U
O
T
E
Q
U
O
T
E		Gore went further. Asked by Rose "Do you know any credible scientist who says ‘wait a minute – this hasn’t been proven,’ is there still a debate?” Gore replied, "The debate’s over. The people who dispute the international consensus on global warming are in the same category now with the people who think the moon landing was staged on a movie lot in Arizona.”


I admit, he never uses the specific word "all", but it sure does seem to me that he's talking about more than just a "general consensus".

Well, you started with whether or not I claimed something... then went to Gore's statements, which I've already labeled as retarded.

Again, I'm not debating Gore's words. I don't care.

Well, let's try this:

Sam/Gordon:
a) Do you think humans are capable of having a large enough influence (doing current activities and their rate of growth; no nuclear bombs, etc) to affect the environment in the ways represented by global warming?

b) Do you think humans are, to some significant extent, altering the atmosphere and making the Earth warmer than it would have been without human activities?

c) Do you think it's possible for humans to alter the environment enough to cause either irreparable or sever harm to the planet that could cause famines, increased disease, etc?

d) Do you think that companies/humans should reduce their environmental impact in order to minimize the possibility that we are altering the Earth's climate/atmosphere?
Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 29 2006,08:45
Ah, my apologies, with your wording I thought you were saying that no one (of any consequence) was stating that it was all scientists, rather than you yourself.  I misunderstood (although, if you do want to discuss Gore he was on the Daily Show last night and said even crazier things than he has previously).

Oh, and you are Sam now, not me.  You talking to yourself?  :)

a) I've seen no evidence of such.  Lets put aside for the moment the fact that I'm not convinced that "greenhouse gasses" can be linked to global warming and take it as a given for a moment.  We as humans are reputed to be releasing around 24 billion tons of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere each year.  Mount Etna, an average-sized average-activity volcano in Italy pours out about 9 billion tons a year of greenhouse gasses when it errupts.  There are 286 active volcanos around the world today.  That would imply that - on average - that's around 2,500 billion tons a year of greenhouse gasses that the earth itself is pouring into the skies.  And we're dreadfully concerned about raising that total by less than 1%?

b) Perhaps to an extent of less than 1%, again assuming that "greenhouse gasses" can be responsible for such changes.  Although that's a pretty small amount, and probably within the boundaries of fluctuation in volcanic sources on an annual basis.

c) Here I have different definitions than you.  I wouldn't consider changes strong enough to cause famines or increased disease to necessarily be severe changes or irriversable.  Hell, if there were a year in which the global rainfall were to be at the low end of it's typical average, we could have global crop failures just from that extreme but perfectly possible hapenstance within the current range of climate fluctuations, no massive changes required.  Regardless, the climate changes and life adapts, whether mankind is here or not.  It's happened throughout the history of the Earth, to degrees much much larger than even the most severe doomsayers are proposing.  Hell, just a few billion years ago oxygen was extrememly toxic to the vast majority of life on this planet, and now it's essential to the vast majority of life.  That's quite a change, but I don't hear anyone moaning about all this deadly oxygen we've got in our atmosphere these days.  However, all that aside, if you consider human life to be the most important thing on the Earth and had taken your points a) and b) at full face value, then I can see where you would make this sort of statement, yes.

d) If reasonably strong scientific evidence that supports your first three points ever comes forth, then I could perhaps be persuaded that this would be a needed consideration, yes.  However we aren't there yet.  So far the changes to the Earth's climate are well within it's historical variations, not only in terms of annual temperature but also in terms of the rate of change of that temperature.  I've not seen any evidence of any sort to indicate any sort of "crisis" beyond that needed to get Democrats elected to office and get more ad sales on "we're all going to die" television shows.  From the information I have at hand, everyone seems to be pretty much either insane or manipulating public perception for their own gain.

I dont' really fault your logic.  I just don't know where you get those whacky premises.

Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 29 2006,11:07
Sam = TPR has apparently been hard-wired into my brain.  Mebbe it will change next time I get podded.

1) Can you give me a source for the volcano data?
< This one says 3% of CO2 from volcanoes. >
< This one says "uncertain", but around 0.5-1.0% >
< This graphs shows CO2 concentration in the air, over time. >

Clearly something is causing a change in CO2 concentrations?

2) See 1.

3) Yeah, I'm more concerned about humans than other animals... just assumed we all felt that way :)

4) See 1.
Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 29 2006,12:11
The 9 billion came from memory, the 286 is easy to find in a yahoo search.  I'll look tonight and see if I can find a source on that 9 billion and piece together something concrete for you.

Although, it looks like - according to figures I drilled to through the Kilauea link in the second source you sited - it may be I've misremembered billion for million.  But it looks like Kilauea puts out enough greenhouse gasses on it's own to make up most of the total of Gerlich's apparently way too conservative estimate in that second link.  

Something doesn't add up here, both on my side and on the links for your side.  More math tonight.
Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 29 2006,12:24
Well, here's some decent < CO2 data. > From 1997.

Oceans: 90
Vegetation Decay: 30
Plant/Animal respiration: 30
Human activities: 7

So 4.6% comes from humans.
(all #s billion of metric tons)

I haven't found SOx, NOx, Methane, etc information.  Or more recent human anthropogenic CO2 production #s.
Posted by Leisher on Jun. 29 2006,13:17
I'm not trying to be funny, but I thought cow farts were a huge factor in air pollution and damage to the ozone...?
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 29 2006,13:19
I'll answer the question directed at me this evening when I have time.
Posted by Vince on Jun. 29 2006,13:25
Along with the new storm spots surfacing on Jupiter, the < ice caps on mars are melting >.  This article is from 4 years back.

The lack of objectivity on the issues of earth's global warming is astounding.
Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 29 2006,13:29
(Leisher @ Jun. 29 2006,16:17)
Q
U
O
T
E		I'm not trying to be funny, but I thought cow farts were a huge factor in air pollution and damage to the ozone...?

< Methane #s >
Natural: 290
Anthropogenic: 330
(Tg/yr) (Tetragrams?)

Couldn't find good #s for cows.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 29 2006,17:19
(TheCatt @ Jun. 29 2006,10:08)
Q
U
O
T
E		Well, let's try this:

Sam/Gordon:
a) Do you think humans are capable of having a large enough influence (doing current activities and their rate of growth; no nuclear bombs, etc) to affect the environment in the ways represented by global warming?

b) Do you think humans are, to some significant extent, altering the atmosphere and making the Earth warmer than it would have been without human activities?

c) Do you think it's possible for humans to alter the environment enough to cause either irreparable or sever harm to the planet that could cause famines, increased disease, etc?

d) Do you think that companies/humans should reduce their environmental impact in order to minimize the possibility that we are altering the Earth's climate/atmosphere?

First of all let me preface my answers with the fact that you're asking yes/no questions.  That tells me you're asking if I'm 100% positive one way or another... and as I've already said, as the science isn't anywhere near complete, anyone who is 100% certain either way on this subject is a crackpot and a poor scientist.

So, my answers:

a) No, I don't really think humans are capable of causing an ice age, drought, cats and dogs living together, etc at the current rate of industrial production/burning of fossil fuels.  I mean, I could be wrong, but my answer is probably not.  If you want the "why" of my answer answered, then ask new questions.

b)  Probably not, but possibly.  But probably not.

c)   If I answered probably not to a, then I have to answer probably not to this question.  And the worst man-affectable catalyst for the transmission of disease are the environmentalists who got DDT banned in the 70's with little scientific evidence and lots of propaganda.  The number of deaths from malaria directly attributed to the ban of mosquito-killing DDT was numbered in the millions, last time I checked.

d)  Sure, voluntarily.  No harm in being cautious as long as you can do so without going out of business.

++++++++++

Now, I've skimmed through lots of talk about CO2 after these questions were posed.  Is someone implying that CO2, which used to be in the atmosphere anyway before being locked into the long carbon chains of fossil fuels, is a absolute direct indicator/cause of global warming?
Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 29 2006,19:48
Okay, Catt, I studied that first site you linked and found < this table >.  I'm willing to accept data from this source.  I used a little < basic analysis >, and presuming that the increase has been a smooth geometric progression (a reasonable assumption for basic analysis, as even if the actual progression is spikey this sort of analysis should hit the averages fairly well) and came up with this:



The purple is nature (if we assume nature is a constant, which I'm not willing to accept as a given considering that CO2 levels have been changing on their own since forever ... but lets assume it for the moment for simplicity, or at the very least that the amount of change due to nature may be a very small percentage of the observed change and thus negligable) and the blue is the increase since the beginning of industrialization (i.e. mankind).  I've also extended out the curve to 2050.  The red lines are 1992 (the X(t) source data from the chart) and today.

One thing that's fairly clear is that when it comes to the main greenhouse gases, CO2 levels are the largest factor by far.  So for simple analysis like this the rest can be ignored.  

Clearly my prior computations based on volcanic information were in error.  But also it's clear that some of the sources that claim that mankind is pumping out huge amounts in comparrison to the amounts nature is responsible for (again, providing that nature is a constant or nearly so) are also in error.  The truth is somewhere between the two extremes, which I guess is pretty common in political debates.

So, I will accept that mankind is indeed producing not insignifigant amounts of greenhouse gasses.  Not nearly as much as some claim, but far more than I was given to understand was the case.  Essentially, I'm now satisfied and willing to meet you halfway on this point.

So, on to the next arguement: provided that CO2 is the bulk of this, what do you say to the fact that CO2 levels have been much much higher way back in history than even my projected 2050, yet here the Earth is, somehow not being the thick and soupy boiling hell that Venus is?
Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 30 2006,05:00
(TPRJones @ Jun. 29 2006,22:48)
Q
U
O
T
E		So, I will accept that mankind is indeed producing not insignifigant amounts of greenhouse gasses.  Not nearly as much as some claim, but far more than I was given to understand was the case.  Essentially, I'm now satisfied and willing to meet you halfway on this point.

Agreed, then.  

Q
U
O
T
E
So, on to the next arguement: provided that CO2 is the bulk of this, what do you say to the fact that CO2 levels have been much much higher way back in history than even my projected 2050, yet here the Earth is, somehow not being the thick and soupy boiling hell that Venus is?

< This has been hard to find data on. >

As far as I can tell form this reading, 1) it's hard to say for sure, 2) processes over millions of years have worked to reduce CO2 over time and 3) the rates of absorption tend to be very slow, allowing for the planet to adapt more easily and 4) I dont have any good idea for the temperature during these times.

At any rate, I think the key takeaway is that it takes time for the Earth to react to things.  And while I'm sure she'll go on long after us no matter what we do, I'm more concerned with keeping humans around.  Thus, I think we should tread as lightly ("Burnest thine coal, but keepest thy smoke." from America II's Constitution) as possible.
Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 30 2006,05:08
(GORDON @ Jun. 29 2006,20:19)
Q
U
O
T
E		First of all let me preface my answers with the fact that you're asking yes/no questions.  That tells me you're asking if I'm 100% positive one way or another...

Come on now, you're not in high school any more.  I didn't think I had to explain out the whole "please discuss why blah blah blah"
Q
U
O
T
E		Sure, voluntarily.  No harm in being cautious as long as you can do so without going out of business.

Well, the environment is, unfortunately, a public good.  As such, there is never economic incentive at the micro level to drive the types of change that would control emissions, protect you from greenhouse emissions or mercury, etc.

Proposed America II Constitution states: "Burnest thine coal, but keepest thy smoke."  How would/could this be done?  How would it be implemented in America I?
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 30 2006,07:09
Immediately, and without dismanteling the economy?  I can't see how.

There is no magic "alternative fuel" out there waiting to be discovered.   My last biology professor said we needed to go to a hydrotgen economy.  I asked him where all that hydrogen was going to come from.  He said, "we need to build massive geothermal power generation facilities in Yellowstone."

Oooooooooooooookay.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 30 2006,07:11
But at any rate, with enough evidence presented in this thread alone that challenges the statements of many TOP SCIENTISTS who are 100% certain that man is heating up the planet... do you see why I call them crackpots?

Not because they are wrong, necessarily.  But because it s impossible to be 100% certain and irresponsible to say that they are.
Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 30 2006,08:03
Why don't we just live under domes and not worry about it, eh?
Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 30 2006,08:37
Just saying... "humans affect the environment."

Domes are expensive.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 30 2006,09:21
(TheCatt @ Jun. 30 2006,11:37)
Q
U
O
T
E		Just saying... "humans affect the environment."

Domes are expensive.

And I'm saying "Yeah, possibly.  But I get angry about propagandists and so-called scientist spreading false information."

You get offended when bad economic pronciple is put into play.  I get angry when people who don't know basic scientific concepts pretend that they do, or do understand them and ignore them anyway.
Posted by Vince on Jun. 30 2006,15:33
(GORDON @ Jun. 30 2006,11:21)
Q
U
O
T
E		You get offended when bad economic pronciple is put into play.  I get angry when people who don't know basic scientific concepts pretend that they do, or do understand them and ignore them anyway.

The scary part is that the Gore's are spouting both at the same time.

And Al Gore says we only have 9 years and 212 days to save ourselves.
Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 01 2006,09:35
So, I just saw on the Discovery channel that there are over 100,000 active volcanos on the deep sea floor.  If the 286 on the surface are putting out around 1% of the greenhouse gasses that nature adds to the mix, then those should increase that output by a factor of 350.  The ocean absorbs a lot of it, I'm sure, but some of that has to be seeping out.

No, I'm not backtracking, Catt, I'm just pondering.  I think there's still a lot of factors that the TOP scientists don't necessarily take into account.
Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 01 2006,09:41
For example, a few times a year pockets of destablisied methane hydrate release a few million cubic tons of methane into the atmosphere in the space of a few hours.  There's a few milliontrillion cubic tons of this stuff buried under the ocean, it's naturally occuring, and it's not mankind that causes it to release.  I don't think I've ever heard this phenomenon discussed by climatologists.
Posted by GORDON on Jul. 01 2006,10:11
(TPRJones @ Jul. 01 2006,12:41)
Q
U
O
T
E		For example, a few times a year pockets of destablisied methane hydrate release a few million cubic tons of methane into the atmosphere in the space of a few hours.  There's a few milliontrillion cubic tons of this stuff buried under the ocean, it's naturally occuring, and it's not mankind that causes it to release.  I don't think I've ever heard this phenomenon discussed by climatologists.

That's the current leading theory behind disappearances in the Bermuda Triangle.  They ran through some methane in plane engines... they stalled.  They blew some (scale to size) massive bubbles under ships... sank.  And that region is known for its massive methane pockets.

Posted by Vince on Jul. 02 2006,10:52
(GORDON @ Jul. 01 2006,12:11)
Q
U
O
T
E		And that region is known for its massive methane pockets.

Just like my ass.
Posted by Vince on Jul. 03 2006,16:34
Another top scientist says < Al Gore's an idiot >.

Q
U
O
T
E		Even among those arguing, there is general agreement that we can't attribute any particular hurricane to global warming. To be sure, there is one exception, Greg Holland of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., who argues that it must be global warming because he can't think of anything else.


Can I start using the "God made it that way" argument in science debates now?
Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 03 2006,19:43
Only if you think Al Gore is God.
Posted by GORDON on Jul. 03 2006,19:44
Only if by "God" you mean billions of years of climactic change.
Posted by Vince on Jul. 03 2006,21:37
You have to admit that the reasoning is about as solid.
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 12 2006,17:45
Watching Mythbusters, I saw an advert for a global warming special on Discovery.  Sunday night.  8 or 9pm, I think.
Posted by GORDON on Jul. 12 2006,17:46
Uh oh.
Posted by GORDON on Jul. 28 2006,20:11
< Hurricane strengths trending upwards possibly because recording is more accurate than in the past. >

Uh oh.  

"Is there even still debate about this?"  ~Al Gore.
Posted by Vince on Jul. 30 2006,12:24
Plus there's the media hype.  Last I heard, Katrina wasn't event a Catagory 4.  It was a 3 (after evaluating the data "after the fact").  That retraction didn't get near the coverage that the hurricane Cat 4 did.
Posted by TheCatt on Jul. 30 2006,13:58
(Vince @ Jul. 30 2006,15:24)
Q
U
O
T
E		Plus there's the media hype.  Last I heard, Katrina wasn't event a Catagory 4.  It was a 3 (after evaluating the data "after the fact").  That retraction didn't get near the coverage that the hurricane Cat 4 did.

Yeah, funny how the press may have been concerned with the flooding of a city, or something.
Posted by GORDON on Jul. 30 2006,14:08
They were digging for that "Republicans caused Katrina" angle.
Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 30 2006,16:47
(TheCatt @ Jul. 30 2006,13:58)
Q
U
O
T
E		Yeah, funny how the press may have been concerned with the flooding of a city, or something.

That was less about the power of the storm and far more about the long-term corruption of Louisiana state and local governments.  Nonetheless, some still blame Bush and the fact that he hates black people.

If Bush were really as powerful as some people seem to think he is, there'd be a whole lot fewer Democrats around (and more prayer in schools).
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 31 2006,08:34
Good god, a city was built in what may be the most flood prone area outside the ocean itself, & a massive storm manages to smash thru the artificial defenses.  Fucking surprising.

I also think I caught some of that Discovery thing in a rerun this weekend.  You'd hate it, G.
Posted by GORDON on Jul. 31 2006,09:53
(Malcolm @ Jul. 31 2006,11:34)
Q
U
O
T
E		I also think I caught some of that Discovery thing in a rerun this weekend.  You'd hate it, G.

Must be the global warming show.  I've avoided it.  If I want to see speculation and theories made on unreproducable experiments with a complete lack of removable of all possible variables, I'll watch...

well, nothing.
Posted by Leisher on Jul. 31 2006,09:58
Q
U
O
T
E		Yeah, funny how the press may have been concerned with the flooding of a city, or something.


So where were all the national headlines blasting the local government for taking the money the feds gave them to strengthen their levys on, and instead spending it on casino boats?

Why didn't we hear daily about how they should be in jail and how they hate black people?

No instead, everything is Bush'd fault or FEMA's fault and Nagin got re-elected.

Nagin should be in jail.
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 31 2006,10:06
(GORDON @ Jul. 31 2006,11:53)
Q
U
O
T
E
(Malcolm @ Jul. 31 2006,11:34)
Q
U
O
T
E		I also think I caught some of that Discovery thing in a rerun this weekend.  You'd hate it, G.

Must be the global warming show.  I've avoided it.  If I want to see speculation and theories made on unreproducable experiments with a complete lack of removable of all possible variables, I'll watch...

well, nothing.

Truth be told, it is the most even-handed special on the subject I've seen on a big name station.
Posted by GORDON on Aug. 03 2006,12:34
They.

Don't.

Know.

Shit.

< http://news.yahoo.com/s....HNlYwM- >

It's great that they try.  Keep working on it.  The pursuit of knowledge is never a wasted life.  But stop telling us we're all dead in 10 years, Al Gore you pathetic idiot.
Posted by TheCatt on Aug. 04 2006,09:05
< Pat Robertson believes in global warming, > for stupid, stupid reasons.

That might just kill the whole environmentalist movement.
Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 04 2006,09:36
(TheCatt @ Aug. 04 2006,11:05)
Q
U
O
T
E		< Pat Robertson believes in global warming, > for stupid, stupid reasons.

That might just kill the whole environmentalist movement.

Pat Robertson believing in anything could damn near kill the affected movement.
Posted by TPRJones on Aug. 04 2006,10:52
Perhaps that's the idea.
Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 04 2006,11:26
(TPRJones @ Aug. 04 2006,12:52)
Q
U
O
T
E		Perhaps that's the idea.

Perhaps we could get him to embrace fundamentalist Islam.
Posted by Vince on Aug. 07 2006,21:33
(TheCatt @ Aug. 04 2006,11:05)
Q
U
O
T
E		< Pat Robertson believes in global warming, > for stupid, stupid reasons.

That might just kill the whole environmentalist movement.

Heheh... may turn out he's doing God's work after all  :)
Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 08 2006,08:10
(Vince @ Aug. 07 2006,23:33)
Q
U
O
T
E
(TheCatt @ Aug. 04 2006,11:05)
Q
U
O
T
E		< Pat Robertson believes in global warming, > for stupid, stupid reasons.

That might just kill the whole environmentalist movement.

Heheh... may turn out he's doing God's work after all  :)

If he was doing God's work, he'd sell the the fancy suits he wears for his goddamn TV show & give it to charity.

If he was doing God's work, he'd shut the fuck up.

But if he was really doing God's work, he'd just kill himself to make the rest of the world a better place.
Posted by GORDON on Dec. 10 2006,19:42
< UN downgrades man's impact on the climate >

QUOTE
Mankind has had less effect on global warming than previously supposed, a United Nations report on climate change will claim next year.
Posted by thibodeaux on Dec. 10 2006,20:16
Shoot, I may have to start believing in Global Warming.  If the UN says it's false, it almost certainly MUST be true.
Posted by Vince on Dec. 10 2006,20:46
It's been a very bad year for global warming theorists that are sucking at the tit of federal grants.
Posted by Malcolm on Dec. 10 2006,21:36
My default reaction to anything the U.N. does is apathy since that's mainly how they feel about the rest of the planet.
Posted by Leisher on Dec. 13 2006,13:27
Front page of Yahoo today is Leonardo DiCaprio talking about global warming. One of the links takes you to < the Yahoo latest news for global warming page. >

Guess what story isn't there? That's right, the one about the UN downgrading man's impact.
Posted by GORDON on Apr. 18 2007,11:13
< Global warming making it harder for hurricanes to form? >

Global Warming.... is there anything it CAN'T do?
Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 18 2007,12:47

(GORDON @ Apr. 18 2007,14:13)
QUOTE
< Global warming making it harder for hurricanes to form? >

Global Warming.... is there anything it CAN'T do?

Get Malcolm laid?
Posted by DoctorChaos on Apr. 19 2007,04:45

(GORDON @ Apr. 18 2007,14:13)
QUOTE
< Global warming making it harder for hurricanes to form? >

Global Warming.... is there anything it CAN'T do?

Wait, wait, wait a minute!  Didn't 'they' say these extreme environmental events (see hurricanes) are the result of global warning?  

I guess I need to look at the title of this thread.
Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 19 2007,11:01

(DoctorChaos @ Apr. 19 2007,07:45)
QUOTE

(GORDON @ Apr. 18 2007,14:13)
QUOTE
< Global warming making it harder for hurricanes to form? >

Global Warming.... is there anything it CAN'T do?

Wait, wait, wait a minute!  Didn't 'they' say these extreme environmental events (see hurricanes) are the result of global warning?  

I guess I need to look at the title of this thread.

You could read the title of the article as well.

QUOTE
Researchers debate warming, hurricanes

Hell, maybe even the first paragraph.
QUOTE
The debate over whether global warming affects hurricanes may be running into some unexpected turbulence. Many researchers believe warming is causing the storms to get stronger, while others aren't so sure. Now, a new study raises the possibility that global warming might even make it harder for hurricanes to form.
Posted by GORDON on Apr. 19 2007,12:33
Debate in this area is great.

Certainty, for now, is bullshit.
Posted by GORDON on Aug. 09 2007,16:35
Oops, our bad, 1998 WASN'T the warmest year on record.

< In fact, 5 of the last 10 warmest years occurred before World War II. >

- NASA

Obviously the Bush White House is just pressuring the scientists again, so it's prolly all fake and the truth will only come out with Hillary in the White House.
Posted by Leisher on Apr. 13 2008,19:49
< No link between global warming and hurricanes. >
Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 14 2008,10:55
First comment:
QUOTE
Posted by: greenbeen77
What a judas this guy turned out to be...but it was to be expected. Im sure he's not the first or last to be bought out by the interests of big oil...if judas betrayed Jesus crist just as easy why wouldn't these MIT dorks do the same?

Good goddamn.  Elvis has left the building.  Goodnight, everybody.
Posted by GORDON on Apr. 14 2008,11:20
Told you it was a religion.
Posted by thibodeaux on Apr. 24 2008,18:29
< Wow >
Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 25 2008,00:25
QUOTE
I am forced to comment on this news story about Al Gore- what fascinates me is not that there were purportedly special effects in “An Inconvenient Truth” (which I doubt), but that you cling to the concept that global climate change is not a reality.


More proof it's a religion.  

Did he not watch the video, or does he think they are flat out lying?  Or maybe The Day After Tomorrow stole the shot from Al Gore a few years before An Inconvenient Truth was made?  That must be it.
Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 25 2008,03:56
So the flyover was fake.  So?
Posted by thibodeaux on Apr. 25 2008,04:22

(TheCatt @ Apr. 25 2008,06:56)
QUOTE
So the flyover was fake.  So?

Good point:  the whole movie is bullshit anyway.
Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 25 2008,13:35

(TheCatt @ Apr. 25 2008,03:56)
QUOTE
So the flyover was fake.  So?

I agree that that is irrelivant.  I just like the irony in someone grumbling about how people are unable to look at the "facts" of global warming and see it for the clearly proven rational arguement that it (supposedly) is, yet at the same time see that vid and say "special effects in 'An Inconvenient Truth' (which I doubt)."

Pot kettle much?
Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 25 2008,14:24

(TPRJones @ Apr. 25 2008,16:35)
QUOTE

(TheCatt @ Apr. 25 2008,03:56)
QUOTE
So the flyover was fake.  So?

I agree that that is irrelivant.  I just like the irony in someone grumbling about how people are unable to look at the "facts" of global warming and see it for the clearly proven rational arguement that it (supposedly) is, yet at the same time see that vid and say "special effects in 'An Inconvenient Truth' (which I doubt)."

Pot kettle much?

Well, that idiot is a whole different story.
Posted by GORDON on Apr. 29 2008,12:17
Hurricane expert is skeptical about global warming.

< http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,353023,00.html >

Remember Al Gore's consensus?  I wonder how much money he made last week selling carbon credits.
Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 29 2008,14:13
So, consensus, what exactly does that mean?
QUOTE

1)  An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole:
2) General agreement or accord

#1 implies ALL scientists agree.
#2, to me, implies MOST agree.

Am I interpreting those correctly?
Posted by GORDON on Apr. 29 2008,14:43
If you ever find yourself agreeing with the majority of people, it's time to stop and have some quiet reflection about your life.

Gore specifically stated that anyone who disagrees with him is a nutjob.  He has stated that all serious scientists agree with him.  A lot of people who would otherwise be considered serious, non-nutjobs have spoken out against Gore's movement.  Al Gore makes money off of his global warming movement, and does not personally live a "green" lifestyle if his so-called and dubious carbon opffsets are taken out of that equation.  Far from it.

But, like with Obama, some people will believe anything if they want it to be true badly enough.

Or were you just being argumentative?
Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 29 2008,16:26
I was really just asking for clarification or other people's opinion on the latter definition as to what "general" meant.

General, like most, or general like "about most aspects, except some details"
Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 29 2008,22:56
I think the conotation with the word consensus is that most (not all, but at least on the approximate order of 90%) agree with most (same stipulation) of the statement.  A mere 51% is too weak for the word consensus, I would think.

The denotation, however, is not so specific.  And it's clear that those using it about global warming are using it to mean all - or at least all those that agree with them, because the rest are clearly crazy and do not count.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 29 2008,23:28
He also said "Is there still an argument about this?"
Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 30 2008,08:25

(GORDON @ Apr. 30 2008,01:28)
QUOTE
He also said "Is there still an argument about this?"

People like believing doomsday prophecies.  I'm damn near convinced most of us have a built-in inferiority complex.

David Koresh knew this.  Nostradamus knew this.  Marshall Applewhite knew this.  Jim Jones knew this.  Now, am I suggesting that everyone who believes in global warming is actively deceiving those who don't?  Nah.

But c'mon, this is the same planet that's had species killed off en masse thruout its existence.  In that light, it's not hard to believe that humankind could be killed by a catastrophe event of epic proportions.  Of course, every critter that's gone extinct has done so as a result of natural phenomenon.  The dinosaurs didn't kill themselves.  The Permian extinction wasn't artificially made.

In short, most people don't take into account how incredibly old this sphere is & the scale of the punishment it's taken in its life.  Our knowledge of how things really work is partial at best.  Is it possible humans are affecting the climate of the entire globe?  Eh, maybe.  It's nigh impossible to answer with a definitive, "No."  But the worst people could do to this place pales in comparison w\ what's already happened to it.  All this being said, humans could certainly make themselves go extinct, which would be a damn fine case to nature never to create sentient, self-aware life again.
Posted by Leisher on Apr. 30 2008,11:21
QUOTE
Of course, every critter that's gone extinct has done so as a result of natural phenomenon.


That's not entirely accurate. Are the actions of another species considered "natural phenomenon"?

Man has been responsible both directly and indirectly for certain species' extinction or near extinction.

Man hunted buffaloes, wolves, bears, etc. to near extinction. Ditto for whales.

Man brought species with him around the globe resulting in the extinction of other species. Ask the dodo bird.

Not saying man is the ultimate evil, but we are the only species on the planet that has goals other than fucking and eating. We invent, travel, trade, build, etc. Even in those peaceful actions, we can kill and not even intentionally.

Hippies simply need to suck it up and realize that fact.
Posted by GORDON on Apr. 30 2008,11:34
First thing I thought of was "wooly mammoth."
Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 30 2008,12:24
Eh, overhunting/overfishing seems to be a result of stupidity more than anything else.  And we've killed numerous species in the name of progress or cos they got in the way.  I just consider that one species encroaching on another's turf successfully.  But yeah, we've probably hunted a few things just cos we thought they needed to be wiped off the planet.
Posted by GORDON on Apr. 30 2008,12:58
Like Polio.

"A" for effort, anyway.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 30 2008,13:48

(GORDON @ Apr. 30 2008,14:58)
QUOTE
Like Polio.

"A" for effort, anyway.

All things being said, how many species has man killed?  How many went extinct without any help from man whatsoever?
Posted by GORDON on Apr. 30 2008,13:53
No... no... there is an all-pervasive Earth-Presence named Gaia, and She created humans as a way to understand herself... so technically, man doesn't kill anything.  It's all part of Gaia's plan and humanity is just a puppet in the overall scheme of things.

- BTW, I didn't mean '"A" for effort' toward you, I meant that we get an "A" for effort for "eradicating" polio, because I think it may be popping up again due to hippie parents not getting their kids innoculated over autism fears.
Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 30 2008,23:21

(Malcolm @ Apr. 30 2008,13:48)
QUOTE
All things being said, how many species has man killed?  How many went extinct without any help from man whatsoever?

Man has directly wiped out a few dozen species, if you discount the differences between the Blue Spotted Blind Cave Lizard and the Teal Spotted Bline Cave Lizard and crap like that.

Nature has wiped out many many many many many many more.  Far more species were extint before we ever came along than are around currently.  It's a natural byproduct of evolution, after all.
Posted by GORDON on May 02 2008,11:40
< http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages....id=1770 >

QUOTE
Global warming will be "put on hold" over the next decade because of natural climate variations, scientists claim.

A study of sea temperature changes predicts a lull as traditional climate cycles cancel out the heating effect of greenhouse gases from pollution.

The findings suggest the official models used to predict short-term global warming patterns are too crude.


But the argument is over.  We're past the point of no return.  The consensus agrees.  Please buy Carbon Credits.

QUOTE
"That emphasises the need to consider climate variability and climate change together when making predictions over timescales of decades."


DUH......... YA THINK???

QUOTE
The Met Office believes 2008 will be slightly cooler than last year. But the last ten years remain the warmest decade in recent human history.


"Recent human history" meaning the last 10 or 100 years, of course.  Nevermind the planet has been much warmer within the last 10k years.  I blame Bush and fuel inefficient SUV's that were around in 7000 B.C.
Posted by GORDON on Jul. 17 2008,20:01
Former member of "The Consensus" realizes the "theory" is falling apart.

< http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story....00.html >
Posted by GORDON on Jul. 28 2008,07:24
Should change the name of this thread to "...full of Bullshit!"

Penn & Teller on environmental hysteria.

Penn and Teller - Bullshit! -  Environmental Hysteria
Posted by Leisher on Jul. 28 2008,08:50
This thread never gets old.
Posted by Leisher on Aug. 23 2008,22:58
< Alternate fuel hurting the planet. >
Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 24 2008,15:30
Start working on shrinking nuclear reactors.  Let's take the fucking gloves off.
Posted by Leisher on Sep. 05 2008,11:46
< Why storms are getting "worse". >

QUOTE
If climate change is having an effect on the intensities of storms, it's not obvious in the historical weather data. And whatever effect it is having is much, much smaller than the effect of development along the coastlines.


You know, it bugs me that places like Yahoo will publish articles like this yet also publish articles making claims that "global warming is making storms worse". Is there any journalistic integrity left anymore?
Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 05 2008,12:35

(Leisher @ Sep. 05 2008,09:46)
QUOTE
Is there any journalistic integrity left anymore?

None.
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 05 2008,12:39
The morning after Palin's speech, the AP had a line-by-line "fact-checking" of everything she said.  I didn't bother with it, but I have seen it cut-and-pasted all over the place.

It is amazing that now is the time the AP decides to start checking facts, and they pulled an all-nighter to do it.  I question the timing.  To my knowledge they've never checked a fact in the entire time they have existed.
Posted by Leisher on Sep. 05 2008,13:58
QUOTE
To my knowledge they've never checked a fact in the entire time they have existed.


I, as some of you know, have actually worked for the MSM and during that time I never knew of anyone who checked facts or apologized when they got something wrong.
Posted by GORDON on Dec. 23 2008,15:30
Al Gore fired global warming skeptic.  "Science will not intrude on public policy."

< http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=13773 >

QUOTE
In 1991, Happer was appointed director of energy research for the US Department of Energy. In 1993, he testified before Congress that the scientific data didn't support widespread fears about the dangers of the ozone hole and global warming, remarks that caused then-Vice President Al Gore to fire him. "I was told that science was not going to intrude on public policy", he said. "I did not need the job that badly".


I'm telling you people... when the Supreme Court ruled against Al Gore in 2000, Al Gore snapped and went super villain.  The Global Warming movement is his payback on this country.

Posted by Vince on Dec. 23 2008,22:49
Give it a little more time.  As more and more credible scientists come out saying the data doesn't prove what they're saying it does and the movement is discredited, Gore will really go off the deep end.

This winter can't be helping his mood much.  I'm pretty sure all the people stuck in airports out west are pretty much saying ol' Al can suck it.
Posted by Malcolm on Dec. 24 2008,22:10

(Vince @ Dec. 24 2008,00:49)
QUOTE
Give it a little more time.  As more and more credible scientists come out saying the data doesn't prove what they're saying it does and the movement is discredited, Gore will really go off the deep end.

Yeah.  Cos nothing changes popular opinion like lack of scientific evidence.  Which is why millions of people probably now think Jesus had a Merovingian descendant.
Posted by Leisher on Apr. 21 2009,08:18
You know all those dramatic shots of ice melting in Antarctica and how this trend really has the global warming nazis freaking out?

Well as it turns out, < the ice in Antarctica is GROWING >.

QUOTE
A paper to be published soon by the British Antarctic Survey in the journal Geophysical Research Letters is expected to confirm that over the past 30 years, the area of sea ice around the continent has expanded.


See, the western portion of the continent has the melting issue, but the eastern side is freezing faster than the western side is melting.
Posted by Leisher on Apr. 21 2009,08:23
More global warming news today:

< Fat people cause global warming. >

This has to be devastating to anyone overweight who actively works to fight "global warming". They just lost all credibility.

The government must be thrilled though since this will give them all the ammunition they need to pass laws regulating our weight.
Posted by thibodeaux on Apr. 21 2009,08:27
Egad, the Sun?
Posted by Leisher on Apr. 21 2009,09:24
Yeah, it was emailed to me this morning by a co-worker. I thought it was pretty funny, thus it ended up here.
Posted by GORDON on Apr. 21 2009,12:05

(Leisher @ Apr. 21 2009,11:18)
QUOTE
You know all those dramatic shots of ice melting in Antarctica and how this trend really has the global warming nazis freaking out?

Well as it turns out, < the ice in Antarctica is GROWING >.

QUOTE
A paper to be published soon by the British Antarctic Survey in the journal Geophysical Research Letters is expected to confirm that over the past 30 years, the area of sea ice around the continent has expanded.


See, the western portion of the continent has the melting issue, but the eastern side is freezing faster than the western side is melting.

Saw an argument the other day that went something like, "Global warming models have ALWAYS predicted Antarctic ice would grow.  Anyone who said otherwise was just a sensationalist."

Hopefully the average person would see through that pile of horse shit, the same way they saw through Obama's "hope and change" bullshit.  Oh shit, wait...
Posted by GORDON on Apr. 28 2009,09:51
Fuck planet Earth.

< Fuck Planet Earth > - watch more < funny videos >


Nice look at the downside of the circle of life.
Posted by GORDON on Jul. 27 2009,16:29
This is the most basic form of a MANMADE GLOBAL WARNING acolyte.

Posted by TheCatt on Jul. 27 2009,19:36
I never know when the internet is just putting me on any more, and when it's real.
Posted by Malcolm on Jan. 20 2010,10:52
< U.N. Climate Panel : "Sorry we fucked up those glacier melting predictions." >
Posted by Malcolm on Jan. 26 2010,14:18
< Scientist to global warming hippies, "Release your fucking data." >

QUOTE
Professor Beddington said that particular caution was needed when communicating predictions about climate change made with the help of computer models.
...
“When you get into large-scale climate modelling there are quite substantial uncertainties. On the rate of change and the local effects, there are uncertainties both in terms of empirical evidence and the climate models themselves
...
“I think, wherever possible, we should try to ensure there is openness and that source material is available for the whole scientific community.”
...
In response to one request for data Professor Phil Jones, the director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit and a contributor to the IPCC’s reports, wrote: “We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

Because it's called "testing your hypothesis" you twat.
Posted by thibodeaux on Jan. 27 2010,04:38
That one line right there summarizes everything that's wrong with this "science."
Posted by Malcolm on Jan. 30 2010,16:03
< Bin Laden bitches > at the U.S. for climate change.

Wow.  I'm somewhat perplexed as to why he gives a shit.
Posted by GORDON on Jan. 30 2010,16:11
For the first time I now wonder if Bin Laden was invented to promote an agenda.
Posted by DoctorChaos on Feb. 01 2010,05:32

(GORDON @ Jan. 30 2010,19:11)
QUOTE
For the first time I now wonder if Bin Laden was invented to promote an agenda.

Well, he was on the CIA payroll for years when he was a Muhajadeen.  I know I didn't spell that right, but you get the idea.
Posted by Leisher on May 27 2010,11:07
< Government predicts bad hurricane season...again. >

Someone needs to tell them that when they make the same prediction 4 years in a row, they don't get to proclaim how right they were and how bad global warming is once their prediction final comes true.
Posted by Malcolm on May 27 2010,11:54
What incentive do the "experts" have to predict a mild or easy hurricane season?  

If they predict an easy season and they're right, effectively no one notices.
If they do that and they're wrong, they get blasted.
If they predict a horrible season and they're right, they'll be heralded as meteorological prophets.
If they predict a horrible season and they're wrong, the worst response they get is a sigh of relief from the general public that a Cat 5 storm wasn't rammed up their ass on a weekly basis.
Posted by Leisher on Jun. 21 2010,13:10
< Glacier melting probably not due to climate change. >
Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 12 2010,11:29
< UCSB Professor Emeritus of tells American Physical Society to go fuck off >.
Posted by GORDON on Nov. 26 2010,16:39
Headline:  "Rising sea puts Virginia city on climate change front-line "

In the actual article:  "Like many other cities, Norfolk was built on filled-in marsh. Now that fill is settling and compacting. "

So sinking land = climate change.

< http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id....k_times >
Posted by GORDON on Dec. 30 2010,13:10
I'm just going to copy this entire article, for posterity.

< http://www.foxnews.com/scitech....recasts >

1. Within a few years "children just aren't going to know what snow is." Snowfall will be "a very rare and exciting event." Dr. David Viner, senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, interviewed by the UK Independent, March 20, 2000.

Ten years later, in December 2009, London was hit by the heaviest snowfall seen in 20 years. And just last week, a snowstorm forced Heathrow airport to shut down, stranding thousands of Christmas travelers.

A spokesman for the government-funded British Council, where Viner now works as the lead climate change expert, told FoxNews.com that climate science had improved since the prediction was made.

"Over the past decade, climate science has moved on considerably and there is now more understanding about the impact climate change will have on weather patterns in the coming years," British Council spokesman Mark Herbert said. "However, Dr Viner believes that his general predictions are still relevant."

Herbert also pointed to another prediction from Viner in the same article, in which Viner predicted that "heavy snow would return occasionally" and that it would "probably cause chaos in 20 years time." Other scientists said "a few years" was simply too short a time frame for kids to forget what snow was.

"I'd say at some point, say 50 years from now, it might be right. If he said a few years, that was an unwise prediction," said Michael Oppenheimer, director of Princeton University's Program in Science, Technology and Environmental Policy.

Of course, Oppenheimer himself is known for controversial global warming scenarios.

2. "[By] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…[By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers." Michael Oppenheimer, published in "Dead Heat," St. Martin's Press, 1990.

Oppenheimer told FoxNews.com that he was trying to illustrate one possible outcome of failing to curb emissions, not making a specific prediction. He added that the gist of his story had in fact come true, even if the events had not occurred in the U.S.

"On the whole I would stand by these predictions -- not predictions, sorry, scenarios -- as having at least in a general way actually come true," he said. "There's been extensive drought, devastating drought, in significant parts of the world. The fraction of the world that's in drought has increased over that period."

That may be in doubt, however. Data from NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center shows that precipitation -- rain and snow -- has increased slightly over the century.

3. "Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000." Christian Science Monitor, June 8, 1972.

Ice coverage has fallen, though as of last month, the Arctic Ocean had 3.82 million square miles of ice cover -- an area larger than the continental United States -- according to The National Snow and Ice Data Center.

4. "Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide two degrees by 2010." Associated Press, May 15, 1989.

Status of prediction: According to NASA, global temperature has increased by about 0.7 degrees Fahrenheit since 1989. And U.S. temperature has increased even less over the same period.

The group that did the study, Atmospheric and Environmental Research Inc., said it could not comment in time for this story due to the holidays.

But Oppenheimer said that the difference between an increase of nearly one degree and an increase of two degrees was "definitely within the margin of error... I would think the scientists themselves would be happy with that prediction."

Many scientists, especially in the 1970s, made an error in the other direction by predicting global freezing:

5. "By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half." Life magazine, January 1970.

Life Magazine also noted that some people disagree, "but scientists have solid experimental and historical evidence to support each of the following predictions."

Air quality has actually improved since 1970. Studies find that sunlight reaching the Earth fell by somewhere between 3 and 5 percent over the period in question.

6. "If present trends continue, the world will be ... eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age." Kenneth E.F. Watt, in "Earth Day," 1970.

According to NASA, global temperature has increased by about 1 degree Fahrenheit since 1970.

How could scientists have made such off-base claims? Dr. Paul Ehrlich, author of "The Population Bomb" and president of Stanford University's Center for Conservation Biology, told FoxNews.com that ideas about climate science changed a great deal in the the '70s and '80s.

"Present trends didn't continue," Ehrlich said of Watt's prediction. "There was considerable debate in the climatological community in the '60s about whether there would be cooling or warming … Discoveries in the '70s and '80s showed that the warming was going to be the overwhelming force."

Ehrlich told FoxNews.com that the consequences of future warming could be dire.

The proverbial excrement is "a lot closer to the fan than it was in 1968," he said. "And every single colleague I have agrees with that."

He added, "Scientists don't live by the opinion of Rush Limbaugh and Palin and George W. They live by the support of their colleagues, and I've had full support of my colleagues continuously."

But Ehrlich admits that several of his own past environmental predictions have not come true:

7. "By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people ... If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." Ehrlich, Speech at British Institute For Biology, September 1971.

Ehrlich's prediction was taken seriously when he made it, and New Scientist magazine underscored his speech in an editorial titled "In Praise of Prophets."

"When you predict the future, you get things wrong," Ehrlich admitted, but "how wrong is another question. I would have lost if I had had taken the bet. However, if you look closely at England, what can I tell you? They're having all kinds of problems, just like everybody else."

8. "In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish." Ehrlich, speech during Earth Day, 1970

"Certainly the first part of that was very largely true -- only off in time," Ehrlich told FoxNews.com. "The second part is, well -- the fish haven't washed up, but there are very large dead zones around the world, and they frequently produce considerable stench."

"Again, not totally accurate, but I never claimed to predict the future with full accuracy," he said.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 14 2011,04:27
Recently predicted "global warming refugees" not materializing.

< http://spectator.org/blog/2011/04/12/millions-of-missing-climate-re >
Posted by GORDON on May 04 2011,13:48
Hey look, Al Gore came up for air.

< http://www.mnn.com/earth-m....irthers >

Says climate change deniers are as dumb as birthers.
Posted by Leisher on May 06 2011,06:08
< The sea levels are rising...again. >
Posted by GORDON on May 17 2011,14:33
< http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/04/07/climate-models-go-cold/ >

QUOTE
The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro-thin half-truths and misunderstandings. I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic. Watching this issue unfold has been amusing but, lately, worrying. This issue is tearing society apart, making fools out of our politicians.

Let’s set a few things straight.

The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate scientists, now outrageously maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.
Posted by Leisher on May 24 2011,08:32
< Article on the missouri tornado. >

I'm posting this just to quote the following. This is to help you make a case when you hear people claiming global warming is making our weather worse:
QUOTE
Gov. Jay Nixon's spokesman, Sam Murphey, said Tuesday morning that the death toll in Joplin had risen to 117.

Until this week, the single deadliest tornado on record with the National Weather Service in the past six decades was a twister that killed 116 people in Flint, Mich., in 1953.

More deaths have resulted from outbreaks of multiple tornadoes. On April 27, a pack of twisters roared across six Southern states, killing 314 people, more than two-thirds of them in Alabama. That was the single deadliest day for tornadoes since the National Weather Service began keeping such records in 1950.

The agency has done research that shows deadlier outbreaks before 1950. It says the single deadliest day that it is aware of was March 18, 1925, when tornadoes killed 747 people.
Posted by thibodeaux on May 24 2011,10:22
It's kind of hard to use $value of damage or fatalities to measure historical severity of storms such as tornadoes and hurricanes. For one thing, the $value---even in constant dollars---is bound to be more just because there's more STUFF to be destroyed.  On the other hand, fatalities tend to fewer, because we've got better warnings.

It's probably also not helpful to measure the # of storms of a certain magnitude because of improved data. How many category 1 hurricanes made landfall on North America before 1950?  WTF knows? Ditto F1 tornadoes.
Posted by TPRJones on May 24 2011,12:28

(thibodeaux @ May 24 2011,12:22)
QUOTE
For one thing, the $value---even in constant dollars---is bound to be more just because there's more STUFF to be destroyed.  On the other hand, fatalities tend to fewer, because we've got better warnings.

On the gripping hand, fatalities should be higher because there are more people in denser populations to kill.  Which counts for more influence, more people or more warning?  They might balance out.
Posted by Malcolm on May 24 2011,13:12
Better tech/warning > population density.  Japanese casualties from their not uncommon seismic activity have gone down drastically since they were dragged kicking and screaming into the modern age.  Do pockets of civilization that wouldn't otherwise be there occasionally get caught in the way of natural disasters?  Sure.  But for population centers used to being hammered by such things, fewer people died.  The Tohoku quake (9.0 on the Richter, the thing that fucked the nuclear plant) has about 15K-16K for a casualty rating.  Things go up to ~30K if you include death, injuries, and folks who are MIA.  Back in 1923, the Kanto quake (7.9 on the Richter) took out about 140K.

Posted by GORDON on Aug. 30 2011,19:15
CERN experiment strongly suggests that the sun actually is responsible for the majority of temperature fluctuations on Earth, not man.

"Environmentalists" tried to block the experiment in the first place, and failing that they tried to block the publication of the results.

< http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011....settled >
Posted by TPRJones on Aug. 30 2011,20:56
That theory has been around for over a decade.  Glad to see it finally getting some more evidence and a little press.

Posted by Leisher on Feb. 17 2012,08:04
< Just a big, ol' fucking WOW! > (Awesome article. I highly recommend it.)

< More pictures. >

I was alerted to this story by either a SMODCAST or Bill Burr's podcast, and they had a story that I couldn't find with quotes from at least one scientist about the house's location. He or she said that according to Gore's own global warming warnings, that house will be underwater in 5 years...
Posted by GORDON on Feb. 17 2012,08:46
Said it before, I will say it again: Gore has become a Bond supervillain.
Posted by Leisher on Apr. 19 2012,10:53
< Majority of people in US link "extreme weather" with global warming. >

Linked this for two reasons:
1. The majority of people in the U.S. elected Bush and/or Obama depending on how you want to look at it...
2. This gem:
QUOTE
A large majority of climate scientists say the climate is shifting in ways that could cause serious impacts, and they cite the human release of greenhouse gases as a principal cause. But a tiny, vocal minority of researchers contests that view, and has seemed in the last few years to be winning the battle of public opinion despite slim scientific evidence for their position.


Nope, no bias there!!!

"A large majority of climate scientists" vs. "a tiny, vocal minority of researchers".

Odd that it doesn't mention that one of the two people who invented the global warming concept now thinks it's bullshit.
Posted by Leisher on Apr. 23 2012,12:06
< "Gaia" scientist says sky isn't falling. >
Posted by GORDON on Dec. 23 2012,09:20
Was channel surfing this morning while the kid was playing with some legos.

Found some nature program on so I stopped there.

Some british chick was narrating, and she way talking about some pine forest in europe.  The showed a swath of fallen pines... the chick says, "because of global warming, storms are stronger and they knock a lot of trees down."  Then, in literally 30 seconds later, they show a lumberjack chopping trees down and she says, "the invasion of an asian beetle is invading the trees and making them structurally weaker."

Ugh.

I am starting to think that anywhere, any time, you scratch the surface of someone assuring you that global climate change is real and can be changed, that you will find a money trail.

Posted by Malcolm on Jan. 24 2013,10:51
< Last year hottest on record >.  Well, except for 1998.
QUOTE
Then there’s the lack of significant warming since 1998, still the hottest year on record globally. What’s more, that trend will continue if you believe scientists at the British Met Office, an agency sometimes described as Britain’s NOAA.

The Met created a minor flap recently when, over the Christmas holiday, it posted a new set of predictions coughed up by its computer models. Unlike the previous year’s forecasts, these saw no significant warming for the next five years.
Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 16 2013,10:20
< Ex-NASA dudes weigh in >.
Posted by Leisher on Apr. 16 2013,11:11
Because predictions have not been coming true, < the media is starting to cool on global warming. >
Posted by Leisher on May 30 2013,06:37
< Global cooling has arrived. >

IF this article is accurate, and we are about to enter a new mini ice age, how utterly fantastic would it be knowing how many people have been screaming that we need to reduce global temperatures for the past decade or so?
Posted by TPRJones on May 30 2013,06:41
They've already been prepping for this for a few years, trying to shift from the words "Global Warming" to "Climate Change".

EDIT to add: And I for one welcome the coming Ice Age.  It might - might - make summers in Houston bearable.

Posted by TheCatt on May 30 2013,07:11

(TPRJones @ May 30 2013,09:41)
QUOTE
EDIT to add: And I for one welcome the coming Ice Age.  It might - might - make summers in Houston bearable.

I was thinking the same about here.... and we could use more snow in winter.
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 12 2013,10:38
< Luck >.
QUOTE
For the past 15 years there has been a lull in rising global temperatures which has many climate scientists scrambling to find an explanation and global warming skeptics arguing that the dire predictions made by activists are full of hot air.

Luck has held it off.  According to science, I guess.
Posted by Leisher on Jun. 12 2013,11:23
QUOTE
Luck has held it off.  According to science, I guess.


NOTHING screams scientific credibility like someone not being able to explain why their predictions didn't pan out, and them blaming "luck".
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 18 2013,10:23
< Some numbers may be bullshit >.
Posted by thibodeaux on Jun. 28 2013,05:28
< BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHH >
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 28 2013,06:10
Yeah... I didn't know what to think about that.  When I heard how far some of them traveled to see that bird, I wanted THEM to be the ones killed in the wind turbine.
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 11 2013,10:53
< Climate change killed firefighters >.  How abstract concepts are able to assault people is beyond me, though.
QUOTE
Nineteen courageous firefighters died on Sunday, June 30th in a raging wildfire in Arnell, Arizona. Officials responded immediately by launching an investigation.

Doubtless many factors caused the tragedy. But there are two prime suspects lurking in the shadows that will likely go uncharged.

In a very real sense, these young men were victims of climate change and the U.S. government’s gross negligence in failing to respond to its predicted devastating impacts.

I assume the author will be digging up their corpses and hanging them on a row of crucifixes outside the home of the nearest Republican he can find.
Posted by GORDON on Jul. 11 2013,10:56
I am surprised the folks at "Living Green Magazine" would come to that conclusion.
Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 19 2013,10:56
< From here >.
QUOTE
In a leaked June draft of the report's summary from policy-makers, the IPCC said the rate of warming in 1998-2012 was about half the average rate since 1951. It cited natural variability in the climate system, as well as cooling effects from volcanic eruptions and a downward phase in solar activity.

The hell you say?

QUOTE
But several governments that reviewed the draft objected to how the issue was tackled, in comments to the IPCC obtained by the AP.

Germany called for the reference to the slowdown to be deleted, saying a time span of 10-15 years was misleading in the context of climate change, which is measured over decades and centuries.

Emphasis mine.  10-15 years is bullshit but 50 or 100 is totally gospel?  Damn Germans trying to rewrite history again.

QUOTE
The U.S. also urged the authors to include the "leading hypothesis" that the reduction in warming is linked to more heat being transferred to the deep ocean.

Belgium objected to using 1998 as a starting year for any statistics. That year was exceptionally warm, so any graph showing global temperatures starting with 1998 looks flat, because most years since have been cooler. Using 1999 or 2000 as a starting year would yield a more upward-pointing curve.

Reactions:
1) straight up don't talk about it
2) manipulate the data so it clouds the conclusions
3) undercut your data using unverified hypothesis

QUOTE
Hungary worried the report would provide ammunition for skeptics.

Yeah, because fuck forbid a scientific investigation not have a predetermined outcome.

Posted by Leisher on Sep. 27 2013,13:42
< Global warming needs to be capped and it's human beings' fault. >

So says an article from MSN.com which doesn't name any of the "top scientists" or what scientific evidence leads them to the "extremely likely" conclusion that humans are responsible for global warming.

I'd be willing to bet that the "top scientists" on this UN council aren't "top" scientists. I cannot imagine a scientist who wants to hang out with politicians all day. It reminds me of the scene in Armageddon where the NASA scientist is discussing why the president shouldn't be listening to his science adviser.

They also don't discuss how other "top scientists" think we're entering a new ice age.
Posted by Leisher on Dec. 16 2013,07:11
John Peale, one of the government's leading climate experts < is a big fat liar. >
Posted by Malcolm on Dec. 16 2013,07:28
QUOTE
When he first began looking into Beale’s deceptions last February, “I thought, ‘Oh my God, How could this possibly have happened in this agency?” said EPA Assistant Inspector General Patrick Sullivan, who spearheaded the Beale probe, in an interview with NBC News. “I’ve worked for the government for 35 years. I’ve never seen a situation like this.”

You ought to be fired for your general lack of awareness, Patrick.
Posted by TPRJones on Dec. 16 2013,08:43
QUOTE
“He’s never been to Langley (the CIA’s Virginia headquarters),” said Sullivan. “The CIA has no record of him ever walking through the door.”

Ah, but that's how you know he was in fact CIA.  They wouldn't deny it if it weren't true.
Posted by Leisher on Dec. 16 2013,08:56
QUOTE
Ah, but that's how you know he was in fact CIA.  They wouldn't deny it if it weren't true.


Ha!

It would have been awesome if he said, "Of course they won't tell you I was there!!!"

Who the hell blabs to everyone that they're a spy anyway? You know, besides Archer...
Posted by GORDON on Dec. 16 2013,09:09

(Leisher @ Dec. 16 2013,11:56)
QUOTE
Who the hell blabs to everyone that they're a spy anyway? You know, besides Archer...

That chick Bush supposedly outted as a spy back when he was president.  Everyone knew she worked there, drove there every day for work, etc.  But Bush and Cheney outted her.

Valerie Plame?
Posted by Malcolm on Dec. 22 2013,14:08
< Climate denier network exposed >.
QUOTE
"This is how wealthy individuals or corporations translate their economic power into political and cultural power.  They have their profits and they hire people to write books that say climate change is not real. They hear people to go on TV and say climate change is not real. It ends up that people without economic power don't have the same size voice as the people who have economic power, and so it ends up distorting democracy."


That's why we don't hear stories claiming climate change is real, because 91 organizations manage to overpower TV, radio, snail mail, and the entirety of the internet.  You'd think they'd put all this creative power to use and start cracking cold fusion or something.  Or perhaps they're actually dumb as rocks because there's way more money in being in the pro-environmental movement, getting all those sweet, sweet gov't subsidies and bilking people out of cash, trying to convince them the world's going to end unless they use fluorescent bulbs and that nuclear energy comes straight from Satan's asshole.
Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 24 2014,10:32
< From here >.
QUOTE
Further, their predictions rest on models they fall in love with: “You sit in front of a computer screen for 10 years and you start to think of your model as being real.”
Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 04 2014,10:31
Republican shill Greenpeace co-founder says humans < not the dominant cause of rising global temperatures >.  The dude obviously sold out to the right.
QUOTE
The Canadian ecologist has a long history of disagreeing with many others in the environmental field. For 15 years, he was a leader in the environmental group, until the group took what he described as "a sharp turn to the political left." Moore claims this shift began around 1985. At that point, he claims findings made by the organization were not scientifically sound.
Posted by Vince on Mar. 04 2014,11:13
I think he's the one that left when they decided to try to outlaw and get rid of mercury.  He kept saying, "Um... it's an element.  I don't think we can ban it out of existance."
Posted by GORDON on May 14 2014,10:55
Ultimate chaos unless something changes within 500 days.

The clock is ticking, gentlemen.

< http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs....36.html >
Posted by Malcolm on May 22 2014,12:14
< Next hurricane season > will be fucking apocalyptic.  End of the world type shit.
QUOTE
The federal government predicts a slightly below-average hurricane season in the Atlantic this year.

Climate change, man.  Will fucking kill us all.
Posted by Leisher on May 22 2014,19:20
Wow. They must have gotten tired of constantly being wrong.
Posted by Malcolm on May 24 2014,11:32
< I read this >.  Then I went < here > because I couldn't believe anything so stupid could exist.

End result: I learned something new today.
Posted by GORDON on May 26 2014,07:33
Psychos.
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 10 2014,10:47
< Volcanoes >.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 10 2014,11:02
Hmm.

Read a book a long time ago called "Red Mars" about how Mars got colonized.... very, VERY painful read.  The hippies were killing people left and right and getting away with it.

ANYWAY.... in that story things went to hell on Earth when a volcano under Antarctica caused a huge portion of the ice on that continent to melt off into the ocean and literally overnight raised sea levels several feet all over the planet.

So.

You know.  Whatever.

Terrible series of books... I got through the second, could not start the 3rd.  I hope they all died.

Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 10 2014,11:37

(Malcolm @ Jun. 10 2014,12:47)
QUOTE
< Volcanoes >.

Clearly all the coal we've burned has caused an increase in continental drift, which is what makes volcanoes.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 10 2014,11:50

(TPRJones @ Jun. 10 2014,14:37)
QUOTE

(Malcolm @ Jun. 10 2014,12:47)
QUOTE
< Volcanoes >.

Clearly all the coal we've burned has caused an increase in continental drift, which is what makes volcanoes.

According to the hippies the coal we burn is warming the atmosphere which melts the glaciers which causes the crust of the earth to not be compressed under all that weight which causes more earthquakes and volcanoes.  They have an excuse for any argument.  I have even seen them explain away the rising temps on other planets and shit in order to explain that changes in solar weather do not affect Earth.

Can not win.
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 17 2014,10:47
< British dude > says White House Science Adviser is full of shit.  The thing that he's wrong about...
QUOTE
A growing body of evidence suggests that the kind of extreme cold experienced by the United States is a pattern we can expect to see with increasing frequency as global warming continues.


Actually, no.
QUOTE
Climate change is unlikely to lead to more days of extreme cold, similar to those that gripped the USA in a deep freeze last winter ... [Recent changes in the Arctic climate have] actually reduced the risk of cold extremes across large swathes of the Northern Hemisphere.

Posted by GORDON on Jun. 17 2014,10:49
I'm still waiting for all the increased hurricane activity they promised.

Well, less so since I moved away from the ocean.
Posted by Leisher on Jun. 17 2014,11:14
Wasn't this the first year since Katrina that they backed off their annual "run for the hills" claims and said it'd be a mild year for hurricanes?

After 2011, I remember hearing about how we'd all better get used to insane levels of tornado activity, because that's the new norm.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 17 2014,11:14
Yeah, I just like to remind these people of their past bad predictions based on their shitty climate models they they always claim are perfect.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 22 2014,22:33
So let's pretend that someone comes up with an absolutely perfect Earth climate model.  This thing can predict every degree of temperature change and every drop of rain without flaw, accurate forwards and backwards 10k years in each direction.... meaning, it can predict the past perfectly, and predicts the day-to day stuff, and for a couple years has never been wrong.

It says that there is going to be a massive ice age in exactly 10 years.  Mile thick glaciers as far south as Missouri.  The model shows that reducing the current CO2 output into the atmosphere by 75% will actually stop it.

Nothing would change, right?  I mean, China aint going to turn off their coal plants, thousands of ocean liners aren't going to stop transporting goods, volcanoes aren't going to stop erupting, methane isn't going to stop being released in the bermuda triangle, and Americans need to get to work.  Absolutely nothing would change.

Whether that is true or not goes into determining whether people should be getting upset about MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING.  I am just getting tired of the conversation.  Every little new observation gets a "because of manmade global warming" suffix.  If nothing would change, then people need to just shut the fuck up about it because it doesn't matter anyway.

Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 23 2014,07:28
QUOTE
Absolutely nothing would change.

First off, how does one get a mile thick glacier in under 10 years?  Second off, yes it would.
Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 23 2014,07:30

(GORDON @ Jun. 23 2014,00:33)
QUOTE
The model shows that reducing the current CO2 output into the atmosphere by 75% will actually stop it.

That's backwards.  We'd need to increase output to fend off an ice age.  But, ignoring that:

QUOTE
Nothing would change, right?

Mostly correct.  Some small percentage of the people would reduce their output, but they probably already are ecologically friendly anyway because they are so inclined.  The majority of people will let someone else cut back instead of themselves.  The smartest fraction of humanity will invest in companies that make snow shoes and parkas.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 23 2014,07:32
Are you asking me to lay out the logic that the hypothetical magical earth climate simulation stated would happen in this fictional scenario?

- edit - asked of Malcolm.

Y'all need to stop questioning the infallible earth climate model.  Take it as a given that it exists and that's what it said.  Dammit.

Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 23 2014,07:55

(GORDON @ Jun. 23 2014,09:32)
QUOTE
Are you asking me to lay out the logic that the hypothetical magical earth climate simulation stated would happen in this fictional scenario?

- edit - asked of Malcolm.

Y'all need to stop questioning the infallible earth climate model.  Take it as a given that it exists and that's what it said.  Dammit.

If you could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that a mile-thick glacier was going to make it as far as the Ozarks in under a decade, I guaran-goddamn-tee people would take notice.  There are a fuckload of other countries in those latitudes.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 23 2014,08:42
Ok,  notice has been taken.  Then what?
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 23 2014,09:00

(GORDON @ Jun. 23 2014,10:42)
QUOTE
Ok,  notice has been taken.  Then what?

Then everyone will drop loads upon loads of cash into every alternative energy source available at the time, regardless of how efficient it is.  It will be slow and expensive at first.  After the tech gets out in front of enough people with enough incentive to improve it, you'd have realistic prospects in about a decade.  I don't think you could roll out new power systems to the entirety of India, China, and various other "on the cusp" countries in that time, though.  Perhaps a decade's a bit too short.  Three or four, maybe.
Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 23 2014,09:07
QUOTE
Then everyone will drop loads upon loads of cash into every alternative energy source available at the time, regardless of how efficient it is.

Bah.  Everyone will encourage everyone else to drop loads of cash.  Many will make a token donation, but very few will really give their all.  Most people in the face of even a certain bad future will still fail to really respond if it feels theoretical.  Actual wide-spread action wouldn't start to be seriously considered in the US until the ice sheet was at least close to Toronto.

Even then most people will worry more about how their own family will personally survive the ice age than about how to stop it altogether.

Posted by GORDON on Jun. 23 2014,09:16
Yeah but.

1.  According to Al Gore < it is already just about too late. >   As he is speaking for this mighty "consensus" of climate scientists, he may as well be their official ambassador to us stupid people.

2.  I have said before that there isn't some magic bullet waiting to be discovered.  There is nothing that is going to be invented in the next 10 years that is going to make a difference in energy production that we don't know about right now, aside from some "Mule" type event (Foundation series... something so unpredictable that it screws up everything).  But that aint gonna happen.  We aren't going to suddenly have power plants based on a captured quantum singularity.

So, assuming we are beyond A's "point of no return," and we will be glaciated in 10 years, what's gonna change?

But I'll play: In your scenario, all kinds of money gets put into new technologies.

1.  WHat money?  I assume all these countries are going to cripple their economies immediately turning off the petrol taps.  No more internal combustion engines, no one going to work, no one getting the crops out of the fields, no one taking more food to Walmart.  On day 10 of your grand plan your countries are tearing themselves apart with hunger riots.

WHich, fuck, pretty much solves the problem.  90% population die-off would do the trick.

Brilliant, Malcolm.

Now... does anyone have any plans that doesn't require 90% of humanity in the western world to die?

Keep in mind: my original question is whether or not this issue is even worth arguing about.  Individual people will never change anything no matter how smug or snarky they are, and nothing will ever be done on a large scale before glaciers are crossing the Ohio River Valley.
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 23 2014,09:23
What's the point of you asking what'll happen if every simulation your run in your brain ends with "we're fucked?"
Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 23 2014,09:36
The way I see it if we are indeed fucked, there is one thing that might save us: good old rampant capitalism-driven technological advancement.  Given a free reign, we've gotten very good at ramping up technology quickly.  There just might be a magic bullet, but the only way to find it is for government and everyone else too busy wringing their hands to get the hell out of the way and let technology leap forward unhindered.  If you really believe we are in severe danger and that it's too late to stop it, then the one thing you could do to ensure the death of humanity would be to try to strangle innovation.  Which is what most of the idiots who believe just that are most eager to do.

I swear they won't be happy until 90% of us are dead and the other 10% live in caves.

I get your point that talking about all this is pointless, GORDON, and I somewhat agree with that conclusion.  But I disagree with your premise that "we are fucked" is inevitable.  Humanity is very good at finding brilliant solutions to impossible problems when left alone and allowed to get shit done.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 23 2014,12:03

(Malcolm @ Jun. 23 2014,12:23)
QUOTE
What's the point of you asking what'll happen if every simulation your run in your brain ends with "we're fucked?"

The point is exactly that. The people who are suffixing everything with "because of man made global warming" are also the ones telling us that we are already past the point of no return, anyway, SO WHAT IS THE POINT OF STILL BEING A DICK ABOUT IT.  Not saying you're being a dick about it, I am saying they are, for apparently no good reason because they say we are already fucked but they keep telling us how the world would be a better place if we banned cows or lightbulbs or something.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 23 2014,12:12

(TPRJones @ Jun. 23 2014,12:36)
QUOTE
I get your point that talking about all this is pointless, GORDON, and I somewhat agree with that conclusion.  But I disagree with your premise that "we are fucked" is inevitable.  Humanity is very good at finding brilliant solutions to impossible problems when left alone and allowed to get shit done.

There are different degrees of "we are fucked."  Never meant to imply that humanity would die off, just meant that the world as we know it would end when the glaciers rolled over the US/Canadian border in spite of the TSA demanding that they halt and show their papers.  We actually could use a good die-off of some people.... the sorts who wont move out of the desert during a 20 year drought, or wont get the fuck out of their country when their neighbors start eating people of the other tribe, or when you have 3 days notice that there is a hurricane headed toward your city that sits below sea level and you still need the government to tell you to tread water when the water is over your head.

But me?  I'll be fine.  And given the choice between killing an inbred Kentucky moonshiner and a formerly-hybrid-driving Obama voter for food that my family needs to survive, the democrat is a dead man, for reasons that not the least of which because the redneck has a gun and the hippy doesn't.

All I'm saying.

No it's not, that just sounded dramatic.  I'm just saying there is either a point to worrying about man-made climate change, or we are already past the point of no return and the shit doesn't matter any more and they should stop legislating shit on the poor and middle class that does not affect the "rich" at all, and being environmentally smug in public ought to be a free and legal punch in the nose.
Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 23 2014,12:18
I'm on the same page overall.

QUOTE
Never meant to imply that humanity would die off, just meant that the world as we know it would end when the glaciers rolled over the US/Canadian border in spite of the TSA demanding that they halt and show their papers.


Well, hell, the world as our parents knew it ended when the internet took off.  The world as our grandparents knew it ended when the atom bomb was invented.  The world as our great-grandparents knew it ended when electricity and automobile usage became widespread.  The rate at which the world as we knew it has been ending has been increasing quite a bit.

Whatever happens, humanity will adapt and overall continue to thrive.  I'm very optimistic on that point.  Which is the only issue on which you and I might differ.

Posted by GORDON on Jun. 23 2014,12:24
I'm not talking social changes, I am saying that it wont take much to make large swaths of US land lawless and belonging to the Mad Max biker gangs.  People are already pissed and one half of the population loathes the other (see: Croatia, 1993).    Now tell them that their home is going to be gone in 3 months, and all local government is shutting down, and get ahead of it now or you're on your own.  Not everyone will leave.  And when the Authorities pull out, the monsters will roll in.  Every mile lost is a little less power the central government will have....

I'm just in fantasy land now.  "life as we know it" for real, not "wow I lost my job at the buggy whip shop."
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 23 2014,12:33
QUOTE
People are already pissed and one half of the population loathes the other (see: Croatia, 1993)...

Uh, the bullshit the lefties and righties have built up in this country over maybe a couple centuries pales in comparison to most others in the world simply because we haven't been around long enough, Croatia included.  Hate's been going on far, far longer there.

QUOTE
I am saying that it wont take much to make large swaths of US land lawless and belonging to the Mad Max biker gangs.

Yes, it would.  It would take something fucking HUGE.  Even then, you'll have the Felucca lands.  When they get too dangerous, people will find themselves with more of < these >.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 23 2014,12:34
Megacities can't exist without massive swaths of farmland.
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 23 2014,12:38

(GORDON @ Jun. 23 2014,14:34)
QUOTE
Megacities can't exist without massive swaths of farmland.

Which the gov't and companies will hold onto like grim death.
Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 23 2014,12:45
Bah.  In the face of real immediate threat, time and again history has shown us that the majority of people come together and help each other.  There are some that buck this trend, and at the worst of times those people get strung up from a tree by the neck.

An overnight massive catastrophe could lead to what you predict, sure.  In the face of the immediate and overwhelming danger to family it's every family for itself.  But something stretching over years as you have described, I expect people to pull each other out of the snow more often than not.

There will be some conflict, but mostly it will be from people in the tropical latitudes trying to push back the tide of refugees.  And it won't last long.

That's all presuming no "magic bullet" is found, though.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 23 2014,13:13

(TPRJones @ Jun. 23 2014,15:45)
QUOTE
Bah.  In the face of real immediate threat, time and again history has shown us that the majority of people come together and help each other.  There are some that buck this trend, and at the worst of times those people get strung up from a tree by the neck.

In America of the past, I agree.  In other parts of the world where neighbors are divided by ideology, shit leads to bloodshed and mass graves.  The last 20ish years in this country have redefined what it means to be American, in my opinion, from a melting pot where people were expected, to some extent, conform, to a massive free-for-all of nonconformity, selfishness, and complete lack of what it means to belong to a community.  "Not my president" with Bush.  "Unmmm, is this guy even an American citizen/NONE OF YOUR CONCERN RACIST AND IT ISN'T OUR JOB TO PROVE IT" with Obama.

I know which of my neighbors had "Obama 2012" signs in their front yard.  I would not go out of my way to help those people in case of a disaster.  Well, that isn't true.  I'm a soft touch.  But if it was a grasshopper/ant situation, then they could starve over the winter while I take in their children and female relatives, if they are attractive.

See?  People suck.  I'd have never said something like that 20 years ago when I felt like being an American still meant something special.
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 23 2014,13:31
QUOTE
In America of the past, I agree.  In other parts of the world where neighbors are divided by ideology, shit leads to bloodshed and mass graves.

You're suggesting we've somehow lost our (inherent?) "special-ness" due to the past 2 decades?

QUOTE
"Not my president" with Bush.

I remember seeing Reagan shirts with that.  Additionally, there is no political election in recent history that was anywhere near as brutal compared to what we had in the 17th century, particularly the early part.

Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 23 2014,13:39
QUOTE
In America of the past, I agree.  In other parts of the world where neighbors are divided by ideology, shit leads to bloodshed and mass graves.

Again you make a false distinction.  That's true sometimes here, too.  The civil war made such divisions.  So does race or gang affiliation in some more violent inner city neighborhoods.  Also of course the legendary Hatfields and McCoys.  It's not uncommon.  I still hold that this is not the majority response in times of non-immediately-catastrophic turmoil.

QUOTE
I would not go out of my way to help those people in case of a disaster.  Well, that isn't true.  I'm a soft touch.

And I say this is far more common among your fellow men than you would believe.  Many people will have that "fuck them" thought, but almost all will think better of it and do the right thing if they can.

Why do you think so poorly of everyone else, when your primary example in your own head - and probably the examples of most of the people around you - are so much more positive than that?
Posted by Vince on Jun. 25 2014,03:03

(GORDON @ Jun. 23 2014,15:13)
QUOTE
See?  People suck.  I'd have never said something like that 20 years ago when I felt like being an American still meant something special.

I think it's been a gradual coming on for the last 50 years.  As the federal government took on more and more responsibility to "take care" of people, more and more people have come to view that as the role of government and not theirs.  And more and more people have come to expect others to take care of them and feel like they are owed other people giving them stuff.
Posted by Leisher on Jun. 25 2014,06:31

(Vince @ Jun. 25 2014,06:03)
QUOTE

(GORDON @ Jun. 23 2014,15:13)
QUOTE
See?  People suck.  I'd have never said something like that 20 years ago when I felt like being an American still meant something special.

I think it's been a gradual coming on for the last 50 years.  As the federal government took on more and more responsibility to "take care" of people, more and more people have come to view that as the role of government and not theirs.  And more and more people have come to expect others to take care of them and feel like they are owed other people giving them stuff.

I think people will generally help out as we've seen numerous times in videos that capture real events.

However, I also agree with this point.

Surely feeding on the government tit has weakened the sense of community for many in this country. Hard to take pride in one's job and community when your goal is to not be employed so the government will keep sending you free money. Or have as many kids as possible, even if you don't want them, just so the checks get bigger.
Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 25 2014,07:25
There's a big distinction to be made between local and national community/government though.  There are probably many people on welfare that don't give a crap about the nation but are active members in their local community about which they care a lot.  These people will happily help their local community, but may or may not help outsiders.
Posted by Leisher on Jun. 25 2014,07:54
Agreed, there are a lot, but I'd argue that there's more who don't/wouldn't help than in the past.

I do want to note that I do believe generally people are good, but I also believe there are evil people.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 25 2014,11:00
I think when push comes to shove a lot of formerly "good" people are going to be shifting their priorities a bit.
Posted by Vince on Jun. 26 2014,03:45
I think in large metro areas in a large scale failure of some sort, the people willing to help the community will be bashed against the rocks by the ocean of people out to "get theirs".  Look at NOLA during Katrina.  That was WITH a lot of assistance coming in within a week.  Imagine no one is coming and you have to do it yourselves.  I know I'm headng out of town ASAP if something of that nature happened.
Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 26 2014,06:46
QUOTE
Look at NOLA during Katrina.

Yes, there were countless examples of people helping each other during Katrina.  Good example.
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 26 2014,07:18

(TPRJones @ Jun. 26 2014,08:46)
QUOTE
QUOTE
Look at NOLA during Katrina.

Yes, there were countless examples of people helping each other during Katrina.  Good example.

Also countless examples of people doing quite the opposite.
Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 26 2014,07:26
Not really.  There were a handful of people killing each other for their stuff instead of helping each other.  There were cases of people passing by those in need in order to save themselves.  But mostly people helped along those wading along beside them in search of dry ground.

While I detest looting, I don't really count it as being in the same category when considering if people will help each other in a crisis or not.  Looting - at least of the sort that happened during Katrina - is not a matter of life and death.  Things got particularly ugly at the stadium, but even there most people banded together to protect each other from the few bad ones in their midst.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 26 2014,07:31

(TPRJones @ Jun. 26 2014,09:46)
QUOTE
QUOTE
Look at NOLA during Katrina.

Yes, there were countless examples of people helping each other during Katrina.  Good example.

I've never heard of one.
Posted by Leisher on Jun. 26 2014,07:44
I heard a lot about abuse of funds by folks who got their government checks for surviving Katrina.

I saw lots of coverage of Sean Penn in a rowboat wielding a shotgun.

I hear horror stories about rapes in the Superdome.

I heard how the mayor refused to let a lot of folks evacuate by school bus because he wanted them in Greyhounds.

I heard about crime rate increases in cities where NOLA residents fled.

I heard about looters getting gunned down by the National Guard.

I heard how Bush was a dick because he didn't want to set foot on the ground in NO and instead flew over by helicopter. (He didn't want his security teams/press corp/entourage hampering rescue efforts.)

I didn't hear a lot of "good neighbor" stories.

Although, to be fair, the MSM doesn't report feel good stories too often. Bad news gets more ratings than good news.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 26 2014,07:54
I heard about people shooting at rescue helicopters, and how half the police force took off instead of doing their jobs.

Bush got slammed because he didn't send in FEMA for 3 days, because the fucking governor told him not to and he didn't want to invade Louisiana.  He would have been slammed if he HAD sent in FEMA on day 1 against the governor's wishes.  He also knew ahead of time that he would be slammed either way.
Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 26 2014,08:10
QUOTE
I didn't hear a lot of "good neighbor" stories.

I did.  Not from the news, but from the people who were there and now live here in Houston.  Yes, all those other things happened.  Yes, there were some bad people that did end up in the news for all the reasons you listed.  But from what I've been told they aren't the majority, just the few bad ones that get on the news because it makes for better ratings.

The majority were the ones that picked up and carried the old lady they came across struggling to trudge through the waters.  The majority were the ones that grouped together to to share what water they had among them.  The majority were the ones that set up watches in the Superdome to try to stop the rapists.

Of course they all also tried to get all they could out of FEMA, but that's like the TV looting; not a life or death issue and thus not really relevant.

This, at least, is the stories I was told.  Oh, and I know one of those cops that left, and he left because they were told to go.  They were told there was no money to pay them overtime and they weren't allowed to work off the books so they should just leave.  Any that worked anyway would be reprimanded for violating federal employment guidelines.  Which all sounds stupid as hell, but I trust this guy to be honest and it sounds like the sort of stupid shit the government would do.
Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 26 2014,08:28
Although I've also cursed the "Katrina rats" myself.  After the refugees came to Houston crime did indeed go up.  But again it's because some bad people came along with them, not because the majority of them are bad.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 26 2014,14:00
Only ten percent of Muslims worldwide approved of what bin laden did on 9/11. That's about 100 million people.
Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 26 2014,14:54
Indeed.  Which is why "all Muslims are bad" isn't at all accurate or fair.  Bad Muslims are bad, most are not.  You can't hold 1 billion people responsible for the independent actions of 100 million of them.

A little decimation would come in handy, though.  The hard part is making sure you have the right 10%.
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 27 2014,12:21
< Troll > crawls out from under bridge.
QUOTE
Renowned physicist and author Christopher Keating is offering $10,000 of his own money to anyone who can prove that global warming is not real.
...
According to Auto World News, "Keating will be the final judge of the entries. Participants have to submit their own proofs and then he will critique them, according to the post.

Yeah, that sounds scientific.  One dude making decisions based on his whim.
Posted by Leisher on Jun. 27 2014,15:30
I'll give Christopher Keating $10 if he can tell me what the temperature will be in Toledo, Ohio on December 15th 2014. However, he must inform me prior to November 15th, 2014.

"Climate Change" is an absolute indisputable fact of nature.

The reason nobody calls it "Man-Made Global Warming" anymore is because the science proving man is responsible for said climate change is shaky. The fact that the Earth's primary heating source is ignored in the "man is doing this" studies is kind of exhibit A. I'd call the fact that their models can't even correctly predict weather from the past, and so far, has been completely wrong about current weather as exhibit B.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 27 2014,18:52
I'm sick and damned tired of these deniers suggesting some body out in space could possibly be responsible for the changing climate on Earth.  My god... such a furnace would need to be the size of the sun.
Posted by Vince on Jun. 28 2014,12:37

(TPRJones @ Jun. 26 2014,16:54)
QUOTE
Indeed.  Which is why "all Muslims are bad" isn't at all accurate or fair.  Bad Muslims are bad, most are not.  You can't hold 1 billion people responsible for the independent actions of 100 million of them.

This has kind of morphed away from my point.  The problem isn't the 10% of Muslims that do bad.  It's the other 90% that do nothing about that 10%.  But back to the Katrina example... I agree with you that there were probably more people helping others than hurting others.  But the higher % that were robbing, raping, assaulting, etc. made it one of the most dangerous cities in the country for a good while after that.  If 10% of the city goes to being really bad guys, then that means 1 out of 9 people you meet is likely to kill you for your shoes (assuming that your the "not evil" 10th person).

It doesn't take a town full of bad guys to kill you.  Just enough bad guys that you cross one's path.
Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 01 2014,07:18
True.  But I never said that crisis makes us all angles.  I said that most people will come together and help each other.  Some others seem to think that most people will kill you for your shoes.  I stand by my contention that the former is true, and the latter is a much smaller - and if things get really bad a quickly executed - minority.
Posted by GORDON on Jul. 01 2014,07:22
"Post-apocalyptic biker gangs" are cliche, but that's my guess.  These lone men, with no families or anything else tieing them to civilization, will roam the land literally raping and pillaging as an army, instead of starving to death.  Lots of people will have stockpiles of provisions, and a few shotguns.  The gangs will have a lot more shotguns.

Point being, 90% of the people who survive the first month will come together and help each other.  The other 10% will rule over them with violence.  Pretty sure history is always this way in the absence of a strong police force.
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 01 2014,15:04
QUOTE
Some others seem to think that most people will kill you for your shoes.

If we're talking shoes and one pair's pretty much like another, then yeah, it's a small percentage chance I run across a big enough asshole to try.

But if we're talking something more valuable and your motive isn't strictly selfish, the chances of an otherwise non-asshole person acting like an asshole starts going up.  When there simply aren't enough resources, people start to act like bitches.

People of different stripes tend to get along only when something more powerful than themselves makes it happen, whether "getting along" is achieved through an act of submission (like when a conqueror subjugates a land) or resistance (like when the ancient Greek city-states united to beat the shit out of foreign invaders) is the only question.

Generally, I think people are rather xenophobic.  That's why they congregate with those most like themselves.  There are certainly exceptions, but I'm going with a xenophobe rate of over 50%.

Posted by Vince on Jul. 02 2014,03:49

(Malcolm @ Jul. 01 2014,17:04)
QUOTE
If we're talking shoes and one pair's pretty much like another, then yeah, it's a small percentage chance I run across a big enough asshole to try.

But if we're talking something more valuable and your motive isn't strictly selfish, the chances of an otherwise non-asshole person acting like an asshole starts going up.  When there simply aren't enough resources, people start to act like bitches.

I agree.  Hell, people try to kill you for your shoes now.  Or try to kill you for your shoe money.  Saw a video a few months ago where a guy in Atlanta was robbing people waiting in line for some new Nike shoe or some stupid shit like that.  He ended up getting shot by one of the guys in line w/ a CC license.

But yeah, if that happens for shoes, the number of people that will kill you for food or clean water is going to be really up there.  And God help you if you're one of the people that prepared for something like that, because then the people will pull together and help each other out to your shit.  It'll be mob rule.
Posted by GORDON on Jul. 02 2014,07:47
The strong and violent will prey on the weak.  It has always been thus, especially when someone has hungry kids at home.  Or they just don't care.
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 02 2014,09:12
QUOTE
The strong and violent will prey on the weak.

As long as the weak are assholes, fine.
Posted by GORDON on Jul. 02 2014,11:35
When it comes to 8 guys working as a gang, you are the weak.
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 02 2014,12:11

(GORDON @ Jul. 02 2014,13:35)
QUOTE
When it comes to 8 guys working as a gang, you are the weak.

Without further knowledge, that's not possible to say.  There are stories from the Old West about < one dude holding off eight and more >.  All about timing and opportunity.

Posted by GORDON on Jul. 02 2014,17:31
I always pictured you as a rugged wild west cowboy.
Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 23 2014,11:32
< Global warming costs us >.

< Temperature rise due to natural conditions >.

Posted by Leisher on Sep. 23 2014,12:12
QUOTE
While Republican lawmakers are split as to whether climate change actually exists


They changed the name from "man made global warming" to "climate change" just so they could write sentences like that one.

Reality like this:
QUOTE
The north-western US has experienced 100 years of warming, leading to wildfires and infestations of pests like pine beetles. But the extra heat seems to be linked to natural changes in the winds of the Pacific rather than human-caused climate change.


is why peeps were saying man made global warming was bullshit or not a conclusion that we should be jumping to...

Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 06 2014,11:09
< Madness >.
QUOTE
However, since we became the undisputed greatest nation on earth in the 1980s, America has been obsessed with tax cuts, seeming to forget that revenue is what made us a great nation. We now have a continuous revenue problem that is destroying the infrastructure of our nation.

Revenue?
Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 17 2014,11:15
QUOTE
Right-wingers paint global warming as a fear-mongering leftist plot designed to kill jobs, hurt GDP, promote socialism, increase taxes, and take away our constitutional freedoms, the basic talking points of Big Oil and energy billionaires.

< A millennium of Dust Bowls >.
Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 22 2014,10:52
< Ex-GP dude >.
Posted by TPRJones on Oct. 22 2014,11:43
"YOU'VE REACHED A SUBSCRIBER-ONLY ARTICLE."
Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 22 2014,12:03

(TPRJones @ Oct. 22 2014,13:43)
QUOTE
"YOU'VE REACHED A SUBSCRIBER-ONLY ARTICLE."

Wow.  Worked for me this afternoon.  Fucking pricks.
Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 30 2014,10:28
< Weather Channel co-founder > blasted by the Weather Channel.
Posted by Malcolm on Nov. 24 2014,10:46
< Ice surprisingly thick >.
Posted by TheCatt on Dec. 11 2014,15:02
< A history of Peak Oil >
Posted by TPRJones on Dec. 11 2014,16:57
That about sums it up.  Personally I predict we'll never hit peak oil.  Not because there's an infinite supply, but because about the time we do start to peak we'll have figured out an efficient means of producing it ourselves from other renewable energy sources.  At that point oil just becomes a liquid battery.
Posted by TheCatt on Jan. 16 2015,08:43
< 2014 hottest year on record. >
QUOTE
rth's average surface temperature was the warmest since record-keeping began in 1880, according to NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

December also was the warmest month ever recorded, and was among five months that set records, the agencies reported Friday.

The combined land and ocean surface temperature was 1.24 degrees Fahrenheit above the 20thcentury average, according to NOAA. The five months that set records were May, June, August, September and December, NOAA said. October tied for warmest, according to the agency's report.

The data add to a two-decade string of record warmth planet-wide. Except for 1998, the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 2002, according to NOAA.
Posted by GORDON on Jan. 16 2015,08:50
Good.
Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 02 2015,10:55
< Models wrong >.
Posted by Leisher on Mar. 02 2015,11:03
QUOTE
The opposite happened. Most climate models analyzed in the study predicted Antarctica would shrink between 1979 and 2005, but instead south pole sea ice levels increased during that time. Going a step further, sea ice levels have only increased since 2006, hitting all-time highs for sea ice coverage in September of last year.


An inconvenient truth indeed.
Posted by Leisher on Mar. 17 2015,06:45
FB is blowing up < this story > today about a glacier in East Antartica melting.

Note the opening paragraph:
QUOTE
A hundred years from now, humans may remember 2014 as the year that we first learned that we may have irreversibly destabilized the great ice sheet of West Antarctica, and thus set in motion more than 10 feet of sea level rise.


< Now here's another article on the topic. >

From that second article:
QUOTE
Because much of the California-sized interior basin lies below sea level, its overlying thicker ice is susceptible to rapid loss if warm ocean currents sufficiently thin coastal ice. Given that previous work has shown that the basin has drained its ice to the ocean and filled again many times in the past, this study uncovers a means for how that process may be starting again.


So it has happened before, although probably not when we were around.

However, it doesn't stop the Washington Post article from pinning the blame for this on humans or calling the damage "irreversible".

When the sun inevitably expands and consumes the Earth, I wonder how we'll blame ourselves for that?
Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 18 2015,10:46
< Penalized >.
Posted by GORDON on Mar. 18 2015,11:27
According to his own 2009ish predictions we are already well past the point of no return, so who gives a fuck?

Oh, there must still be money for him to make.
Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 09 2015,07:08
< PEAK OIL FINALLY HERE >

Oh, wait.
Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 09 2015,07:09
QUOTE
The firm said based on similar sites in the U.S. and Siberia, only between 3% and 15% the total reserves would likely be recovered.
Posted by Malcolm on May 25 2015,10:19
< Catholics > dragging morality and religion into the argument.
QUOTE
When Pope Francis releases his much-anticipated teaching document on the environment and climate change in the coming weeks, a network of Roman Catholics will be ready. These environmental advocates — who work with bishops, religious orders, Catholic universities and lay movements — have been preparing for months to help maximize the effect of the statement, hoping for a transformative impact in the fight against global warming.

Because when I think of someone scientifically qualified to shape the opinions of billions of people on the interplay of complex meteorological and biological processes, I think of Pope Esse.  I'm sure god's given him the inside info.

QUOTE
Over the last 15 years or so, Catholic and other faith traditions have been increasingly taking up environmental protection, or what they call creation care, as a moral issue, emphasizing the impact not only on nature but also on poor people who struggle for access to clean water and farmable land and are often the most vulnerable in natural disasters.

Ah, "creation care."

Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 02 2015,10:37
Stop the presses.  Rick Santorum just said something that indicates he's not a vapid fucktard.
QUOTE
I’ve said this to Catholic bishops many times — when they get involved with agriculture policy or things like that that are really outside the scope of what the Church’s main message is...

Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 02 2015,11:15
Fuck Rick Santorum.

EDIT: Sorry, reflex action.

Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 05 2015,09:59
< New paper claims > 15 previous years of bullshit data and study are responsible for rises in global surface temperature.

< Global warming ends African drought >.

Posted by Leisher on Jun. 05 2015,10:04
That first link is subscriber only.
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 05 2015,10:10

(Leisher @ Jun. 05 2015,12:04)
QUOTE
That first link is subscriber only.

Switched to a new one.  Try it now.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 05 2015,16:09
"Global Warming" studies debunked left and right, but the EPA keeps on truckin passing new regulations based on them.

< http://www.foxnews.com/politic....issions >
Posted by Vince on Jun. 08 2015,08:50
Control your food, water and movement and they have complete control over you.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 09 2015,06:24
"Global warming predicts nothing and explains everything."

< http://thefederalist.com/2015....rything >
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 09 2015,11:28
< Courts approves of EPA coal rules >.
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 15 2015,11:33
< And the Lord said >, "Thou shalt use renewable energy and recycle."

QUOTE
In the draft, Pope Francis wrote of a “very consistent scientific consensus that we are in the presence of an alarming warming of the climactic system.”

When I think of people qualified to comment on < science and the real world >, < Pope Esse isn't even on the radar >.
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 18 2015,11:24
< Pope drops encyclical >.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 18 2015,12:00
I see.  So what climate data are they basing their policies on... the raw data, the data that was adjusted and then the original data destroyed, or the raw data that was reconstructed after it was discovered it was adjusted?  Which climate model are they plugging their data in to, since they don't have a control and experimental Earths to observe... the one in which the code is not released to the public for review, or the one which assumed the atmosphere was infinitely thick?

Fucking idiots.

Posted by Vince on Jun. 19 2015,03:28
Press and left seems to love the global warming parts of < the encylcical > while completely ignoring other parts.

QUOTE
“The acceptance of our bodies as God’s gift,” Francis writes, “is vital for welcoming and accepting the entire world as a gift from the Father and our common home, whereas thinking that we enjoy absolute power over our own bodies turns, often subtly, into thinking that we enjoy absolute power over creation.”

Bruce Jenner, call your office.
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 19 2015,07:14
Hell and no.
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 24 2015,07:58
There's a heat wave in Pakistan right now, it's taken out over 700 people.  Check this shit.
QUOTE
The 2015 heat wave has caused the highest recorded temperatures in Karachi since 1979.

1979.

QUOTE
Asif Shuja, the former director general of the Pakistan Environmental Protection Agency, claimed that the heat wave was a symptom of global climate change, aggravated by deforestation, expansion of asphalt-made super highways, and rapid urbanisation.  He maintained that "there has been a rise in the Earth's average temperature from 15.5 °C (59.9 °F) to 16.2 °C (61.2 °F) over the last 100 years due to which we are experiencing such extreme weather conditions both in summers and winters."

Wait a fucking second, the phrase "since 1979" is implying that before then, there were temperatures higher than this.  Your weather's allegedly gone batshit insane over the last century, but you're not topping the high temps from the Carter administration?

Posted by Leisher on Jul. 13 2015,13:34
< Here comes a mini ice age. >

Weird how the global warming folks never mention the sun's ability to affect our weather in their models.

Posted by GORDON on Jul. 13 2015,14:17
Yeah but the hockey stick graph
Posted by GORDON on Jul. 13 2015,14:18
Oh, and apparently, Winter is Coming.
Posted by TheCatt on Jul. 13 2015,14:22
Dude, I'm totally ready for a mini ice age today.
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 13 2015,15:15

(Leisher @ Jul. 13 2015,15:34)
QUOTE
< Here comes a mini ice age. >

Weird how the global warming folks never mention the sun's ability to affect our weather in their models.

Ha, bitches.  Y'all are going to get at taste of what I have for almost half the year up here.
Posted by Leisher on Jul. 13 2015,15:48
Ha! It won't be a punishment to me. Shit! I can't go outside to mow the lawn? Guess I'll just play video games...
Posted by GORDON on Jul. 13 2015,17:11

(Leisher @ Jul. 13 2015,18:48)
QUOTE
Ha! It won't be a punishment to me. Shit! I can't go outside to mow the lawn? Guess I'll just play video games...

Every year I forget how much more of my time my summer stuff takes, especially with all this rain we've had.

Trying to get the last of the attic trimmed out but.... damn.... more rain and now I have to mow again.
Posted by Leisher on Jul. 13 2015,20:07
QUOTE
Every year I forget how much more of my time my summer stuff takes, especially with all this rain we've had.


Right? Winter is awesome because the outside of the house is taken care of for 6 months or so.
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 13 2015,20:26

(Leisher @ Jul. 13 2015,17:48)
QUOTE
Ha! It won't be a punishment to me. Shit! I can't go outside to mow the lawn? Guess I'll just play video games...

Hah.  You'll be shoveling instead.
Posted by GORDON on Jul. 13 2015,20:40

(Malcolm @ Jul. 13 2015,23:26)
QUOTE

(Leisher @ Jul. 13 2015,17:48)
QUOTE
Ha! It won't be a punishment to me. Shit! I can't go outside to mow the lawn? Guess I'll just play video games...

Hah.  You'll be shoveling instead.

You mean walking behind a self-propelled snowblower?

I would appreciate it if my shittier neighbors would shovel their own shit, though.  And stop letting their nasty little dogs shit in the snow on their sidewalks before I can clear it.
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 15 2015,13:11
< Geothermal heat > and glaciers.
Posted by TheCatt on Jul. 15 2015,13:40

(Malcolm @ Jul. 15 2015,16:11)
QUOTE
< Geothermal heat > and glaciers.

QUOTE
The study’s authors, however, argue that geothermal heating under Antarctica doesn’t explain why the western part of the continent has undergone rapid ice loss in recent decades. The other part of the equation is global warming, they argue.
Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 15 2015,14:19
Besides, where do you think all that geothermal heat is coming from?  Obviously it's all the carbon we've been putting into the atmosphere.
Posted by TheCatt on Jul. 16 2015,18:52
< 2014 - Warmest year evar >
Posted by Leisher on Jul. 16 2015,19:13
Why is it that every time someone mentions the melting ice on the West side of Antarctica, they never mention the record ice on the East side?

Also, warmest year ever? We're experiencing record cold summers.
Posted by GORDON on Jul. 16 2015,19:25
As far as I can tell, there is no one publishing honest climate numbers any more.  They are adjusted and adjusted again 5 years later and who the fuck knows what reality is.
Posted by TheCatt on Jul. 17 2015,04:31

(Leisher @ Jul. 16 2015,22:13)
QUOTE
Why is it that every time someone mentions the melting ice on the West side of Antarctica, they never mention the record ice on the East side?

Also, warmest year ever? We're experiencing record cold summers.

The entire Western US/Alaska/Canada is experiencing record hot summers.
Posted by GORDON on Jul. 17 2015,06:02
Maybe.
Posted by TheCatt on Jul. 17 2015,06:58

(GORDON @ Jul. 17 2015,09:02)
QUOTE
Maybe.

< Bah >
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 17 2015,07:15

(TheCatt @ Jul. 17 2015,08:58)
QUOTE

(GORDON @ Jul. 17 2015,09:02)
QUOTE
Maybe.

< Bah >

QUOTE
This upside-down weather pattern was triggered by a series of massive typhoons that formed in the Northwest Pacific Ocean, including Super Typhoons Noul and Dolphin. The Northwest Pacific has already had three Cat. 5 super typhoons, including both Noul and Dolphin, the latter of which topped out at a 160-mile-per-hour super typhoon.

Super typhoon Dolphin?  What sick fuck names these?

Posted by Leisher on Jul. 17 2015,08:01

(TheCatt @ Jul. 17 2015,07:31)
QUOTE

(Leisher @ Jul. 16 2015,22:13)
QUOTE
Why is it that every time someone mentions the melting ice on the West side of Antarctica, they never mention the record ice on the East side?

Also, warmest year ever? We're experiencing record cold summers.

The entire Western US/Alaska/Canada is experiencing record hot summers.

Based on their records, yes. And those accurately date back how far? 180 years?

Seems like a really, really small sample size.

And again, I'm not debating climate change as that is a real thing. However, the implication that we're the only or main factor is something I've yet to see proven.
Posted by GORDON on Jul. 17 2015,08:08
And what I am saying is that I suspect there isn't any honest data collection any more.
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 17 2015,11:24
< Mini-ice age is bullshit >.
Posted by Leisher on Jul. 17 2015,11:31
That's too bad. I prefer the cold weather.

And thank goodness they still got their "the sky is falling" bullet points into that article too.
Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 17 2015,16:32
Maybe, but maybe not.

There's other factors in play.  Of course the heat put out by the sun isn't going to drop by 60%, that's dumb.  But a drop by 60% in sunspot activity could have an effect on cloud formation.  There's some evidence that cloud formation may be driven by cosmic rays impinging warm moist air.  If that theory is true then a 60% drop in sunspots means less solar wind blocking cosmic rays which means more cosmic rays hitting earth which means more cloud formation which means a cool down of the climate.

If nothing else it will be a good test of that cloud formation theory.  No cool down means it's wrong.

EDIT: Heh.  Butt formation.

Posted by GORDON on Jul. 17 2015,20:33
Someone accidentally told the truth:

< EPA Head Gina McCarthy Admits Obama Climate Regs Have No Measurable Impact On Climate >
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 21 2015,10:24
< Models still > overshooting actual temperatures.
Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 25 2015,10:39
< Haha >.  < Text version >.
QUOTE
They wrote in a policy brief published by the SEI, “Overall, the use of JI may have enabled global GHG emissions to be about 600 million tCO2e (tons of carbon dioxide equivalent) higher than they would have otherwise been.”

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 26 2015,10:45
< World must "completely" > go off carbon in the next few decades.  OR ELSE.
QUOTE
It is clear that global society must almost completely decarbonise in the next 30-35 years, or sooner if possible, to tackle the climate change challenge effectively. This means that the vast majority of fossil fuels must stay in the ground.
Posted by GORDON on Aug. 26 2015,12:42
Al Gore said we were already last the point of no return 2 years ago, so there's no point now.  He had a consensus of scientists, too.
Posted by Leisher on Aug. 26 2015,12:47
The debate is over.
Posted by Alhazad on Aug. 26 2015,14:39
35 years? I'm not sure I care anymore unless they discover human immortality.
Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 27 2015,10:21
< Another > "we're screwed at some undetermined, movable point in the future" study.
QUOTE
“It’s pretty certain we are locked into at least 3 feet of sea level rise, and probably more,” said Steve Nerem, head of NASA’s Sea Level Change Team. “But we don’t know whether it will happen within a century or somewhat longer.”
Posted by GORDON on Aug. 27 2015,10:33
It's amazing how they can look at evidence of millions of years of ice ages and ebbs, seal levels rising and falling, never stopping, and come to the conclusion that it might still be happening.  Someone get these people more grant money, stat.
Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 18 2015,12:03
< There may or may not > have been a "pause."  Since agreement can't even get reached on that...
Posted by Leisher on Oct. 15 2015,06:13
< Freeman Dyson says Obama is wrong, Republicans are right > on climate change.

He's one of the smartest men in the world and a big time Democrat and Obama supporter.
Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 28 2015,13:53
< Whoa >, you want to see our research details?  Fuck you.
QUOTE
Citing confidentiality concerns and the integrity of the scientific process, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said it won’t give Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) the research documents he subpoenaed.

On what planet does your scientific process depend on confidential methodology?
Posted by GORDON on Nov. 06 2015,04:53
This isn't relevant to anything I just wanted to save the quote somewhere.

QUOTE
What matters, rather, is the strength of the longing. Modern liberalism is best understood as a movement of would-be believers in search of true faith. For much of the 20th century it was faith in History, especially in its Marxist interpretation. Now it's faith in the environment. Each is a comprehensive belief system, an instruction sheet on how to live, eat and reproduce, a story of how man fell and how he might be redeemed, a tale of impending crisis that's also a moral crucible.

In short, a religion without God.

-- Bret Stephens
Posted by GORDON on Nov. 22 2015,17:32
This guy talking about how NASA has "massively" altered historical temperature datasets.

< http://notrickszone.com/2015....altered >

I've been mentioning "adjusted" data for years, which means there are no more accurate models for climate if there are no original, unadjusted temperature numbers.  Everything after this point is bullshit that people will still kill you to defend.

Posted by GORDON on Nov. 23 2015,04:58
QUOTE
It never looks like hysteria when you are in the middle of it. It never feels like a mania when you are being consumed by righteous zealotry. It never looks or  feels like a cult when you believe it to the depths of your soul.

True believers are never swayed by the evidence. They believe the absence of empirical data is a test of their faith. They might skew the data in order to lure in those who still hold to an outmoded view of empirical science, but they themselves have given their lives to the narrative, not to the facts.

If you can still be a true believer when the facts tell another story, your status within the cult will be enhanced. If you really want to take it a step further into delirium, you should propose punishing and persecuting those who do not believe.

-- Stuart Schneiderman on climate change but it's true of any popular belief system that sweeps through groups of people
Posted by GORDON on Jan. 20 2016,16:54
I searched for "peak oil" and the only hit was this thread... so fuckit.  I'll say this here.

Saudi Arabia has opened the spigots full blast, and I heard something about Obama's amazing treaty with Iran opened trade with them (even though oil is fungible and was still in the markets, but I dunno), and the price of gas is dropping like a rock.  I filled up for $1.40 the other day.  This is the lowest I remember seeing gas since 9/11.

I have always heard gas at $3+ was "an anchor on the economy."  Does this mean the anchor is gone?  The economy may explode right around the next presidential election.... if this < next recession I have been hearing about > doesn't erase those gains.

Thoughts?
Posted by TheCatt on Jan. 20 2016,17:10
The economy is just weird right now.  China is slowing, oil producing countries are getting hammered.  All of this should be good news for the US, but it's not... at least, not yet.

Manufacturing has been in contraction for 2 months in a row in the US.  

I don't know what that anchor means.  It's a stupid term.  Things change.  The US used to not be able to affordably produce oil, but now with shale we can product oil down to around $40/bbl.  We broke the hold that OPEC held.  Saudi Arabia is playing offense, since they can produce profitably (although with governement deficits) down to $6-8/bbl.  Now Iran's going to add 500,000 to 1M bbls/day.

It's a crazy world.  But gas here is still like $1.90
Posted by TheCatt on Jan. 20 2016,17:26
< Hottest year evar >
Posted by GORDON on Jan. 20 2016,17:27
Hottest year.... since the end of the ice age we are still getting out of, they mean.
Posted by Leisher on Jan. 21 2016,06:30
My wife filled up for $.99/gallon cents this week.

QUOTE
Hottest year evar


I really wish someone had the balls to point out that we're talking about a 136 year period and that, literally, millions of years of climate data were not recorded.

I don't know how anyone can look at such a small sample size and claim they definitively know what's going on and call themselves an "expert" or "scientist". (And this statement is not a climate change denial, although I'll argue cause all day.)

It's already been proven that some folks have faked climate data for funding or just gotten it wrong. Wouldn't it be hilarious, and actually quite crafty, if NASA was faking data to improve funding for missions with the ultimate goal of off planet colonization?
Posted by GORDON on Jan. 21 2016,17:18
These guys say that the numbers published for the previous "hottest year on record" in 1997 have been adjusted down over 3 degrees in order to make 2015 the new "hottest year on record."

The fact there is no more unadjusted data is pretty unfortunate for real science.

< http://www.mrctv.org/blog/claim-2015-was-hottest-year-ever-bogus >
Posted by TheCatt on Jan. 22 2016,15:38

(GORDON @ Jan. 21 2016,20:18)
QUOTE
These guys say that the numbers published for the previous "hottest year on record" in 1997 have been adjusted down over 3 degrees in order to make 2015 the new "hottest year on record."

The fact there is no more unadjusted data is pretty unfortunate for real science.

< http://www.mrctv.org/blog/claim-2015-was-hottest-year-ever-bogus >

< Rebuttal >

I think.  I didn't read it.
Posted by GORDON on Jan. 22 2016,16:34
It says they have to adjust the raw data, but don't go into detail. Still smells like bullshit to me.

The only way they can show the earth warmingis to change the past.
Posted by TheCatt on Jan. 30 2016,14:45
Posted by GORDON on Jan. 30 2016,15:32
I wish anyone would own their bullshit.
Posted by GORDON on Feb. 16 2016,16:23
Sea levels aren't rising anywhere near as fast as predicted, wild-ass guesses posited as to why, also science is still settled.

< http://www.latimes.com/science....ry.html >

Also, I just learned that Lake Superior held 20% of the fresh surface water on the planet (already knew that), and also it is only 10k years old (knew, but never really thought about it).  I wonder if scientists take into account that 20% of the earth's fresh water got sequestered in that inland sea a geological heartbeat ago into their calculations when they look at tree rings and ice cores and shit to get historical data, because I doubt it, because I've never heard of them doing so in any of their arguments.
Posted by TheCatt on Feb. 16 2016,16:39

(GORDON @ Feb. 16 2016,19:23)
QUOTE
Sea levels aren't rising anywhere near as fast as predicted, wild-ass guesses posited as to why, also science is still settled.

< http://www.latimes.com/science....ry.html >

They're rising 80% of what was expected.  Really, that's "[not] rising anywhere near as fast as predicted"?
Posted by GORDON on Feb. 16 2016,17:07
Yeah, what's a trillion tons of error here and there.
Posted by TheCatt on Feb. 16 2016,17:12

(GORDON @ Feb. 16 2016,20:07)
QUOTE
Yeah, what's a trillion tons of error here and there.

20%.  That's what it is.
Posted by TPRJones on Feb. 16 2016,18:53

(GORDON @ Feb. 16 2016,18:23)
QUOTE
Also, I just learned that Lake Superior held 20% of the fresh surface water on the planet (already knew that), and also it is only 10k years old (knew, but never really thought about it).  I wonder if scientists take into account that 20% of the earth's fresh water got sequestered in that inland sea a geological heartbeat ago into their calculations when they look at tree rings and ice cores and shit to get historical data, because I doubt it, because I've never heard of them doing so in any of their arguments.

Probably not necessary, as back then that water would have been locked up in glaciers rather than part of the oceans.  It probably balances out.
Posted by GORDON on Feb. 16 2016,19:12

(TPRJones @ Feb. 16 2016,21:53)
QUOTE

(GORDON @ Feb. 16 2016,18:23)
QUOTE
Also, I just learned that Lake Superior held 20% of the fresh surface water on the planet (already knew that), and also it is only 10k years old (knew, but never really thought about it).  I wonder if scientists take into account that 20% of the earth's fresh water got sequestered in that inland sea a geological heartbeat ago into their calculations when they look at tree rings and ice cores and shit to get historical data, because I doubt it, because I've never heard of them doing so in any of their arguments.

Probably not necessary, as back then that water would have been locked up in glaciers rather than part of the oceans.  It probably balances out.

Are you officially declaring this science, settled?
Posted by TheCatt on Feb. 16 2016,19:16

(GORDON @ Feb. 16 2016,22:12)
QUOTE
Are you officially declaring this science, settled?

< Are you saying evolution isn't settled? >

They are wrong by 15x!  1400%!  DEAR GOD, EVOLUTION ISN'T HAPPENING
Posted by GORDON on Feb. 16 2016,19:18
Is tonight my night for your special attentions, or something?  FYI: negging has never worked on me to get me into bed.

Posted by TPRJones on Feb. 16 2016,19:24

(TheCatt @ Feb. 16 2016,21:16)
QUOTE
< Are you saying evolution isn't settled? >

QUOTE
For a long time scientists have believed that the rate of change in the mitochondrial genome was never faster than about 2% per million years.

That's just flat out wrong.  < Punctuated equilibrium > while not universally accepted has been gaining popularity for quite some time.  This thing with the chickens would be an example, with human chicken farming being the cause of the sudden changes.

QUOTE
...the team also discovered a single instance of mitochondrial DNA being passed down from a father

Now THAT is interesting.
Posted by TPRJones on Feb. 16 2016,19:25

(GORDON @ Feb. 16 2016,21:12)
QUOTE

(TPRJones @ Feb. 16 2016,21:53)
QUOTE
Probably not necessary, as back then that water would have been locked up in glaciers rather than part of the oceans.  It probably balances out.

Are you officially declaring this science, settled?

Of course not.  The word "probably" should be considered an indicator of uncertainty.

Posted by TheCatt on Feb. 17 2016,05:53

(GORDON @ Feb. 16 2016,22:18)
QUOTE
Is tonight my night for your special attentions, or something?  FYI: negging has never worked on me to get me into bed.

I'm just saying, you keep harping on climate change being unsettled, by using a standard that indicates MOST science is unsettled, yet you seem to accept most of that other science just fine.
Posted by GORDON on Feb. 17 2016,07:53

(TheCatt @ Feb. 17 2016,08:53)
QUOTE

(GORDON @ Feb. 16 2016,22:18)
QUOTE
Is tonight my night for your special attentions, or something?  FYI: negging has never worked on me to get me into bed.

I'm just saying, you keep harping on climate change being unsettled, by using a standard that indicates MOST science is unsettled, yet you seem to accept most of that other science just fine.

I would never say such a thing if there hadn't been such a movement to claim that the subject IS settled, there's nothing more to learn, and all we can do now is buy these carbon credits and maybe you will not be personally responsible for destroying the world.  What, you don't want to save the world?  Why do you hate baby animals?  Baby animals live in the world.  You are just a subhuman piece of shit.

Because that's the vibe and implications.

And I reject that.
Posted by TheCatt on Feb. 17 2016,08:38
Baby animals are cute.

So.. of the science that does exist: Do you think it's likely that there's 1) global warming and or climate change? and 2) it's caused more than 50% or less than 50% by humans?
Posted by GORDON on Feb. 17 2016,12:58
Obviously the climate is changing.  It has never not been changing.  It's been getting warmer since the last 10k years, when the last ice age ended.  It has been much warmer than now, in the past, naturally.  The ice caps have been nonexistent at times in the past, too, without any help from man.

Less than 50% of current climate change is caused by man.  Greater than zero.  And that's just my conclusions based on science I have seen.... I could be wrong.  I am not going to tell you the science is settled and pack up the labs.

If I were forced to bet a dollar, I would venture than man is responsible for less than 5% of current climate change.
Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 22 2016,10:25
< Elementary teachers > to be schooled.
Posted by TPRJones on Feb. 22 2016,10:45
QUOTE
How overwhelming? According to this and this, roughly 95 percent of climate scientists believe global warming is happening and that humans are to blame.

See, there's a problem here.  In order to be a working climate scientist you have to apply for and receive grant funds.  And for a couple of decades now grant funds around climate science are only awarded to people who have a study that just per-supposes it's existence and cause.  By definition if you are a climate scientist that doesn't toe that line you stop being a climate scientist.  So quotes like that above look rather meaningless.

In similar news, 95% of NASCAR drivers believe all cars only turn left.
Posted by TheCatt on Feb. 23 2016,07:12
< Sea levels rising.   >
Posted by GORDON on Feb. 23 2016,07:58

(TheCatt @ Feb. 23 2016,10:12)
QUOTE
< Sea levels rising.   >

QUOTE
The study, conducted by a group of 10 climate scientists from universities around the world, was published Monday in the U.S.'s Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.



(TPRJones @ earlier)
QUOTE
In order to be a working climate scientist you have to apply for and receive grant funds.  And for a couple of decades now grant funds around climate science are only awarded to people who have a study that just per-supposes it's existence and cause.  By definition if you are a climate scientist that doesn't toe that line you stop being a climate scientist.

Posted by TheCatt on Mar. 06 2016,10:45
< No recent pause in global warming >

QUOTE
The Remote Sensing System temperature data, promoted by many who reject mainstream climate science and especially most recently by Sen. Ted Cruz, now shows a slight warming of about 0.18 degrees Fahrenheit since 1998. Ground temperature measurements, which many scientists call more accurate, all show warming in the past 18 years.
"There are people that like to claim there was no warming; they really can't claim that anymore," said Carl Mears, the scientist who runs the Remote Sensing System temperature data tracking.
The change resulted from an adjustment Mears made to fix a nagging discrepancy in the data from 15 satellites.
The satellites are in a polar orbit, so they are supposed to go over the same place at about the same time as they circle from north to south pole. Some of the satellites drift a bit, which changes their afternoon and evening measurements ever so slightly. Some satellites had drift that made temperatures warmer, others cooler. Three satellites had thrusters and they stayed in the proper orbit so they provided guidance for adjustments.
Mears said he was "motivated by fixing these differences between the satellites. If the differences hadn't been there, I wouldn't have done the upgrade."
NASA chief climate scientist Gavin Schmidt and Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist at Texas A&M, said experts and studies had shown these problems that Mears adjusted and they both said those adjustments make sense and are well supported in a study in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate.
The study refutes the idea of a pause in global warming, "but frankly common sense and looking at how Earth was responding over the past 18 years kind of makes this finding a 'duh' moment," wrote University of Georgia meteorology professor Marshall Shepherd.


Read more at: < http://phys.org/news....] >
Posted by GORDON on Mar. 06 2016,11:31
QUOTE
Revamped satellite data


I didn't read TFA, but if this is just more "adjusted data," then of course it is showing what they want it to show.

But it doesn't matter.  Sucks they made bbq grills illegal in England, because I don't want that happening here.  That's about the only thing I can think that affects me, not counting any "global warming offset tax" they are going to throw on gasoline, eventually.
Posted by TheCatt on Mar. 06 2016,13:08
Basically, the "pause" in global warming was caused due to satellite drift, and this fixed the data.

But yeah, it's all just fraud, not science.
Posted by GORDON on Mar. 06 2016,14:26

(TheCatt @ Mar. 06 2016,16:08)
QUOTE
But yeah, it's all just fraud, not science.

So what if it is?  Tell me what difference it makes to us regular people.
Posted by TheCatt on Mar. 06 2016,15:51

(GORDON @ Mar. 06 2016,17:26)
QUOTE

(TheCatt @ Mar. 06 2016,16:08)
QUOTE
But yeah, it's all just fraud, not science.

So what if it is?  Tell me what difference it makes to us regular people.

Death, famine, disaster, floods... on the other hand, more bikini-ready land.  But everyone's fat these days.
Posted by GORDON on Mar. 06 2016,16:05
And I'm melodramatic?  You actually proscribe to the "we're all gonna die" stuff?

Posted by TheCatt on Mar. 06 2016,17:42

(GORDON @ Mar. 06 2016,19:05)
QUOTE
And I'm melodramatic?  You actually proscribe to the "we're all gonna die" stuff?

I was jumping your melodramatic train.
Posted by GORDON on Mar. 06 2016,17:46

(TheCatt @ Mar. 06 2016,20:42)
QUOTE

(GORDON @ Mar. 06 2016,19:05)
QUOTE
And I'm melodramatic?  You actually proscribe to the "we're all gonna die" stuff?

I was jumping your melodramatic train.

Well I don't do that in this thread, unless you think my suggestions that there's money and corruption in this game are hyperbolic.  That's pretty much the point of the "they're full of shit" thread.

And yeah, your real answer to my question is, "It means absolutely nothing to the little people like you and me."

Posted by TheCatt on Mar. 06 2016,19:06

(GORDON @ Mar. 06 2016,20:46)
QUOTE

(TheCatt @ Mar. 06 2016,20:42)
QUOTE

(GORDON @ Mar. 06 2016,19:05)
QUOTE
And I'm melodramatic?  You actually proscribe to the "we're all gonna die" stuff?

I was jumping your melodramatic train.

Well I don't do that in this thread, unless you think my suggestions that there's money and corruption in this game are hyperbolic.  That's pretty much the point of the "they're full of shit" thread.

And yeah, your real answer to my question is, "It means absolutely nothing to the little people like you and me."

I don't know... it's not like the world is static.  People will react if it proves out further, people/science will adapt.  Bad things will start happening, the question is how far it gets.
Posted by TheCatt on Mar. 06 2016,19:19
Posted by GORDON on Mar. 06 2016,20:18
In the mean time, I don't like being lied to.
Posted by Leisher on Mar. 07 2016,06:59
QUOTE
I don't know... it's not like the world is static.


Exactly.

There are so many things wrong with the "man made global warming" argument. From declaring "the debate is over" to using models from computers that can't predict current or past temperatures to ignoring the sun to pretending 180 years of data trumps Earth's millions of years of existence.

I'm all for not polluting and conservation, but I'm not ok with Chicken Little screaming about the sky falling based on bad science and/or fraud.

My biggest problem is that none of the "climate scientists" seem to acknowledge the fact that climate change is a real thing that happens with or without man's intervention.
Posted by GORDON on Mar. 10 2016,11:13
The Justice Department has discussed criminalizing my opinion on this subject.

< http://tinyurl.com/hwcuom4 >

Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 10 2016,11:17

(GORDON @ Mar. 10 2016,13:13)
QUOTE
The Justice Department has discussed criminalizing my opinion on this subject.

< http://tinyurl.com/hwcuom4 >

QUOTE
During Lynch’s testimony at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said that he believes there are similarities between the tobacco industry denying scientific studies showing the dangers of using tobacco and companies within the fossil fuel industry denying studies allegedly showing the threat of carbon emissions.

Da fuq?
Posted by TPRJones on Mar. 10 2016,11:50

(GORDON @ Mar. 10 2016,13:13)
QUOTE
The Justice Department has discussed criminalizing my opinion on this subject.

They're discussing a civil suit against certain companies, not anything regarding criminal law.  Still fucked up, though.

Posted by GORDON on Mar. 10 2016,11:53

(TPRJones @ Mar. 10 2016,14:50)
QUOTE

(GORDON @ Mar. 10 2016,13:13)
QUOTE
The Justice Department has discussed criminalizing my opinion on this subject.

They're discussing a civil suit against certain companies, not anything regarding criminal law.  Still fucked up, though.

If they were going to sue me because I was posting persuasive arguments that were reaching a large number of people, I would consider that criminal, even though it would be a civil matter.

But yeah, I know.
Powered by Ikonboard 3.1.5 © 2006 Ikonboard