Printable View
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/...mategate-data/
No response needed, although all of you anti-Foxnews people won't be able to resist, I'm sure.
This story probably won't appear elsewhere, 'cuz it doesn't square with global-warming fans.
Tell you what:
5 cyber-bucks to anyone who finds non-Foxnews linkage...
"Global warming fans" implies that belief is a matter of choice instead of science/fact.
Given that Fox News only recently came around to the idea of a round earth, their skepticism does not surprise me.
The story may not appear anywhere else because it is meaningless to anyone with a normal head/rectum arrangement.
In years to come that will be placed alongside great quotes from Gandhi, Churchill or ConfuciusQuote:
Originally Posted by clocker
The "science/fact" you refer to is the precise body of quasi-evidence whence comes the entire "conclusion" of man-made global-warming.Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
It has taken a fatal beating recently, and this latest is just a capper.
That is, beyond a shadow of doubt, the greatest feat of overt ass-kissing in the entire history of this board.Quote:
Originally Posted by devilsadvocateIn years to come that will be placed alongside great quotes from Gandhi, Churchill or ConfuciusQuote:
Originally Posted by clocker
Well done.
How is it that a man from the eighteenth century manages to post on the internet?Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Don't know; ask that guy kneeling behind you.Quote:
Originally Posted by clockerHow is it that a man from the eighteenth century manages to post on the internet?Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Here's a question:
How did you become so irretrievably enamored of the idea of Global Warming and, in turn, the idea that Man's purported role in it out-weighs that of Mother Nature?
Forward thinking.Quote:
How is it that a man from the eighteenth century manages to post on the internet?
Pretty much the same way I became "enamored" with the concept that 2 + 2 = 4...scientific evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Because the body of scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports it.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Seems to me the nub of the question comes down to "What if I'm wrong?".
If I'm wrong, we end up with a cleaner environment, widespread use of sustainable alternative energy and continuation of life more-or-less as we know it.
If you're wrong, we're fucked.
Jesus had better ride in on his T-rex and rapture our asses outta here...which seems to be your plan for the future, a plan that neatly relieves you of any responsibility to act.
You are apparently comfortable taking a "let's wait and see" posture, I am not.
You are entirely wrong as to my stance on the matter.
I believe we should use our resources wisely and, um, conservatively.
Waste no, want not, to the nth degree.
I do not believe we should be silly about it unto bankrupting ourselves and ruining our economy.
It's just that simple; I don't buy the guilt trip that is designed entirely for the purpose of prying open our wallets, while ignoring the excesses of India and China.
We are already bankrupt and our economy is crap...rebuilding on a more sustainable platform would not be so terribly disruptive.
You say "guilt trip", I say "responsible foresight".
Why is our national behavior to be dictated by that of India or China?
Have they become the ideal to which we aspire?
If China and India jumped off a cliff, would you follow suit?
So then-Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
We are so fucked, why not make it immeasurably worse, and no fair leaving that trail of bread-crumbs, AND-
While India and China get well stomping the ever-loving fuck out of us economically, we shackle them to the nearest solid object so that we may jump off the cliff all by ourselves?
No, thanks.
Jesus, how narrow minded can you be?
You think we're capable of competing with China and India?
Where does the vast workforce come from?
Should we repeal 50 years of environmental stewardship and turn our country into a cesspool so we can go head to head with the Chinese making useless electronic trinkets?
What a bright and alluring future you envision.
"Daddy, when I grow up I want to be a Chinese factory worker...just like you."
Where is the proof, theories don't count, that implementing clean changes will bankrupt us? It's just the natural cycle of progress.
The invention of the tractor put a lot of farmhands out of work (not to mention horses). One form of employment fell off and another started up.
As dirty jobs fall, clean ones will replace them.
Again I'm amazed at your old style labor union anti change stance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
Oh, for fuck's sake - you two are thick as a whale omelet.Quote:
Originally Posted by devilsadvocate
I'm going to bed.
Being egregiously wrong makes Kev tired apparently.
Get some rest so you can arise tomorrow and again deny global warming, Obama's birthplace and the benefits of health care.
It's a tough job and must really tucker you out.
Rumor has it the "assumptions" fox made in the article aren't exactly accurate. Not just on the supposed "quote" admission about data from the NASA guy but also on the "climategate" story.
No wonder you're so continually off-track...everything you believe is fueled by "rumor".Quote:
Originally Posted by devilsadvocate
Unlike Fox, which is fueled by fantasy.
The question that keeps going through my mind about man-made global warming is this...
We know there were ice ages in the past, before humans ever even built a factory. What made the ice melt away back then? How do we know for certain that whatever made the ice melt away back then is not responsible for global warming today?
You raise an excellent point, and that's not fair.Quote:
Originally Posted by 999969999
In any case, whatever the answer to that question may be, it is under the proprietary control of the global-warming gang.
To request such relevant information is to risk ridicule, and (soon, potentially) legal censure.
You only think it's an excellent point because you treasure your ignorance and prejudices over even a basic understanding of the problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4Quote:
Originally Posted by 999969999
You raise an excellent point, and that's not fair.
Like many on the right, an issue must be reduced to the level of a third grader for you to grapple with it and by doing so, the nuances which might provide your answers are distilled away.
If ignorance is bliss, you two must be perpetually ecstatic.
Well, answer the man's question, then, you AlGore sycophant.
Do it with science; enlighten us...relieve us of our ignorance...show us the light...
Oh, like I didn't see that coming.
What I find most ironic about the right wing's denial of global warming is that it's predicated on the fact that the overwhelming bulk of evidence is wrong/unconvincing.
The scientists behind it have an agenda or are simply stupid.
Now for the irony...
When scientists say that we can safely/productively drill for oil in say, the Alaskan Wildlife Preserve, or nuclear power is safe/economical...why, that's just great, "Look, science supports my position!".
In other words, you cherry pick the situation where science is beneficial to your preconceptions and dismiss it when it's not.
There's no point in offering any data to support global warming because your objections are all based on economic considerations, the science is just an inconvenient (see what I did there?) obstacle, easily overcome by demonizing the "elite" who produce the data.
You didn't even try to answer my question.
OK, here's the kindergarten explanation (it's assumed that anyone beyond that level would have used Google to find the info).Quote:
Originally Posted by 999969999
No one denies that there has been a naturally occurring cycle of warming/freezing.
Well, no one besides evangelicals who believe the earth is only six thousand years old.
The difference now is that our impact has increased the severity of the cycle, potentially beyond the ability of nature to maintain balance.
Now, let's make it even simpler.
Divorce our irrefutable impact on the environment from long term climate change considerations altogether.
Even if our current course doesn't kill us, is it still acceptable to pump millions of tons of crap into the atmosphere?
Is it OK to use the oceans as a dumping ground and continue degrading the ozone layer to the point that you need SPF 50 just to get the morning newspaper?
Is it logical to rely on an energy source- oil- that is as imminently finite, requires such a convoluted supply chain (with all the national security implications attached) and inherently inefficient?
Wonder about that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by clockerOK, here's the kindergarten explanation (it's assumed that anyone beyond that level would have used Google to find the info).Quote:
Originally Posted by 999969999
No one denies that there has been a naturally occurring cycle of warming/freezing.
Well, no one besides evangelicals who believe the earth is only six thousand years old.
The difference now is that our impact has increased the severity of the cycle, potentially beyond the ability of nature to maintain balance.
Now, let's make it even simpler.
Divorce our irrefutable impact on the environment from long term climate change considerations altogether.
Even if our current course doesn't kill us, is it still acceptable to pump millions of tons of crap into the atmosphere?
Is it OK to use the oceans as a dumping ground and continue degrading the ozone layer to the point that you need SPF 50 just to get the morning newspaper?
Is it logical to rely on an energy source- oil- that is as imminently finite, requires such a convoluted supply chain (with all the national security implications attached) and inherently inefficient?
Wonder about that.
Global warming has become like a religion for a large number of people and when anyone tries to question their beliefs in any way they feel threatened and react much like a religious person by lashing out angrily and trying to demonize and humiliate anyone who would dare question their faith.
You jumped to the conclusion that I am an evangelical. I'm not even religious. I don't believe there is a God, and I don't believe in any afterlife.
What I do believe is that humans are an insignificant speck on a huge planet that is dwarfed by the size of our sun. Have you ever seen a model of our solar system, and how small the earth is in comparison to the sun? Well, I think that if you looking for what is warming up the earth, you might want to look at the sun. It's what controls how hot and how cool the earth will get. It goes through cycles of its own and we have no control over it.
By your own admission, there are natural cycles that cause warming and freezing of the earth. I would love to see the experiments and the scientific method being used to exclude these variables.
All the global warming enthusiasts seem to think that if we all lower our standard of living back to the 1800s, we might be able to somehow change the climate. No thanks. I'd rather take my chances with the possibility of global warming-- which may not be as disasterous as you predict-- than lower my standard of living back to that of my ancestors. Hell, the weather forecasters can't predict weather a couple of weeks out accurately, and yet you believe that we can predict the weather 50 or more years into the future. It takes a lot of faith to believe in the religion of Global Warming. I don't have that faith.
If you want to voluntarily lower your standard of living in the superstitious hope that you can change this huge planet, then go ahead and knock yourself out, but don't expect me to follow your religion.
For an interesting example of how strongly we influence the environment, do a google search for "global dimming bbc" and read the articles on the BBC website.
Basically, after Sept 9/11 all flights were cancelled in the US, and this had a dramatic effect on our climate. Easy to read and simple proof.
@999969999 - What made you suddenly start talking about lowering our standards of living to combat climate change? As far as I am aware, our standards of living can only improve...
No, I did not.Quote:
Originally Posted by 999969999
I'm sure you think you're making a telling point here.Quote:
Originally Posted by 999969999
You are not.
If you'd "love to see" how the scientists arrived at their conclusions, quit dicking around here and start googling.Quote:
Originally Posted by 999969999
It ain't terribly difficult to find this info.
You are resolutely determined to not only wallow in ignorance but to reinforce it with spurious assumptions.Quote:
Originally Posted by 999969999
Sure you aren't an evangelical?
So what you are saying is you believe the issue has been irrevocably decided, and there is no room for countervailing opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
Google me some boiler-plate for that supposition.
Surely you have something better than ridicule to support it?
See, Saul's little book-o-tactics doesn't work so well on the interweb...
If the green movement prevails, gasoline and other reliable sources of energy will increase in price, in an effort to get us to use less of the supposedly planet killing substance. If I have to spend more on energy, then there will be less money left over to spend on everything else. Thus, my standard of living will fall.Quote:
Originally Posted by jibblet
Like I said, I am more than willing to take my chances with global warming. I think there is a very good chance it won't be a big deal at all.
I'm for freedom of choice. If someone wants to be green and deprive themselves, I say that's fine with me. But don't try to take away my freedoms. Don't try to make me swallow the global warming dogma and lower my standard of living for some pie in the sky idealism.
As for Clocker... you love to get all angry and hurl insults at me, because you believe in the global warming religion and its dogma and you can't stand the fact that I'm not a believer. It's not good enough for you to just lower your own standard of living, you want to bring everyone else's standard of living down with you. You figure if you have to suffer, then so should everyone else.
Science should always be open to debate. Otherwise it is no better than religous superstition.
Here are a few books that I found interesting...
Cool it: the skeptical environmentalist's guide to global warming By Bjørn Lomborg.
The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud**And those who are too fearful to do so. By Lawrence Solomon.
I prefer the book discussed here:
Warming: An Unstoppable 1,500-Year Cycle
New Book Debunks Greenhouse Fears and Points to Natural 1,500-Year Warming Cycles
NEW YORK, Nov. 9 /PRNewswire/ -- A new book that is bound to be
controversial in public policy and environmental circles says that the
Earth has a moderate, natural warming roughly every 1,500 years caused by a
solar- linked cycle. The current Modern Warming may be mostly due to that
natural cycle and not human activity, say the book's authors, well-known
climate physicist Fred Singer and Hudson Institute economist Dennis Avery.
"Unstoppable Global Warming-Every 1500 Years" (Rowman & Littlefield,
276 pages, $24.95) assembles physical and historical evidence of the
natural climate cycle that ranges from ancient records in Rome, Egypt, and
China; to 12,000 antique paintings in museums; to Vikings' tooth enamel in
Greenland cemeteries; and to high-tech analyses of ice cores, seabed
sediments, tree rings, fossil pollen and cave stalagmites.
"The Romans wrote about growing wine grapes in Britain in the first
century," says Avery, "and then it got too cold during the Dark Ages.
Ancient tax records show the Britons grew their own wine grapes in the 11th
century, during the Medieval Warming, and then it got too cold during the
Little Ice Age. It isn't yet warm enough for wine grapes in today's
Britain. Wine grapes are among the most accurate and sensitive indicators
of temperature and they are telling us about a cycle. They also indicate
that today's warming is not unprecedented."
"We have lots of physical evidence for the 1,500-year cycle," says
Singer. "Yet we don't have physical evidence that human-emitted CO2 is
adding significantly to the natural cycle. The current warming started in
1850, too early to be blamed on industries and autos."
Singer notes that humanity learned of the 1,500-year cycle only
recently, from the first Greenland ice cores brought up in 1983. The cycle
was too long and moderate to be observed by earlier peoples without
thermometers and written records. The Greenland ice cores showed the
1,500-year cycle going back 250,000 years. It raises temperatures at the
latitude of New York and Paris by 1-2 degrees C for centuries at a time,
more at the North and South Poles, with a global average of 0.5 degrees C.
In 1987, the first Antarctic ice core showed the cycle extending back
through the last 400,000 years and four Ice Ages-and demonstrated the cycle
was indeed global.
There is also evidence of the 1,500-year cycle in seabed sediments from
six oceans, in ancient tree rings from around the Northern Hemisphere, in
glacier advances and retreats from Greenland to New Zealand, and in cave
stalagmites from every continent including South Africa. The North American
Pollen Database shows nine complete reorganizations of the continent's
trees and plants in the past 14,000 years, or one every 1,650 years.
"The deepest seabed sediment cores show the cycle has been going on for
at least a million years," says Avery.
Sunspot observations over the past 400 years, along with modern
analysis of carbon and beryllium isotopes, link the 1,500-year cycle to
variations recently detected by satellites in the sun's irradiance.
Antarctic ice studies show global temperatures tracking closely with
atmospheric CO2 levels over the past 400,000 years. However, Singer and
Avery note the studies also show that temperature changes preceded the CO2
changes by about 800 years. Thus, more warming has produced more
atmospheric CO2, rather than more CO2 producing global warming. This makes
sense, say the authors, because the oceans hold vastly more CO2 than the
air, and warming forces water to release some its gases.
Singer and Avery say that the science of the natural cycle runs counter
to what many believe and fear will happen as a result of man-made global
warming:
* Wild species won't become extinct in our warming because they've been
through at least 600 previous warmings, including the Holocene Warming
just 5,000 years ago that was much warmer than today.
* The seas won't rise to drown New York before the next cooling, because
90 percent of the world's remaining ice is in the melt-resistant
Antarctic. Even a 5 degree C warming would decrease its ice mass by only
1.5 percent, over centuries.
* Warming won't bring famine, because it brings what crops like -- longer
growing seasons, more sunlight, and few untimely frosts. More CO2 also
stimulates plants' growth, and enhances their water use efficiency.
"We hope our book will help calm the rampant hysteria about global
warming and the flawed Greenhouse models," emphasizes Avery. "We should be
using our resources and technology to find the best ways to adapt to the
inevitable but moderate warming to come, not to study one climate model
after another, scare people to death, and pass crippling 'environmental'
legislation that would deny the world the economic growth it needs to
overcome poverty, the greatest problem of all."
Dennis Avery
http://profnet.prnewswire.com/Subscr....aspx?ei=52881
Dr. S. Fred Singer
http://profnet.prnewswire.com/Subscr....aspx?ei=52883
The coolest thing about the book is that it is filled with SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, the kind that utterly refutes Man's culpability in whatever warming trend may actually exist.
What planet have you been living on.Quote:
Originally Posted by 999969999
Gas prices have been rising for decades, "green movement" or no.
Oil is hardly a "reliable" source of energy- especially for the US- because we must import the bulk of what we consume and are now competing with India and China for the dwindling supplies that remain.
You will be spending more on energy whether you like it or not.
I'd like to see where you are guaranteed the "freedom" of cheap gas and unfettered consumption.Quote:
Originally Posted by 999969999
Every day, these "freedoms" you're so fond of are routinely abridged by overarching societal concerns.
Your "freedom" to rape/murder is (presumably) subsumed by others right to live.
Your "freedom" to jaywalk is constrained so traffic may flow freely.
I think it's just grand that you're willing to take your chances with global warming.
What a brave person you must be.
Not angry...contemptuous.Quote:
Originally Posted by 999969999
You are a lazy thinker who has decided that "personal freedom" is a valid lens through which to view a scientific question.
Science is not debatable.Quote:
Originally Posted by 999969999
Interpretation of data- yes, science itself, no.
There is an important nuance there that you fail to grasp.
Would you care to debate the validity of "2 + 2= 4"?
That's a scientific assertion, you can go ahead and debate the "False" side.
I'm sure you did.Quote:
Originally Posted by 999969999
What is it you found so interesting?
Lomborg for instance, doesn't deny global warming- or mankind's effect on same- at all.
He argues against the proposed "fixes", which is fair enough...but you can't work on a problem if like you, you deny the problem even exists.
Solomon admits that the majority of scientists disagree with him but dismisses them as mediocre and scared of repercussions (repercussions from whom is never revealed), so he wants to concentrate only on eminent personages, "eminent" in this case equals "agrees with me".
He could use the exact same format to proclaim the earth is flat...all he needs is one person- albeit one fearless person unafraid of bucking "the conspiracy"- and voila! his point is "proved".
If you want to "take your chances on global warming" based on shoddy and manipulative journalism, feel free.
I wouldn't expect you to support freedom. You're like a modern day Communist. You think governments should be making the decision about whether or not we should use more expensive and less reliable green energy sources, instead of letting the free market decide it.
That is the most unscientific thing in the world to say-- "Science is not debatable."
Very interesting. Thanks for the info.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
You clearly have a very feeble and tenuous grasp of energy policy.Quote:
Originally Posted by 999969999
"More expensive and less reliable" sources of green energy?
More expensive than what...oil?
Wake up pal, the only reason that oil is inexpensive is because we not only massively subsidize oil companies (how did the "free market" feel about the oil cartels posting record profits as price at the pump soared the past few years?) but we also protect and extend their interests with our military.
If the "free market" had anything to do with oil prices, we'd be paying costs like Europeans do...way higher than the US.
Furthermore, can you explain how it is that at a time when there is a worldwide glut of oil supplies and consumption has dropped, the barrel price has risen?
Wouldn't a real free market economy produce exactly the opposite result?
Quote:
Originally Posted by clockerYou clearly have a very feeble and tenuous grasp of energy policy.Quote:
Originally Posted by 999969999
"More expensive and less reliable" sources of green energy?
More expensive than what...oil?
Wake up pal, the only reason that oil is inexpensive is because we not only massively subsidize oil companies (how did the "free market" feel about the oil cartels posting record profits as price at the pump soared the past few years?) but we also protect and extend their interests with our military.
If the "free market" had anything to do with oil prices, we'd be paying costs like Europeans do...way higher than the US.
Furthermore, can you explain how it is that at a time when there is a worldwide glut of oil supplies and consumption has dropped, the barrel price has risen?
Wouldn't a real free market economy produce exactly the opposite result?
If the damned government would get out of the way, and allow us to drill for oil everywhere in the United States, we could supply our own oil and gas at a much lower price. And if the government would allow us to build a lot more nuclear power plants all over the U.S. we could stop wasting oil on power generation, and use it on our cars instead.
I don't know about you, but I love to drive my new car that my parents bought me for my 16th birtday. It's fun, and I don't want gas to get so expensive that I can't afford to drive it anymore.
Around where I live, there are huge gaps in between towns, and hardly any cops around, and so can I take my 2009 Ford Mustang out on the highway and crank it up to 95 mph quite easily. Right now at $3 a gallon, it's no big deal. But if gas gets up to $8 a gallon like some people are predicting with cap and trade nonsense, then it's going to cut into my savings account a bit too much.
So, even with a giant oil slick threatening the Louisiana coast you think we should just allow unfettered drilling "everywhere in the United States", eh?
What if that means a pumping platform in your backyard?
Both rhetorical questions, BTW.
We could pump every known oil deposit in the continental US and it wouldn't make a dent in our consumption of imported oil...we use way more than we have (or have access to).
Clearly, you don't know me at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by 999969999
I sympathize, I really do.
When I was a kid I remember "gas wars"...gas stations used to compete on price (bet you've never seen that)...and I recall prices of 17¢/gallon.
And, they'd wash your windshield and check your air while filling up.
Boy, the "free market" approach has really worked out well there, hasn't it?
(This question is NOT rhetorical).
Ignore the "cap and trade" nonsense (who are "some people", by the way?) for a moment and ponder this...
What if the government "got out of the way" of Big Oil and revoked the tax subsidies they currently get and we withdrew all our military support currently safeguarding their overseas operations...prices would drop?
By your logic, the answer would have to be yes.
Big fan of nuclear power, are we?
What's your plan for the spent fuel rods?
Sheesh, I'll bet you even believe in "clean coal".
For someone that appears to be so cynical you show a lot of youthful naivety.Quote:
Originally Posted by 999969999
Do you really think it's in the oil companies interests to lower the price? Even if we were able to be self sufficient in oil do you really think we would get it cheaper than the world price without government interference?
I bought my first vehicle myself, my father offered to buy one for me, but I wanted to make my own way in the world
Lots of problems, here.Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
I'd say we pursue an actual free market (haven't had one in, like, forever) and do the nukes, etc., too.
Yes indeed.
We can put the spent fuel rods up Hugo Chavez's ass.
We won't solve any problems with cap-and-trade...it's the theoretical equivalent of corn/ethanol, and look how well that worked.
All dumb-ass ideas that won't ever be undone.
Like what?Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
What exactly is "an actual free market"?Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
We already have thousands of tons of spent nuclear material sitting around in barrels and holding tanks...wonder why no one has thought of your "anal insertion" storage plan before?Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Under your "real" free market- presumably blissfully free of government intervention- do the utility companies get to decide safety regs and waste disposal strategies?
How does the real free market deal with an event like the Gulf coast oil spill?
Or Somali pirates?
Once again you object to solutions while seeming to accept the reality of man-made global warming.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
So, which is it?