Debunking the Latest Climate Denial Claim

Environment • Views: 5,493

Last week we suddenly saw a barrage of articles about the climate change “hockey stick” graph, with absurdly overheated headlines like this one at Britain’s Telegraph: How the global warming industry is based on one MASSIVE lie.

Not just a lie, but a MASSIVE lie. Wow. That sounds really bad.

The article begins with this carefully reasoned paragraph:

For the growing band of AGW “Sceptics” the following story is dynamite. And for those who do believe in Al Gore’s highly profitable myth about “Man-Made Global Warming”, it will no doubt feel as comfortable as the rectally inserted suicide bomb that put paid to an Al Qaeda operative earlier this week.

Leaving aside the rectally inserted suicide bomb, the claim made by this article and a similar one in National Review is that the infamous “hockey stick” graph is based on tree ring data — and the latest claim of the AGW deniers is that the data is not only wrong, but fraudulent.

I received at least a dozen emails from people begging and/or demanding that I link to these reports, claiming that the AGW “fraud” had finally been utterly destroyed.

Well, there’s certainly fraud here, but once again it’s coming from the global warming denial industry and their shills. (I say “once again” because the pattern of dishonesty is becoming wearyingly familiar.)

RealClimate shows how the latest deception works.

The timeline for these mini-blogstorms is always similar. An unverified accusation of malfeasance is made based on nothing, and it is instantly ‘telegraphed’ across the denial-o-sphere while being embellished along the way to apply to anything ‘hockey-stick’ shaped and any and all scientists, even those not even tangentially related. The usual suspects become hysterical with glee that finally the ‘hoax’ has been revealed and congratulations are handed out all round. After a while it is clear that no scientific edifice has collapsed and the search goes on for the ‘real’ problem which is no doubt just waiting to be found. Every so often the story pops up again because some columnist or blogger doesn’t want to, or care to, do their homework. Net effect on lay people? Confusion. Net effect on science? Zip.

Having said that, it does appear that McIntyre did not directly instigate any of the ludicrous extrapolations of his supposed findings highlighted above, though he clearly set the ball rolling. No doubt he has written to the National Review and the Telegraph and Anthony Watts to clarify their mistakes and we’re confident that the corrections will appear any day now…. Oh yes.

Read the whole thing and pay careful attention to the graphs based on real scientific data.

Again, I’m struck by the similarity between the techniques of global warming deniers and creationists; they both use cherry-picked data, they both make outrageous claims couched in pseudo-scientific language that sounds convincing to gullible people, they both compile lists of skeptical “scientists” that turn out to be packed with ringers, frauds, and people who never signed in the first place, and they both use quote mining.

And they’re often the very same people; National Review is a big promoter of the Discovery Institute’s creationist fables in addition to being a leading proponent of AGW denial.

Jump to bottom

631 comments
1 _RememberTonyC  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 9:35:57am

I feel the global warming climate change issue is still one that requires more study and balanced debate. So I am not willing to see our economy crash, while allowing china and india (worse polluters) to be unafffected until I KNOW that we can fix the planet by capping emissions. Maybe it's true, but I need more convincing.

2 CyanSnowHawk  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 9:45:37am

More study needed.

3 Charles Johnson  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 9:46:18am

Already a down-dinger.

4 philosophus invidius  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 9:46:22am

re: #1 _RememberTonyC

Maybe you need more convincing. BUt that does not mean that, objectively speaking, the "jury is still out" on global warming.

5 [deleted]  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 9:47:36am
6 jaunte  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 9:50:36am

re: #5 Airedale
Silly remarks may be deleted.

7 wrenchwench  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 9:53:08am

In the comments I find a fabulous defense of the use of sarcasm:

>I love this blog, but I have to say that the dripping sarcasm and
>condescension evident in your tone here does the world of true
>science no favors when it comes to the public. I understand the
>frustration, but we can never give pseudo-scientists a toe-hold,
>especially an emotional one.

Are you kidding? The attitude is absolutely necessary. Are you proposing that cranks and crackpots are put on the same pedestal as real science? To treat them in any other way makes them seem more important/accurate than they actually are. Especially when you see how the data clearly do not match the assertion, and the hypocrisy of claiming a conspiracy around cherry-picked data, when that claim is the one based on cherry-picked data.

This strangely coincides with a conversation I had with myself last night. I was wondering whether it was bad of me to upding sarcastic comments. I came to a conclusion much like the one above.

8 _RememberTonyC  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 9:53:58am

re: #4 philosophus invidius

Maybe you need more convincing. BUt that does not mean that, objectively speaking, the "jury is still out" on global warming.

and until I receive more info that convinces me, I will not march in lockstep with those who feel the debate is settled. There have been other areas where the "jury was out" and it turned out the jury needed more info to make the best decision.

9 jaunte  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 9:54:36am

This was a good paragraph from the link:

McIntyre has based his ‘critique’ on a test conducted by randomly adding in one set of data from another location in Yamal that he found on the internet. People have written theses about how to construct tree ring chronologies in order to avoid end-member effects and preserve as much of the climate signal as possible. Curiously no-one has ever suggested simply grabbing one set of data, deleting the trees you have a political objection to and replacing them with another set that you found lying around on the web.

10 [deleted]  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 9:55:22am
11 jaunte  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 9:56:03am

re: #10 Airedale

Commendable cliché compaction, dog.

12 cenotaphium  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 9:57:15am

re: #10 Airedale

So you feel the sun has no impact on climate change? Sorry Al, sell your snake oil fear mongering in the San Fran airport terminal hosting the "Carbon footprint" credit kiosks

I really hope that the posters name is "Al", since the retort "haha, you're Al Gore" is not only tired, it was retarded to begin with.

13 gregb  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 9:57:46am

Okay, I just read the Briffa 2000 PDF.

He lists his confounds as absence of data from African regions and better standardization of data, better access to long lived trees in north america, and a call to cross-science study including in discovering statistical inferences.

I don't get it. It doesn't exactly say it's a lie, massive or otherwise, but it doesn't say the opposite either.

Science is just science and the scientific method prevails. The best analogy I can come up with on the whole global warming debate is thus:

There is actual scientific proof that if you turn the sprinklers on, your lawn will get wet. (Scientific, repeatable method).

Man-made Global warming states that the grass is wet, therefore there is an abundance of scientific evidence that the sprinklers caused it (abductive reasoning).

Non-man made GW states that while it's possible the sprinklers were on, this lawn was made wet by rain (Bayesian induction), but we can infer things about out sprinkler system such that the sprinklers may have been on, but it was also raining.

There are cheerleaders that are pushing the agenda that the only way the lawn could ever get wet is by turning the sprinklers on. (Junk science).

There are anti-GW crowds that say it is likely it rained (Qualitative observation) therefore the sprinklers didn't get the lawn wet (Junk science)

Finally there are pro-GW man or otherwise crowds that say, here is a fear of what might happen if GW is true, science be damned. (Cassandratica).

I'll put my faith in science.

14 BARACK THE VOTE  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 9:57:47am
Again, I’m struck by the similarity between the techniques of global warming deniers and creationists; they both use cherry-picked data, they both make outrageous claims couched in pseudo-scientific language that sounds convincing to gullible people, they both compile lists of skeptical “scientists” that turn out to be packed with ringers, frauds, and people who never signed in the first place, and they both use quote mining.

Another similarity: they refer to the scientific community as acting on 'blind faith', or with made up terms like "Darwinists"; they pretend that it's the science community that 'worships' someone; they meanwhile try to co-opt the pose of 'sceptic' and objective observer for themselves-- that is, they seek to capture the prestige of and respect for actual science by assuming a pose that allows them to pretend they are the true rational, objective observers, and the scientists are the foaming fanatics that won't 'look at the evidence' or 'teach the controversy'.

It's a highly interesting inversion of reality in many ways.

15 _RememberTonyC  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 9:58:48am

I'm glad someone mentioned carbon credits. That's one I have trouble wrapping my brain around. Unless I'm misunderstanding things, carbon credits are a license to pollute where the guilty "polluter" pays for his sin. Am I essentially correct?

16 [deleted]  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 9:58:56am
17 Charles Johnson  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:00:05am

re: #10 Airedale

I'm more interested in how you could down-ding this article, when you obviously haven't even read one word of the link to RealClimate. Seems like a complete knee-jerk reaction, without even trying to understand the arguments. You're just covering your ears and screaming, "La la la lalala! I can't hear you!"

18 philosophus invidius  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:00:16am

re: #8 _RememberTonyC

All I'm saying is that in matters like these, we have to rely on the expertise of scientists. That does not mean that we cannot think for ourselves, But without such a reliance on experts we might end up thinking the moon landing was faked, that the CIA killed Kennedy ... and whatever else conveniently fits in with our political and personal goal rather than what is objectively true.

19 lastlaugh  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:00:50am

re: #13 gregb


Man-made Global warming states that the grass is wet, therefore there is an abundance of scientific evidence that the sprinklers caused it (abductive reasoning).

Man-made global warming states we have a water bill showing sprinkler use, and a wet lawn.

20 zuckerlilly  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:01:06am

Some keywords to "Realclimate":

Arlie Schardt - Al Gore - Environmental Media Services (EMS) - Fenton Communications - ACLU.

21 cenotaphium  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:01:39am

re: #15 _RememberTonyC

I'm glad someone mentioned carbon credits. That's one I have trouble wrapping my brain around. Unless I'm misunderstanding things, carbon credits are a license to pollute where the guilty "polluter" pays for his sin. Am I essentially correct?

I think the general selling point is that the carbon credits go toward building more sustainable alternatives, even if none exist as an alternative to the service you needed at the time.

For example, when taking an airplane ride, you still want to "offload" that carbon imprint you contributed to by buying carbon credits.

The rephrasing in religious language is a very nice rethorical bit. That said, there's plenty to suggest the companies offering "carbon credits" are not honest, and that is worthy of criticism.

22 BARACK THE VOTE  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:02:03am

re: #7 wrenchwench

In the comments I find a fabulous defense of the use of sarcasm:

This strangely coincides with a conversation I had with myself last night. I was wondering whether it was bad of me to upding sarcastic comments. I came to a conclusion much like the one above.

Who wrote that? Sounds like LVQ. (a compliment!)

23 jaunte  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:02:36am

Note that the linked article is a discussion about science, and not about the political solution, if any, for AGW.

24 _RememberTonyC  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:04:47am

re: #18 philosophus invidius

All I'm saying is that in matters like these, we have to rely on the expertise of scientists. That does not mean that we cannot think for ourselves, But without such a reliance on experts we might end up thinking the moon landing was faked, that the CIA killed Kennedy ... and whatever else conveniently fits in with our political and personal goal rather than what is objectively true.

OK. All I am saying is that there are plenty of scientists with expertise in the area of climate change that have dissented. Why are these minority opinions not given the same amount of consideration as the ones on your "jury?" These dissenters are not all kooks. Many are serious scientific people. I need more info, and I haven't enjoyed drinking Kool-Ade since the 1960's. Even the president of the Czech republic has publicly dissented with the "jury."

25 philosophus invidius  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:05:27am

re: #15 _RememberTonyC

red herring

re: #20 zuckerlilly

ad hominem

26 Bloodnok  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:05:47am

re: #23 jaunte

Note that the linked article is a discussion about science, and not about the political solution, if any, for AGW.

A point sure to be missed by many, as it always is with these posts. The quality of present solutions does not negate the problem itself.

27 Randall Gross  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:06:30am

This is a heavy smackdown on the latest pump priming of denialists. I like all of the multiple sourced charts, and having read a few tree ring studies understand the complexity of them. That said river deltas aren't the best spot for these, but they have to be sampled because that's where you find the fossil trees and partial fossil trees.

28 KingKenrod  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:06:38am

re: #15 _RememberTonyC

I'm glad someone mentioned carbon credits. That's one I have trouble wrapping my brain around. Unless I'm misunderstanding things, carbon credits are a license to pollute where the guilty "polluter" pays for his sin. Am I essentially correct?

That's right. The cost of the credit is passed on to the end energy user, which causes them to use less of the dirty form of energy or seek out clean forms of energy that are more competitively priced.

29 Rascal One  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:07:30am

I really dont know that much about the whole climate change issue - i guess it just doesn't interest me that much but I'm wondering if there's any evidence that whatever is happening, can actually be reversed or are we just talking about it being "stalled."

also I think at one time there were some mileposts put out by Al Gore as to when we would see the worst effects - Im just wondering if anyone has those? Didn't he at one time say by 'such and such a year' that we would see flooding, etc? I might be wrong but some of the mileposts weren't that far off like in 2020 or so?

30 [deleted]  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:07:31am
31 _RememberTonyC  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:07:46am

re: #21 cenotaphium

I think the general selling point is that the carbon credits go toward building more sustainable alternatives, even if none exist as an alternative to the service you needed at the time.

For example, when taking an airplane ride, you still want to "offload" that carbon imprint you contributed to by buying carbon credits.

The rephrasing in religious language is a very nice rethorical bit. That said, there's plenty to suggest the companies offering "carbon credits" are not honest, and that is worthy of criticism.


Thanks for that. There are no doubt very commendable reasons the carbon credit posse feels it's a good societal initiative. But boil it all the way down for me. Are carbon credits essentially monies paid by those who are exceeding whatever carbon limit is supposedly allotted to them?

32 KernelPanic  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:10:35am

I'm a science/IT geek so I read the UK register site, mostly because due to the timezone difference they have the most up to date "breaking" industry news when I wake up.

Their take on this story is here Teeemometers: A new scientific scandal

I read it and was shocked, it seems very clear that something is shady with the tree ring data (especially access to the raw data which is critical for peer review and reproducible results).

My reaction has nothing to do with AGW though (It's real, the science is clear) as I read it as a straight story on "bad science" exposed (something I have a personal interest in). Then I made the mistake of passing the link on to some friends who cast some doubt on the author and his history.

Anyway, that's my take - an interesting example of potentially bad research that nobody caught for a very long time until someone bothered to track down the raw data. Picking data from a very small sample size, ignoring other data points and making the raw data hard to get at by others is a Bad Thing.

33 BARACK THE VOTE  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:10:47am

re: #26 Bloodnok

A point sure to be missed by many, as it always is with these posts. The quality of present solutions does not negate the problem itself.

I think this explains the kneejerk dissent though. There are two separate issues: a science question about whether man-made climate change is happening and how bad it is/will be, and a political/economic/international one, about What should we do about it?

The answer is in on the first question, and it's Yes and Really, really bad.

The second is all up in the air. But lots of people elide the distinctions, and some are just so opposed to any of the economic/political consequences of acknowledging the science that they instinctively want to sing LaLaLa and put their hands over their ears when the issue comes up.

34 researchok  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:11:53am

re: #1 _RememberTonyC

I feel the global warming climate change issue is still one that requires more study and balanced debate. So I am not willing to see our economy crash, while allowing china and india (worse polluters) to be unafffected until I KNOW that we can fix the planet by capping emissions. Maybe it's true, but I need more convincing.

Climate change is not about feelings- it is about science. The science is in and irrefutable- the earth is undergoing climate change. It has many times before and will no doubt happen again.

What is debatable are the causes of climate change. Is this go around precipitated by human activity or natural events? Or, perhaps by a bit of both. We can discuss that for sure. That said, we need to act on what is occurring and how to mitigate the effects, if we can.

35 Randall Gross  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:12:25am

It's not the science that should be under debate, rather it's the policy and what to do next that should be. Republicans opposed to Cap and Trade who come to the debate denying reality are handicapping themselves.

36 sattv4u2  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:12:55am

re: #31 _RememberTonyC

Are carbon credits essentially monies paid by those who are exceeding whatever carbon limit is supposedly allotted to them?

You and I are each issued 100 "credits". Between my business being slow right now and the nature of it, I use only 50 of those. You're much busier and your factory needs 125. You've overextended your 'allotment" by 25. So you're not shut down or heavily fined, you buy 25 from me
Now I have 75 and you have 125

Here's where the problem may start. The monies you paid for the extra credits has to come from somewhere. Presumably you would pass that on to you customers. I'm sure they'll love that
Now that I have only 75, if I get busier and ramp up, I may need to buy some from somewhere and now I'm in the same financial bind that you're in

37 Charles Johnson  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:12:57am

re: #32 KernelPanic

The claims are false. There was no exposure of "bad science." But there certainly was fakery and dishonesty by the climate change "skeptics" led by Steven McIntyre.

RealClimate demonstrates this beyond any doubt.

38 _RememberTonyC  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:13:10am

re: #28 KingKenrod

That's right. The cost of the credit is passed on to the end energy user, which causes them to use less of the dirty form of energy or seek out clean forms of energy that are more competitively priced.

So in effect, those who say one thing in public (Al Gore), but can afford to buy their way onto the "good list" by paying for their excesses, get to be rich hypocrites who will continue polluting because they can afford the privilege. How democratic and altruistic!

39 BARACK THE VOTE  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:13:28am

re: #30 Airedale

LOL, yes
The insanity of the whole war on global climate change spin is like treating yourself to a quart of guilt free Ben and Jerry's "Cherry Garcia" while watching a film about some Christian aid organization helping children in the Dafur region. ( knowing that a potion of the ice cream proceeds go to a worthy cause...somewhere that'll help someone )
/sarcasm

Obvious troll is obvious.

40 KingKenrod  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:13:42am

re: #29 Rascal One

I really dont know that much about the whole climate change issue - i guess it just doesn't interest me that much but I'm wondering if there's any evidence that whatever is happening, can actually be reversed or are we just talking about it being "stalled."

also I think at one time there were some mileposts put out by Al Gore as to when we would see the worst effects - Im just wondering if anyone has those? Didn't he at one time say by 'such and such a year' that we would see flooding, etc? I might be wrong but some of the mileposts weren't that far off like in 2020 or so?

Well, it appears human activity has increased CO2 concentration by 130ppm (from 260 to 390), along with increases in other greenhouse gases. Even if we stopped all oil and coal burning, I'm not sure if that number would drop. I'm not sure what we can do to get it to drop.

41 bluecheese  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:13:52am

I think that a simple carbon tax, would be a much better market driver to innovation than allowing wall street investment banks to make money on a whole new "market" created out of the imagination of the lobbyists of those same investment banks.

Also, I believe that our current standard of living would not be possible without the concentrated energy found in fossil fuels. So without fossil fuels, we will have a lower standard of living. To me the question is do we want that lower standard to happen all at once when the fuels run out, or do we make a smoother transition.

Either way, it won't be easy.

42 KernelPanic  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:14:27am

re: #37 Charles

Reading the realclimate link now ... thanks!

43 filetandrelease  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:14:46am

re: #31 _RememberTonyC

Thanks for that. There are no doubt very commendable reasons the carbon credit posse feels it's a good societal initiative. But boil it all the way down for me. Are carbon credits essentially monies paid by those who are exceeding whatever carbon limit is supposedly allotted to them?


That seems a concise way to put it. Not to mention now is not the time to increase global energy cost.

44 jaunte  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:15:03am
"Ten years ago the estimates for earlier centuries were really primarily reliant on just one sort of information: tree ring measurements," said Mann of Pennsylvania State University.

"To satisfy the critics, we now have enough other sources that we can achieve meaningful reconstructions back a thousand years without tree ring data, and we get more or less the same answer"—that global warming is not mainly due to natural variability. [Link: news.nationalgeographic.com...]

45 Charles Johnson  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:15:33am

re: #35 Thanos

It's not the science that should be under debate, rather it's the policy and what to do next that should be. Republicans opposed to Cap and Trade who come to the debate denying reality are handicapping themselves.

The problem for the Republicans, though, is that if they actually begin to deal with the facts and the scientific data, they'll be forced into the position that something does need to be done. And that's absolutely not what the corporate lobbyists want to see happen.

Therefore, the only recourse is to keep pumping out blizzards of disinformation.

46 Randall Gross  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:15:37am

re: #41 bluecheese

I think that a simple carbon tax, would be a much better market driver to innovation than allowing wall street investment banks to make money on a whole new "market" created out of the imagination of the lobbyists of those same investment banks.

Also, I believe that our current standard of living would not be possible without the concentrated energy found in fossil fuels. So without fossil fuels, we will have a lower standard of living. To me the question is do we want that lower standard to happen all at once when the fuels run out, or do we make a smoother transition.

Either way, it won't be easy.

You don't have to have a lower standard of living. You do have to create more clean energy. If the left would drop their kneejerk opposition to nuclear energy, we wouldn't be in a bind here.

47 sattv4u2  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:16:35am

re: #41 bluecheese

I think that a simple carbon tax, would be a much better market driver to innovation than allowing wall street investment banks to make money on a whole new "market" created out of the imagination of the lobbyists of those same investment banks.

Not really. A 'carbon tax' to a business would only fall under operating expenses which would then be passed on to the consumer. in that, there is no incentive for the business to NOT spew carbon into the air. It's zero sum for them as they get the "tax" money back through the market

48 philosophus invidius  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:16:55am

re: #38 _RememberTonyC

Are you listening? (See e.g. #35)

49 Rascal One  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:17:07am

re: #40 KingKenrod

Well, it appears human activity has increased CO2 concentration by 130ppm (from 260 to 390), along with increases in other greenhouse gases. Even if we stopped all oil and coal burning, I'm not sure if that number would drop. I'm not sure what we can do to get it to drop.

Thank you for that - I guess the part that escapes me here is how it is determined how much of the increases is by humans or actually other events? In other words - don't things like forestfires, volcanic eruptions and other natural things contribute?

Maybe I just don't want to think this is my fault! HAHA I really don't want to give up burning wood this winter. :(

50 Irenicum  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:17:11am

And to think I used to read National Review when it was a real magazine with real writers who actually thought through what they were writing. Ugh.

51 KingKenrod  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:17:26am

re: #38 _RememberTonyC

So in effect, those who say one thing in public (Al Gore), but can afford to buy their way onto the "good list" by paying for their excesses, get to be rich hypocrites who will continue polluting because they can afford the privilege. How democratic and altruistic!

Well, that's one thing, but most concerning is that such a scheme will hit the poor hardest (unless there is a massive govt redistribution of income) and slow the advance of technology - the technology that will help us fix the problem and help us adapt in the future.

52 soxfan4life  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:17:32am

At what point does the scale reach the tipping point? Where does the need to cut back on greenhouse gasses get less important than the public health and well being? And why do no plans ever include every country in the world, or are the US emissions the only ones responsible for this problem? Start answering these questions and quit trying to deny the problem exists, be a little proactive rather than reactive. For such "educated minds" our elected leaders act like a bunch of spoiled kids.

53 Randall Gross  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:17:56am

re: #45 Charles

The problem for the Republicans, though, is that if they actually begin to deal with the facts and the scientific data, they'll be forced into the position that something does need to be done. And that's absolutely not what the corporate lobbyists want to see happen.

Therefore, the only recourse is to keep pumping out blizzards of disinformation.

Interestingly enough the same corporate lobbyists also pay money to the left. If you look into Al Gore's we you will find a lot of anti nuclear activists. The longer the energy lobbies keep both sides fighting the longer coal and oil maintain their market share.

54 zuckerlilly  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:18:18am

@Charles

Why did you down ding my post? Are the fact wrong?

55 BARACK THE VOTE  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:18:33am

re: #46 Thanos

You don't have to have a lower standard of living. You do have to create more clean energy. If the left would drop their kneejerk opposition to nuclear energy, we wouldn't be in a bind here.

Uh, I'll agree with you that nuclear energy needs to be on the table here, but the real problem isn't the left's opposition to that-- the problem is the Republicans' stubborn refusal to even COME to the table. They're too busy denying the science. They won't even admit there's a table in the room, so to speak.

56 Guanxi88  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:19:23am

re: #41 bluecheese

I think that a simple carbon tax, would be a much better market driver to innovation than allowing wall street investment banks to make money on a whole new "market" created out of the imagination of the lobbyists of those same investment banks.

Also, I believe that our current standard of living would not be possible without the concentrated energy found in fossil fuels. So without fossil fuels, we will have a lower standard of living. To me the question is do we want that lower standard to happen all at once when the fuels run out, or do we make a smoother transition.

Either way, it won't be easy.

1) Not sure that the carbon tax would necessarily spur innovation - some wag or other pointed out that the personal computer was not developed because of crippling taxes on typewriters;

2) The carbon-credit market system is rife for fraud, and I wonder to what extent support for the idea is based precisely on the potential to make money out of nothing;

3) Concentrated energy from fossil fuels is the secret to the success of modern industrial civilization. Our way of life is impossible without it. The options of a slow power-down or a sudden fall off the cliff seem like the likeliest, but I daresay that we'll come to rely on liquid fossil fuels and their analogues solely for transport, and will rely more and more on coal to liquids to meet the need in the future for motor fuel. Long-term, we'll have to find better ways to generate, transmit and store electricity There are no current technologies that allow an energy-density of storage that compares to gasoline or even alcohol, for that matter, which is why we'll have to continue to use liquid hydrocarbons for transportation, but dial down their use for other purposes. I'm cautiously optimistic, which is to say, I'm not in panic yet.

57 Bloodnok  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:19:36am

re: #33 iceweasel

I think this explains the kneejerk dissent though. There are two separate issues: a science question about whether man-made climate change is happening and how bad it is/will be, and a political/economic/international one, about What should we do about it?

The answer is in on the first question, and it's Yes and Really, really bad.

The second is all up in the air. But lots of people elide the distinctions, and some are just so opposed to any of the economic/political consequences of acknowledging the science that they instinctively want to sing LaLaLa and put their hands over their ears when the issue comes up.

Yes, and with the GOP putting its eggs in the "It's not so bad, and might even be good for us" basket (if not outright denial) it's now a political life or death struggle to prove that the Democrats are not right about this.

Had the GOP gotten on board with this a decade or two ago the argument would be over rival solutions (for we know the two parties, even in agreement over the problem would have found wildly different solutions -it's just the way it is) instead of the current "It's real! No it isn't!" debate we currently have. And with the science supporting the "It's real" camp the GOP just solidifies its image as anti-science. It doesn't mean that people on the right are all anti-science. It just means that their party is taking them down that path whether they like it or not.

58 Rascal One  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:19:54am

re: #43 filetandrelease


I just have to say that you've got a heckuva great nickname there!

5 stars!

59 zuckerlilly  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:20:12am

I add an "s" to facts.

60 _RememberTonyC  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:20:45am

re: #43 filetandrelease

That seems a concise way to put it. Not to mention now is not the time to increase global energy cost.


OK ... So rich people get to pollute and because they can afford it, they'll buy these "carbon credits" from someone. That sounds like a solution for nothing. So the rich buy the privilege of exploiting the planet, but from whom? Who owns the planet? Corruption will be rampant. And the problem will not be fixed this way.

61 filetandrelease  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:20:47am

re: #58 Rascal One

LOL, thank you.

62 Guanxi88  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:21:50am

re: #60 _RememberTonyC

OK ... So rich people get to pollute and because they can afford it, they'll buy these "carbon credits" from someone. That sounds like a solution for nothing. So the rich buy the privilege of exploiting the planet, but from whom? Who owns the planet? Corruption will be rampant. And the problem will not be fixed this way.

I'll agree on that one; the carbon tax and trade system is just a revenue-generation schem that has gotten hung around the neck of the problem. Very cynical ploy.

63 Killgore Trout  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:22:09am

OT: Garden Porn: suburban backyard farming (PHOTOS!)

More pics here: Edibles Flickr page.

64 filetandrelease  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:22:10am

re: #60 _RememberTonyC

OK ... So rich people get to pollute and because they can afford it, they'll buy these "carbon credits" from someone. That sounds like a solution for nothing. So the rich buy the privilege of exploiting the planet, but from whom? Who owns the planet? Corruption will be rampant. And the problem will not be fixed this way.

Exactly, and it will kill the global economy that is currently on life support.

65 bluecheese  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:22:33am

re: #46 Thanos

You don't have to have a lower standard of living. You do have to create more clean energy. If the left would drop their kneejerk opposition to nuclear energy, we wouldn't be in a bind here.

Fossil fuels are needed to mine the raw materials needed for nuclear energy.

Nuclear energy does very little for our transportation needs.

That said, I think replacing coal with nuclear power is a good idea.

66 KernelPanic  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:23:34am

Read the realclimate stories and links. I don't care as much about "hockey sticks" from various data sources as I'm already convinced when it comes to AGW. The claims about the yamal ring data were what interested me most.

The clincher for me was Briffa's rebuttal which is sensible and absolutely clear.

Anyway, disregard my #32 about interpreting this as an interesting bad science story. Briffa's response shreds that claim.

67 Rascal One  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:23:42am

re: #61 filetandrelease

I remember when the whole "catch and release" craze came about and after decades now of it, we have the same fish population that we had when we kept and ate everything we caught.

68 _RememberTonyC  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:23:48am

re: #48 philosophus invidius

Are you listening? (See e.g. #35)

yes ... but if you think I'm magically transformed, you don't know me. I do my own research and will find a variety of sources before deciding. And I have done it and am not convinced. But I always reserve the right to change my mind if properly convinced. You have not achieved that.

69 soxfan4life  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:25:00am

re: #60 _RememberTonyC

OK ... So rich people get to pollute and because they can afford it, they'll buy these "carbon credits" from someone. That sounds like a solution for nothing. So the rich buy the privilege of exploiting the planet, but from whom? Who owns the planet? Corruption will be rampant. And the problem will not be fixed this way.


But it will make everyone feel like they are doing something good, and that is what is really important. Until there is a complete breakdown of how this carbon tax will be used to promote cleaner energy especially nuclear it is a complete JOKE.

70 Randall Gross  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:25:23am

re: #55 iceweasel

Uh, I'll agree with you that nuclear energy needs to be on the table here, but the real problem isn't the left's opposition to that-- the problem is the Republicans' stubborn refusal to even COME to the table. They're too busy denying the science. They won't even admit there's a table in the room, so to speak.

I'll agree that they are both problems. I won't say one is greater than the other. The longer we remain in energy stasis, the worse the problem gets. If you want to have a great environment, you urbanize, you create plentiful cheap clean energy. You do both those then you solve several dilemmas that are very important in this century. Population pressure decreases, food production increases, wilderness increases. You can see it in the pattern established in North America. High Energy societies are the cleanest in the end. If we start replacing coal reactors with nuclear, we leap ahead.
Even the dirtiest source of power, coal, is better than the alternative in some cases. If you can put out millions of wood cooking and heating fires with coal reactors in the subcontinent of Asia and in Sub Saharan Africa you are still better off than doing nothing. The better course would be oil, better than that would be natural gas, better than that would be a combo of Solar, Hydro, and nuclear. If you have no capital, you end up doing the first. We have to figure out a way to change that.

71 filetandrelease  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:25:55am

re: #65 bluecheese

Nuclear energy does very little for our transportation needs.

With the advent of electric vehicles in the next couple of decades, that could change. Of course, we need a real leader in the white house with some real vision on the future. I wonder how far a trillion dollars we just spent on the economy would have gone towards a high speed mag lev train system for the country attached to a nuclear grid.

72 [deleted]  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:25:58am
73 BARACK THE VOTE  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:26:00am

re: #57 Bloodnok

Yes, and with the GOP putting its eggs in the "It's not so bad, and might even be good for us" basket (if not outright denial) it's now a political life or death struggle to prove that the Democrats are not right about this.

Had the GOP gotten on board with this a decade or two ago the argument would be over rival solutions (for we know the two parties, even in agreement over the problem would have found wildly different solutions -it's just the way it is) instead of the current "It's real! No it isn't!" debate we currently have. And with the science supporting the "It's real" camp the GOP just solidifies its image as anti-science. It doesn't mean that people on the right are all anti-science. It just means that their party is taking them down that path whether they like it or not.

I'm not sure. The debate over the science is another extension of the GOP's scorched earth (in this case, not entirely a metaphor) policy. They've got one plan basically: Fuck the Democrats. They'll fuck them on anything, anytime, anywhere. Total party of No.

And you're right that it just shores up the anti-science elements in the party and base. I'm not so sure that's an accident either.

74 Guanxi88  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:26:17am

re: #65 bluecheese

Fossil fuels are needed to mine the raw materials needed for nuclear energy.

Nuclear energy does very little for our transportation needs.

That said, I think replacing coal with nuclear power is a good idea.

Of course - it takes energy to get energy; no free lunch anywhere. Nuclear does nothing fo transportation - energy density of a battery is piss-poor. Switching domestic electrical generation from caol to nuke would free up coal for other, better uses. I refer, of course, to the Karrick Process, a low-tech, effective coal to liquids method developed in the early 20th century and used, off and on, for decades. You get coal gas, suitable for fuel; coke, suitable for metallurgical operations and heating; and a very nice petroleum analogue.

75 The Curmudgeon  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:26:29am

re: #46 Thanos

You don't have to have a lower standard of living. You do have to create more clean energy. If the left would drop their kneejerk opposition to nuclear energy, we wouldn't be in a bind here.

Precisely. I'm not a climate-change denier, but that's because I don't know enough to evaluate the science. But I'm an Al Gore denier. If there's a problem, there are free-market solutions. Nuclear power generation would remove the need for about half the fossil fuel the US uses each year. But the dems won't permit it. They prefer government imposed solutions. It's just another "crisis" about which most of them know nothing, but which they're eager to exploit.

76 Charles Johnson  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:26:55am

re: #54 zuckerlilly

@Charles

Why did you down ding my post? Are the fact wrong?

Yes, your attempt to smear RealClimate as an arm of the ACLU and Fenton Communications is wrong.

RealClimate: About:

The contributors to this site do so in a personal capacity during their spare time and their posts do not represent the views of the organizations for which they work, nor the agencies which fund them. The contributors are solely responsible for the content of the site and receive no remuneration for their contributions.

RealClimate is not affiliated with any environmental organisations. Although our domain is being hosted by Environmental Media Services, and our initial press release was organised for us by Fenton Communications, neither organization was in any way involved in the initial planning for RealClimate, and have never had any editorial or other control over content. Neither Fenton nor EMS has ever paid any contributor to RealClimate.org any money for any purpose at any time. Neither do they pay us expenses, buy our lunch or contract us to do research. This information has always been made clear to anyone who asked.

77 filetandrelease  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:27:09am

re: #67 Rascal One

I remember when the whole "catch and release" craze came about and after decades now of it, we have the same fish population that we had when we kept and ate everything we caught.

Here in Florida our fisheries are better than they have been in decades due to sensible regulations.

78 _RememberTonyC  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:27:37am

re: #69 soxfan4life

But it will make everyone feel like they are doing something good, and that is what is really important. Until there is a complete breakdown of how this carbon tax will be used to promote cleaner energy especially nuclear it is a complete JOKE.


I think carbon credits are the new snake oil ...

79 Charles Johnson  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:27:42am

re: #72 Airedale

And with that batch of insults, I bid you ... adieu!

80 funky chicken  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:27:51am

re: #46 Thanos

You don't have to have a lower standard of living. You do have to create more clean energy. If the left would drop their kneejerk opposition to nuclear energy, we wouldn't be in a bind here.

Correct. I'd love to have an electric car, but right now it's kinda stupid since my electric utility burns coal to make the electricity. That's not exactly "green" power.

I'd buy a natural gas powered vehicle in a heartbeat since I now live in OK, which has huge natural gas reserves. The fuel would come from the local area, could be refined locally, and distributed locally. Zero megatankers, zero costs to transport fuel half way around the world, etc.

Perhaps GW Bush's greatest failure was that he didn't use the bully pulpit and executive power in the wake of 9/11 to jump start that kind of technology and energy distribution system...but he was in the Saud's pockets. damn shame

81 Canadian Guy  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:28:17am

First flounce of the day.

82 funky chicken  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:29:13am

re: #53 Thanos

Interestingly enough the same corporate lobbyists also pay money to the left. If you look into Al Gore's we you will find a lot of anti nuclear activists. The longer the energy lobbies keep both sides fighting the longer coal and oil maintain their market share.

correct again

83 BARACK THE VOTE  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:29:17am

re: #72 Airedale

Idiot troll posts history of his trolling elsewhere...to prove he's not a troll.

Ok, you're not a troll. You're an idiot troll.

84 Ojoe  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:29:57am

We just might be staving off the next ice age.

On this topic, here in an amazing time lapse video of the smoke rising off the San Gabriel Mountains during the Station Fire a few weeks ago.

And here are the same mountains right now.

Nature is very strong, both in destruction & recovery.

85 _RememberTonyC  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:30:02am

flouncers are like neighborhood pet owners who let their dogs crap on your lawn.

86 Randall Gross  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:30:34am

re: #65 bluecheese

Fossil fuels are needed to mine the raw materials needed for nuclear energy.

Nuclear energy does very little for our transportation needs.

That said, I think replacing coal with nuclear power is a good idea.

Nuclear does great things for transport. One of the larger, and mostly ignored sources of hydrocarbons in the atmosphere is that which comes from the great fleets of transport ships. They are almost all fueled by shipping diesel. That's kind of silly considering that we know how to power marine transport safely with nuclear energy. Fossil fuels do not have to be used. Electric could be used instead granted plentiful cheap nuclear energy, or we could build hydrogen fleets.

87 funky chicken  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:30:57am

re: #80 funky chicken

Correct. I'd love to have an electric car, but right now it's kinda stupid since my electric utility burns coal to make the electricity. That's not exactly "green" power.

I'd buy a natural gas powered vehicle in a heartbeat since I now live in OK, which has huge natural gas reserves. The fuel would come from the local area, could be refined locally, and distributed locally. Zero megatankers, zero costs to transport fuel half way around the world, etc.

Perhaps GW Bush's greatest failure was that he didn't use the bully pulpit and executive power in the wake of 9/11 to jump start that kind of technology and energy distribution system...but he was in the Saud's pockets. damn shame

And yeah, this is an area that John McCain would have handled far, far better, IMHO. McCain is a huge advocate of nuclear power and would have had no illusions about Putin.

88 Guanxi88  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:31:43am

re: #74 Guanxi88

Of course - it takes energy to get energy; no free lunch anywhere. Nuclear does nothing fo transportation - energy density of a battery is piss-poor. Switching domestic electrical generation from caol to nuke would free up coal for other, better uses. I refer, of course, to the Karrick Process, a low-tech, effective coal to liquids method developed in the early 20th century and used, off and on, for decades. You get coal gas, suitable for fuel; coke, suitable for metallurgical operations and heating; and a very nice petroleum analogue.

Oh, and did I forget to mention, the process itself generates ZERO carbon dioxide? (okay, combustion of the fuel products does generate CO2, but whaddaya want?)

89 walkman  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:32:59am

re: #30 Airedale

LOL, yes
The insanity of the whole war on global climate change spin is like treating yourself to a quart of guilt free Ben and Jerry's "Cherry Garcia" while watching a film about some Christian aid organization helping children in the Dafur region. ( knowing that a potion of the ice cream proceeds go to a worthy cause...somewhere that'll help someone )
/sarcasm

I was watching the Today Show sometime back (yes, my wife has it on in the morning) and there was this silly piece "Where in the world is Matt Lauer"? Well, he happened to be about as far from NY as one could get somewhere out in the Pacific. A viewer emailed the question: "As a suppporter of man-made climate change, how can you justify the tons of co2 emission by flying you and the crew so far for an entertainment piece?". His answer: "We bought carbon credits."

90 lastlaugh  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:33:02am

re: #47 sattv4u2


Not really. A 'carbon tax' to a business would only fall under operating expenses which would then be passed on to the consumer. in that, there is no incentive for the business to NOT spew carbon into the air. It's zero sum for them as they get the "tax" money back through the market

That would only be true if the product were completely inelastic. I would expect if carbon were taxed, the market would respond by introducing more efficiency in carbon-intensive processes.

91 jaunte  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:33:41am
Again, I’m struck by the similarity between the techniques of global warming deniers and creationists

Talking about the science of global warming seems to be analogous to talking about evolution in this way: someone always seems to think we're going to hell (or taxes) if we do talk about it.

92 Greengolem64  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:33:44am

Charles,

Sent you a note to the contact address. Need some technical assistance with an account for my wife.

Greengolem64

93 wrenchwench  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:34:08am

re: #83 iceweasel

Idiot troll posts history of his trolling elsewhere...to prove he's not a troll.

Ok, you're not a troll. You're an idiot troll.

You got that right. Here's part of a comment of his from 2005:


I belong to an NFL message board.
I know

A TROLL when I see one. The fun thing to do his "back track" on what else they have posted.

They stop in to stir a pot then ---POOF--- they disappear

94 cenotaphium  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:35:48am

re: #31 _RememberTonyC

Thanks for that. There are no doubt very commendable reasons the carbon credit posse feels it's a good societal initiative. But boil it all the way down for me. Are carbon credits essentially monies paid by those who are exceeding whatever carbon limit is supposedly allotted to them?

The example I originally expounded on was a scenario where people voluntarily purchased credits to offset whatever carbon imprint they wanted to. (I took your question to mean the already existing carbon credit intiatives) Let's not confuse that with state sanctioned carbon taxes or "cap and trade" initiatives.

In the volountary example, the person is free to offset however much he or she thinks is appropriate. A nice capitalist alternative, in my mind (again, provided the service works as advertised).

95 sattv4u2  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:35:57am

re: #90 lastlaugh

That would only be true if the product were completely inelastic. I would expect if carbon were taxed, the market would respond by introducing more efficiency in carbon-intensive processes.

No. It's true for any factory/ business that releases carbon. Each business is assessed as to what their footprint is, and issued an "allowable" credit. Exceed it and you have to either buy credits from other businesses or pay a fine.

96 Irenicum  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:36:07am

re: #72 Airedale

Buh bye you stupid shit.

97 celticdragon  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:37:24am
Again, I’m struck by the similarity between the techniques of global warming deniers and creationists; they both use cherry-picked data, they both make outrageous claims couched in pseudo-scientific language that sounds convincing to gullible people, they both compile lists of skeptical “scientists” that turn out to be packed with ringers, frauds, and people who never signed in the first place, and they both use quote mining.

And they’re often the very same people; National Review is a big promoter of the Discovery Institute’s creationist fables in addition to being a leading proponent of AGW denial.


Curious that you see so much overlap with the homeschooling crowd, no?

Remember!

Real God Fearin' Americans don't suck from the government teat at a public school! Real Americans homeschool their kids!

I have encountered that sentiment before, almost verbatim.

I guess that 4th string fundamentalist Bible Colleges are getting lotsa appllicants...

98 _RememberTonyC  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:37:44am

re: #89 walkman

I was watching the Today Show sometime back (yes, my wife has it on in the morning) and there was this silly piece "Where in the world is Matt Lauer"? Well, he happened to be about as far from NY as one could get somewhere out in the Pacific. A viewer emailed the question: "As a suppporter of man-made climate change, how can you justify the tons of co2 emission by flying you and the crew so far for an entertainment piece?". His answer: "We bought carbon credits."


good story. it assuaged his guilt, but did not reduce pollution or planetary damage.

99 Rascal One  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:38:06am

re: #95 sattv4u2

No. It's true for any factory/ business that releases carbon. Each business is assessed as to what their footprint is, and issued an "allowable" credit. Exceed it and you have to either buy credits from other businesses or pay a fine.

Couldn't you make a lot of money if you developed a way of taking carbon dioxide OUT of the air? You could suck it all up and it might pop out little cubes of stuff - course, if that machinery got into the wrong hands...

/lol

100 Guanxi88  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:38:45am

Let me add that the carbon credit thing could actually work, if its prceeds were used for real carbon sequestration efforts like the Terra Preta and/or Biochar efforts.

Low Temperature Pyrolysis of biomass can be used to generate useful materials (distillates, etc) but the pay-off can really come from the planting of quick-growing plant materials that are then subjected to the treatment. The CO2 these plants sequester in their materials can be converted to a valuable soil amendment (increases fertility, water retention, microbe activity, etc of the soil) by low temperature pyrolysis. We get distillates, the carbon is sequestered in the soil, and benefits the fertility, etc. of the soil. This could help agriculture in the developing world while also serving carbon-capture duty. A twofer.

101 researchok  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:38:55am

re: #86 Thanos

Nuclear does great things for transport. One of the larger, and mostly ignored sources of hydrocarbons in the atmosphere is that which comes from the great fleets of transport ships. They are almost all fueled by shipping diesel. That's kind of silly considering that we know how to power marine transport safely with nuclear energy. Fossil fuels do not have to be used. Electric could be used instead granted plentiful cheap nuclear energy, or we could build hydrogen fleets.

That has huge geo-political ramifications, ship security being the most minor concern.

That idea is a long way off, I'm afraid.

102 elclynn  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:39:26am

I don't deny the science itself and have made lifestyle changes to reduce my carbon footprint, energy efficient appliances, rainbarrels to water plantings, walking where I can instead of driving, etc. What drives me absolutely crazy are the elitist types who know the science is real, (Al Gore, Prince Charles, even Obama and more I could name) not making any effort to reduce their carbon footprint. I think this is part of the reason so many of the public deny the facts. Add to that the Cap and Trade legislation is going to cost millions to some of the hardest hit and over tax burdened states, like mine (654.5 million if Cap and Trade passes), and it becomes even harder to swallow for millions of people who are having financial hard times already.

103 sattv4u2  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:39:51am

re: #99 Rascal One

Couldn't you make a lot of money if you developed a way of taking carbon dioxide OUT of the air? You could suck it all up and it might pop out little cubes of stuff - course, if that machinery got into the wrong hands...

/lol

GREAT IDEA,,, I'll invent it!

What to call it ,,

hmmm,,,

By George, I have it

I'll call it ,,,

104 sattv4u2  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:39:59am

A TREE

105 bluecheese  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:40:01am

re: #86 Thanos

Nuclear does great things for transport. One of the larger, and mostly ignored sources of hydrocarbons in the atmosphere is that which comes from the great fleets of transport ships. They are almost all fueled by shipping diesel. That's kind of silly considering that we know how to power marine transport safely with nuclear energy. Fossil fuels do not have to be used. Electric could be used instead granted plentiful cheap nuclear energy, or we could build hydrogen fleets.

don't forget about wind...

106 Rascal One  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:40:56am

re: #102 elclynn

I don't deny the science itself and have made lifestyle changes to reduce my carbon footprint, energy efficient appliances, rainbarrels to water plantings, walking where I can instead of driving, etc. What drives me absolutely crazy are the elitist types who know the science is real, (Al Gore, Prince Charles, even Obama and more I could name) not making any effort to reduce their carbon footprint. I think this is part of the reason so many of the public deny the facts. Add to that the Cap and Trade legislation is going to cost millions to some of the hardest hit and over tax burdened states, like mine (654.5 million if Cap and Trade passes), and it becomes even harder to swallow for millions of people who are having financial hard times already.

Isn't that a little bit like a Congress trying to ram through a Healthcare plan for American that they don't have to participate in?

107 cenotaphium  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:40:59am

re: #98 _RememberTonyC

good story. it assuaged his guilt, but did not reduce pollution or planetary damage.

How do you know that?

You need to show that whatever carbon credit initiative he bought from does nothing to "reduce pollution or planetary damage". The bit about guilt driving the transaction is getting stale.

..or maybe you're one of the cheerful fellows who think guilt drives any charity or concern?

108 Randall Gross  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:41:11am

re: #101 researchok

That has huge geo-political ramifications, ship security being the most minor concern.

That idea is a long way off, I'm afraid.

It will happen within 20 years, even in the face of Somali pirates. The new shipping diesel regs coming by 2016 almost ensure that it will. There are smaller, more secure reactors being created that are not a danger to proliferation, etc. (one example is Hyperion)

109 lastlaugh  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:41:12am

re: #95 sattv4u2

No. It's true for any factory/ business that releases carbon. Each business is assessed as to what their footprint is, and issued an "allowable" credit. Exceed it and you have to either buy credits from other businesses or pay a fine.

If you exceed it though, and are assessed a fine, you can't just pass it to consumers and expect the same volume of purchases. It would be far more beneficial to the firm to not exceed the cap.

110 CyanSnowHawk  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:41:45am

I've seen several references to 'running out of fossil fuels' in the above thread. There are several reason that it will not happen anytime in the near future, if ever. Algal fuels, created from oil made from algae, are a proven technology. At this point, experiments in scaling up production are already under way. Several companies, using multiple processes, have created industry certified gasoline, diesel, aviation fuel, and a host of other petroleum products from this "green crude." This product is fully compatible with our current petroleum infrastructure, so that takes away all threat of petroleum disappearing. As a side benefit, creation of oil using these processes pulls CO2 directly out of the atmosphere. Storing it could be a way to sequester CO2, using it to feed our energy appetite is pretty much carbon neutral.

111 Guanxi88  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:41:56am

re: #108 Thanos

It will happen within 20 years, even in the face of Somali pirates. The new shipping diesel regs coming by 2016 almost ensure that it will. There are smaller, more secure reactors being created that are not a danger to proliferation, etc. (one example is Hyperion)

SWEET! Nuke-powered freighters!

112 borgcube  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:42:05am

re: #73 iceweasel

I like the Party of No, whichever party that is at any given time. The less that today's politicians can do, the better in my book. Gridlock. Complete. Total. I want them paralyzed, impotent, worthless, especially Congress. How or why anyone believes that any good can come out of Capitol Hill anymore is beyond me. They've screwed us enough as it is.

113 Ojoe  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:42:07am

re: #100 Guanxi88

I really like schemes like that.

114 sattv4u2  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:42:13am

re: #105 bluecheese

don't forget about wind...

A nuclear plant that can supply a very large region with electricity can sit on a site no more than a handful of acres

Wind farms to generate not even a fraction of that takes up huge tracts of land

115 Rascal One  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:42:53am

re: #104 sattv4u2

A TREE

Brilliant! HaHa

I think we're on to something here. We simple level the cities of Chicago, Shanghai, London, Moscow and Tokyo , till up the soil and plant birch trees!

116 Randall Gross  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:43:31am

re: #105 bluecheese

don't forget about wind...

And wind. But the thing most environmentalists forget in their calcs is that Wind and Solar both are great source, but need backup baseload power for overnights and wind lulls. In Europe where ever they've put in wind farms demand for Gas, Coal and other hydrocarbon sources have gone up. If you work on perfecting batteries that much longer term, and batteries wear out and create their own pollution.

117 researchok  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:43:42am

re: #108 Thanos

It will happen within 20 years, even in the face of Somali pirates. The new shipping diesel regs coming by 2016 almost ensure that it will. There are smaller, more secure reactors being created that are not a danger to proliferation, etc. (one example is Hyperion)

I hope you are right- I want you to be right.

Still, are we prepared to have so many foreign flagged ships handling nuclear materials?

118 zuckerlilly  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:43:56am

Charles:

[Link: www.populartechnology.net...]

[Link: www.activistcash.com...]

[Link: www.sourcewatch.org...]

You are going a very dangerous line, Charles. Your enemies can easily fight and defeat you with your own weapons. Your argumentation against those right wingers (A is related to X, X is related to Y etc. --> therefore A is related to Y...) - and you know I abhor them - can backfire to you. This is not believed you shouldn't fight them - on the contrary (!) - but take their words and not only their connections. Otherwise you destroy your own credibility when you deny that you link to sources with questionable background.

I only wanted to support you not to fight you. You have always tried to check your sources. Go on with this...

119 swamprat  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:44:02am

re: #55 iceweasel

Uh, I'll agree with you that nuclear energy needs to be on the table here, but the real problem isn't the left's opposition to that-- the problem is the Republicans' stubborn refusal to even COME to the table. They're too busy denying the science. They won't even admit there's a table in the room, so to speak.

Luckily, that is not an issue, because the Republicans do not hold the the Senate, House of Representatives, or the Presidency.

Oops! Looks like the Democrats are running out of excuses.

120 insert name here  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:44:13am

re: #110 CyanSnowHawk

As a side benefit, creation of oil using these processes pulls CO2 directly out of the atmosphere. Storing it could be a way to sequester CO2, using it to feed our energy appetite is pretty much carbon neutral.

This is actually carbon-neutral, isn't it? After all, although creation of the oil sucks out CO2, you re-release it upon burning of the oil.

121 _RememberTonyC  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:44:22am

re: #94 cenotaphium

The example I originally expounded on was a scenario where people voluntarily purchased credits to offset whatever carbon imprint they wanted to. (I took your question to mean the already existing carbon credit intiatives) Let's not confuse that with state sanctioned carbon taxes or "cap and trade" initiatives.

In the volountary example, the person is free to offset however much he or she thinks is appropriate. A nice capitalist alternative, in my mind (again, provided the service works as advertised).


Thanks ... but the last part of your post highlights a couple of my issues with the concept. In the so called voluntary example, non-scientists are deciding the rules on a very scientific initiative. I have no idea what my offset quotient should be and neither does anyone else. So my voluntary contribution is based on nothing quantifiable. As for the capitalist alternative, making money off selling carbon credits is brilliant if you can convince people to pay for thin air. I don't think I'd be a buyer unless I was convinced I was buying something.

122 sattv4u2  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:44:22am

re: #109 lastlaugh

If you exceed it though, and are assessed a fine, you can't just pass it to consumers and expect the same volume of purchases. It would be far more beneficial to the firm to not exceed the cap.

Depends on the product/ service. Depends on if your competitors need to also buy credits and raise prices

123 walkman  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:44:48am

re: #107 cenotaphium

How do you know that?

You need to show that whatever carbon credit initiative he bought from does nothing to "reduce pollution or planetary damage". The bit about guilt driving the transaction is getting stale.

..or maybe you're one of the cheerful fellows who think guilt drives any charity or concern?

I think the point is, that if GW is such the crisis, then why engage in useless activties that contribute toward it?

124 Guanxi88  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:45:36am

re: #113 Ojoe

I really like schemes like that.

I was intensely skeptical of this sort of thing (carbon sequestration and biomass) until I decided to do my work for distinction. I'd decided I was going to "prove" the impossibility of a transition to these practices, and, further, intended to demonstrate that any and all efforts in this direction were either crystal-clutching hippy nonsense, or errant scammery.

Well, two years later, I found I was wrong. It can be done, it can be done cheaply, and it can be done with benefits that are quite surprising. Corn ethanol has problems for motor fuel, but coal to liquids works (hell, Red China's scaling up for full-on production, wanting as much as 30% of their motor fuel from these process by 2015), and biomass sequestration via biochar and terra preta is a good idea simply on grounds of what it does for agriculture; the distillates and carbon sequestration are just gravy.

125 bluecheese  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:45:55am

re: #116 Thanos

And wind. But the thing most environmentalists forget in their calcs is that Wind and Solar both are great source, but need backup baseload power for overnights and wind lulls. In Europe where ever they've put in wind farms demand for Gas, Coal and other hydrocarbon sources have gone up. If you work on perfecting batteries that much longer term, and batteries wear out and create their own pollution.

Indeed...

My point is that we can go forward with wind powered ships... right now.

126 BARACK THE VOTE  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:45:56am

re: #119 swamprat

Luckily, that is not an issue, because the Republicans do not hold the the Senate, House of Representatives, or the Presidency.

Oops! Looks like the Democrats are running out of excuses.

C'mon. That isn't an excuse for the Republicans denying AGW and you know it.

127 sattv4u2  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:45:59am

BBL ,,, I just looked outside and the riding mower STILL hasn't done the back yard by itself!

128 cenotaphium  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:46:08am

re: #123 walkman

I think the point is, that if GW is such the crisis, then why engage in useless activties that contribute toward it?

In that case, fair enough.

129 Ojoe  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:46:33am

re: #111 Guanxi88

There is one: NS Savannah.
Still exists as museum ship.

BBL

130 Rascal One  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:47:01am

re: #127 sattv4u2

BBL ,,, I just looked outside and the riding mower STILL hasn't done the back yard by itself!

I hope that's a battery powered riding lawn mower!

131 cenotaphium  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:47:34am

re: #127 sattv4u2

You should have one of them thar newfangled robot mowers then? I hear they're pretty good, but lack an attention to detail.

Also, they scare dogs.

132 sattv4u2  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:47:47am

re: #130 Rascal One

I hope that's a battery powered riding lawn mower!

Of course it has a battery

How do you think the gas engine gets started?

133 lastlaugh  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:48:00am

re: #122 sattv4u2

Depends on the product/ service. Depends on if your competitors need to also buy credits and raise prices

Absolutely true. I'm assuming there are carbon inefficiencies in their
(or their competitors) production processes which would be less costly to fix than whatever fine Uncle Sam doles out.

134 Greengolem64  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:48:07am

re: #130 Rascal One

I hope that's a battery powered riding lawn mower!


Maybe we need "pedal powered" riding mowers...Now THAT would be a workout... :)

135 _RememberTonyC  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:48:56am

re: #107 cenotaphium

How do you know that?

You need to show that whatever carbon credit initiative he bought from does nothing to "reduce pollution or planetary damage". The bit about guilt driving the transaction is getting stale.

..or maybe you're one of the cheerful fellows who think guilt drives any charity or concern?


Does Matt know what his carbon credits achieved? Because if he doesn't, then he's just following the herd and he needs to do more research as well. Maybe you should ask him if his guilt is an issue. People on TV cultivate their images carefully and on big issues like this one, they could have many reasons for doing the "proper" thing. Guilt is one. So is greed. So is ego. And so is image maintenance.

136 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:49:00am

re: #126 iceweasel

C'mon. That isn't an excuse for the Republicans denying AGW and you know it.

No it's not.

But it is also not an excuse for the Democrats not to move forward with putting nuclear energy on the table, which I have not seen done as of yet.

What are they waiting for?

137 Teh Flowah  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:49:15am

Charles, why do you hate America? Why do you insist on destroying America's economy? Why do you want to give into the UN while China and India pollute nonstop.

owait, this is about science and not their political ramifications. Funny how people who SHOULD be arguing about the political consequences of certain realities and facts decide instead to argue about the reality. If you don't like cap and trade, propose something better. Trust me, lots of better solutions exist but no one is suggesting them because they'd rather argue against the overwhelming scientific consensus and data from a position of ignorance.

TALLY HOOO

138 swamprat  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:49:23am

re: #126 iceweasel

They're irrelevant. It had to be said. The democrats are out of excuses. They have the reins, time to take the lead.

139 Guanxi88  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:49:48am

re: #131 cenotaphium

...pretty good, but lack an attention to detail.

Also, they scare dogs.

Sounds like my neighbor's kids.

140 sattv4u2  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:49:56am

re: #136 Walter L. Newton

No it's not.

But it is also not an excuse for the Democrats not to move forward with putting nuclear energy on the table, which I have not seen done as of yet.

What are they waiting for?

I KNOW you know the answer!

141 Rascal One  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:49:58am

re: #132 sattv4u2

Of course it has a battery

How do you think the gas engine gets started?

hahahaha! Oh great, I spent all morning switching all of my light bulbs to fluorescents and you're gonna negate all of that with an afternoon of emitting carbon from your Cub Cadet!

142 researchok  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:50:14am

re: #137 Teh Flowah

Charles, why do you hate America? Why do you insist on destroying America's economy? Why do you want to give into the UN while China and India pollute nonstop.

owait, this is about science and not their political ramifications. Funny how people who SHOULD be arguing about the political consequences of certain realities and facts decide instead to argue about the reality. If you don't like cap and trade, propose something better. Trust me, lots of better solutions exist but no one is suggesting them because they'd rather argue against the overwhelming scientific consensus and data from a position of ignorance.

TALLY HOOO

What planet do you come from?

143 cenotaphium  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:51:05am

re: #125 bluecheese

Indeed...

My point is that we can go forward with wind powered ships... right now.

How about a Sail Powered Cargo Ship? (Yeah, it doesn't just use wind power, but cutting down on costs and pollution seems like a good idea)

144 Ojoe  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:51:39am

re: #137 Teh Flowah

Is that a flounce?

145 Teh Flowah  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:52:10am

re: #118 zuckerlilly

Charles:

[Link: www.populartechnology.net...]

[Link: www.activistcash.com...]

[Link: www.sourcewatch.org...]

You are going a very dangerous line, Charles. Your enemies can easily fight and defeat you with your own weapons. Your argumentation against those right wingers (A is related to X, X is related to Y etc. --> therefore A is related to Y...) - and you know I abhor them - can backfire to you. This is not believed you shouldn't fight them - on the contrary (!) - but take their words and not only their connections. Otherwise you destroy your own credibility when you deny that you link to sources with questionable background.

I only wanted to support you not to fight you. You have always tried to check your sources. Go on with this...

This might surprise you, but I don't consider association with Al Gore to be anywhere similar to association with fascists, racists, and other bigots. But I'm craaazy.

146 BARACK THE VOTE  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:52:15am

re: #136 Walter L. Newton

No it's not.

But it is also not an excuse for the Democrats not to move forward with putting nuclear energy on the table, which I have not seen done as of yet.

What are they waiting for?

Bullshit. Let's not turn a thread about AGW and denialism into an excuse to bash DEMS over NUCLEAR ENERGY. Because frankly that makes both you and swamprat look like you're playing exactly the kind of "Party of No" tactics I outlines earlier: the Repubs want to block everything and anything they see as a Dem proposal, regardless of the consequences.

Because it's all about playing a blame game and being the party of no for them.
Why aren't you writing republican reps and asking them where they are on climate change?

147 bluecheese  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:52:39am

re: #100 Guanxi88

Let me add that the carbon credit thing could actually work, if its prceeds were used for real carbon sequestration efforts like the Terra Preta and/or Biochar efforts.

I just saw this the other day...

Exceptional results from biochar experiment in Cameroon

Biochar Fund has reported extremely encouraging first results from its field trials in South West Cameroon.
... (snip)
The results
The principal results from the experiment are as follows:

a) Adding biochar at the rate of 10 or 20 tonnes a hectare typically added about 85% to the weight of grain produced compared to the adjacent plot with no fertiliser.
b) This is about the same increase as would be gained by adding both organic and artificial fertiliser to the unfertilised soil. So biochar is as effective at increasing yields as heavy application of fertiliser.
c) If both biochar and two types of fertiliser are added, the yield rises to an average of about 140% of the level without any additions. Biochar therefore substantially increases the food production of land above what would be achieved either with or without added fertiliser.
d) It seems as though the most striking results are found on the poorer soils.
Full data analysis is here and in PDF form on the data page.

These results are preliminary but they show the powerful benefits that biochar might bring to food availability in many tropical soils. Getting heavy doses of char into the soil will be demanding but the great advantage of biochar may be that it only needs to be applied once and its effects persist for decades. The results from the second maize sowing of the year (to be harvested in the next few weeks) will show whether the yields improvements continue.

148 CyanSnowHawk  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:52:40am

re: #120 insert name here

This is actually carbon-neutral, isn't it? After all, although creation of the oil sucks out CO2, you re-release it upon burning of the oil.

Using the oil is a carbon neutral process. I was wondering the other day whether using this process to sequester CO2 (by storing the crude instead of using it) would be even close to possible. The cost to make it probably rules that out completely.

149 _RememberTonyC  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:52:41am

everyone "arguing" with me gets to have the last word. I'm out for awhile ... later all!

150 wrenchwench  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:52:59am

re: #134 Greengolem64

Maybe we need "pedal powered" riding mowers...Now THAT would be a workout... :)

Like this?

151 cenotaphium  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:53:00am

re: #135 _RememberTonyC

Does Matt know what his carbon credits achieved? Because if he doesn't, then he's just following the herd and he needs to do more research as well. Maybe you should ask him if his guilt is an issue. People on TV cultivate their images carefully and on big issues like this one, they could have many reasons for doing the "proper" thing. Guilt is one. So is greed. So is ego. And so is image maintenance.

So.. basically you're saying you can attack him as a dimwitted fool driven by guilt, unless I show you proof that he isn't?

Is this along the lines of that article about attacking the murdered census worker for being a child molester (perhaps possibly show me he isn't)?

152 Charles Johnson  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:53:01am

re: #118 zuckerlilly

For Pete's sake. Did you even read what I posted?

I'm sorry, but I've learned that you're engaged in a serious campaign of smearing and denial on this subject, and it's you who has no credibility at all on these issues.

153 zuckerlilly  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:53:10am

re: #145 Teh Flowah


I agree but this is not the point.

154 researchok  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:53:13am

re: #145 Teh Flowah

This might surprise you, but I don't consider association with Al Gore to be anywhere similar to association with fascists, racists, and other bigots. But I'm craaazy.

You neglected to mention your association with idiots.

155 Ojoe  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:53:29am

re: #143 cenotaphium

You could sail an airship like that if you also had a paravane in the water.

156 BARACK THE VOTE  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:53:43am

re: #138 swamprat

They're irrelevant. It had to be said. The democrats are out of excuses. They have the reins, time to take the lead.

Fuck you. This is like all the smirking fucktards in the GOP whose only goal is to obstruct and block at every turn, and then smirk that "the dems are in charge, everything is THEIR fault".

Yeah. Right. Let's see how that works for you in 2010 and 2012.

157 sattv4u2  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:53:49am

re: #141 Rascal One

hahahaha! Oh great, I spent all morning switching all of my light bulbs to fluorescents and you're gonna negate all of that with an afternoon of emitting carbon from your Cub Cadet John Deere!


I would have killed of a Club Cadet within a year

158 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:54:01am

re: #146 iceweasel

Bullshit. Let's not turn a thread about AGW and denialism into an excuse to bash DEMS over NUCLEAR ENERGY. Because frankly that makes both you and swamprat look like you're playing exactly the kind of "Party of No" tactics I outlines earlier: the Repubs want to block everything and anything they see as a Dem proposal, regardless of the consequences.

Because it's all about playing a blame game and being the party of no for them.
Why aren't you writing republican reps and asking them where they are on climate change?

And how do you know I'm not?

159 Teh Flowah  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:54:03am

re: #144 Ojoe

Is that a flounce?

You guys should really read more than the first 2 lines.

160 bluecheese  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:54:50am

re: #143 cenotaphium

How about a Sail Powered Cargo Ship? (Yeah, it doesn't just use wind power, but cutting down on costs and pollution seems like a good idea)

Very cool.

thanks for the link!

161 Guanxi88  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:55:05am

re: #147 bluecheese

See, this is EXACTLY what needs to be done. Put aside the questions of politics, put aside questions of how much of the climate change is natural and how much is anthropogenic - this is biochar thing has the potential to improve agriculture on thin and marginal soils (found throughout the developing world) without the need for high-tehc processes or imported fertilizers. This works, and works great.

Unless someone has a problem with higher grain yields in Africa that come without the use of chemical fertilizers or the need to import them.

162 soxfan4life  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:55:18am

re: #146 iceweasel

Bullshit. Let's not turn a thread about AGW and denialism into an excuse to bash DEMS over NUCLEAR ENERGY. Because frankly that makes both you and swamprat look like you're playing exactly the kind of "Party of No" tactics I outlines earlier: the Repubs want to block everything and anything they see as a Dem proposal, regardless of the consequences.

Because it's all about playing a blame game and being the party of no for them.
Why aren't you writing republican reps and asking them where they are on climate change?


Where would they have ever come up with a strategy like that? If this current Congress hasn't convinced America that both parties truly suck and need to be blown up nothing ever will.

163 sattv4u2  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:55:21am

re: #156 iceweasel

Fuck you. This is like all the smirking fucktards in the GOP whose only goal is to obstruct and block at every turn, and then smirk that "the dems are in charge, everything is THEIR fault".

Yeah. Right. Let's see how that works for you in 2010 and 2012.

Someone help ice back onto her rocker!

164 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:55:28am

re: #146 iceweasel

Bullshit. Let's not turn a thread about AGW and denialism into an excuse to bash DEMS over NUCLEAR ENERGY. Because frankly that makes both you and swamprat look like you're playing exactly the kind of "Party of No" tactics I outlines earlier: the Repubs want to block everything and anything they see as a Dem proposal, regardless of the consequences.

Because it's all about playing a blame game and being the party of no for them.
Why aren't you writing republican reps and asking them where they are on climate change?

P.S.

I don't deny AGW. I don't know a lot about the subject, even what I read is sometimes a bit above my pay grade, but I try to listen to the debate.

So go pick on someone else.

165 poteen  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:55:49am

Charles, and others. My observation, after reading through the link is that CO2 levels have increased. Perhaps by 'hockey stick' measures.
Mean temp increased by .5C in the last half century.
Given.
Where they lose me is in the second question of their introductory quiz.
They state absolutely that the latter is because of the former. The data indicates a connection but by no means proves it.
The conclusion violates the scientific method. Any predictions of terrible climate change by a mean temp. increase of 5C are speculation unwarranted by the facts that you link to.

Not denying AGW. But I haven't seen anything but local climate changes proven and nothing to show horrible consequences resulting.

166 Guanxi88  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:55:58am

re: #155 Ojoe

You could sail an airship like that if you also had a paravane in the water.

Then Luap Nor's campaign would be carbon neutral in terms of its airship fleet.

167 Ojoe  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:56:14am

re: #156 iceweasel

In my humble opinion, the combined report card on the "D" and "R" parties, who between them have had the governance of this country for 100 years, at the moment has

EFPC FAIL

written on it.

168 Greengolem64  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:56:26am

re: #150 wrenchwench

Like this?

Damn! My wife was looking over my shoulder...now I'm sunk! One problem...didn't see a 'drink' holder... ;)

169 Teh Flowah  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:56:30am

re: #153 zuckerlilly

I agree but this is not the point.

No... it's precisely the point. You're talking about association and how Charles uses it a lot and blah blah blah. Well association with openly racist people is pretty telling. Association with Al Gore? That just means you're probably a Democrat...re: #154 researchok

You neglected to mention your association with idiots.

What idiots are you referring to oh stalker who knows my life.

170 Bloodnok  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:57:04am

re: #167 Ojoe

In my humble opinion, the combined report card on the "D" and "R" parties, who between them have had the governance of this country for 100 years, at the moment has

EFPC FAIL

written on it.

One party is trying. The other is not. Counts for something, I'd say.

171 sattv4u2  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:57:06am

re: #168 Greengolem64

Damn! My wife was looking over my shoulder...now I'm sunk! One problem...didn't see a 'drink' holder... ;)

You DID say you have a wife !

172 BARACK THE VOTE  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:57:07am

re: #158 Walter L. Newton

And how do you know I'm not?

Touche.

I guess you won't be claiming it's only the Dems fault if significant legislation fails to pass. Good to know.

173 Ojoe  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:57:15am

re: #159 Teh Flowah

I read all the lines.

174 Ojoe  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:57:39am

re: #170 Bloodnok

Which one, and what are they trying?

175 Ojoe  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:58:04am

re: #170 Bloodnok

Just curious.

176 Bloodnok  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:58:31am

re: #174 Ojoe

Which one, and what are they trying?

Cute.

177 researchok  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:58:33am

re: #159 Teh Flowah

You guys should really read more than the first 2 lines.

I did.

The fact is that LGF gets the science and the political ramifications. This isn't a zero sum game. We need to deal with scientific realities with political realities.

178 Greengolem64  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:59:27am

re: #171 sattv4u2

You DID say you have a wife !

Who is STILL looking over my shoulder dammit!!! :)

179 sattv4u2  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:59:46am

re: #170 Bloodnok

One party is trying. The other is not. Counts for something, I'd say.

The party that holds the White House
The party that holds a significant majority in the house of reps
The party that holds 60 seats in the senate
GIT ER DONE!

180 Ojoe  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 10:59:47am

BBL. Saturday chores !

181 BARACK THE VOTE  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:00:02am

re: #164 Walter L. Newton

P.S.

I don't deny AGW. I don't know a lot about the subject, even what I read is sometimes a bit above my pay grade, but I try to listen to the debate.

So go pick on someone else.

I'm not picking on you. I was irritated.

182 bluecheese  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:00:05am

re: #161 Guanxi88

See, this is EXACTLY what needs to be done. Put aside the questions of politics, put aside questions of how much of the climate change is natural and how much is anthropogenic - this is biochar thing has the potential to improve agriculture on thin and marginal soils (found throughout the developing world) without the need for high-tehc processes or imported fertilizers. This works, and works great.

Unless someone has a problem with higher grain yields in Africa that come without the use of chemical fertilizers or the need to import them.

Yes. This is very encouraging.

Let's put the coal back in the ground.

183 Teh Flowah  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:00:45am

re: #165 poteen

Charles, and others. My observation, after reading through the link is that CO2 levels have increased. Perhaps by 'hockey stick' measures.
Mean temp increased by .5C in the last half century.
Given.
Where they lose me is in the second question of their introductory quiz.
They state absolutely that the latter is because of the former. The data indicates a connection but by no means proves it.
The conclusion violates the scientific method. Any predictions of terrible climate change by a mean temp. increase of 5C are speculation unwarranted by the facts that you link to.

Not denying AGW. But I haven't seen anything but local climate changes proven and nothing to show horrible consequences resulting.


They are reasonable extrapolations based on our working theories of earth's climate and how it functions. We do this all the time in science so pleeease don't say it's not within the scientific method. I mean, do you know how they look for extrasolar planets? They look for the gravitational wobble around stars hundreds or thousands of lightyears away. Just because it isn't intuitive doesn't mean it isn't the right conclusion to draw. At a certain point in science, intuition just falls apart. Nothing about gravity or quantum mechanics or global warming is intuitive.

184 Killgore Trout  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:01:04am

A pretty balanced and informative discussion of TARP...
TARP: Taxpayers on the hook for $200 billion

185 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:01:20am

re: #172 iceweasel

Touche.

I guess you won't be claiming it's only the Dems fault if significant legislation fails to pass. Good to know.

First off, I'm an unaffiliated, and you have been on LGF long enough to know for a fact that I have a lot of trash mouth for most politicians and both parties.

And if you have read any of my comments on science versus faith versus beliefs, you also know that I put science above anything.

So, ergo, yes, many conservatives have a really skewed concept of science, what more good science and I do not support any roadblocks to good science.

So, I hope the progressives get on track with the nuclear issues and start acting like scientist about it.

186 BARACK THE VOTE  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:03:12am

re: #185 Walter L. Newton

Well, that I can endorse totally.

(BTW, I'm unaffiliated as well, you know.)

187 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:04:01am

re: #186 iceweasel

Well, that I can endorse totally.

(BTW, I'm unaffiliated as well, you know.)

Actually I didn't.

188 swamprat  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:04:47am

re: #138 swamprat

To clarify;
The Republicans are irrelevant.


ice weasel

Uh, I'll agree with you that nuclear energy needs to be on the table here, but the real problem isn't the left's opposition to that-- the problem is the Republicans' stubborn refusal to even COME to the table. They're too busy denying the science. They won't even admit there's a table in the room, so to speak.

Swamprat

"Luckily, that is not an issue, because the Republicans do not hold the the Senate, House of Representatives, or the Presidency.

Oops! Looks like the Democrats are running out of excuses."

Iceweasel

C'mon. That isn't an excuse for the Republicans denying AGW and you know it.

They (the Republicans) are irrelevant. It had to be said. The democrats are out of excuses. They have the reins, time to take the lead.

Posted so it will be clear that I said the republicans are not relevant and in what context.

Because both sides are looking pretty lame.

189 Bloodnok  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:04:52am

re: #175 Ojoe

Just curious.

The party that has made this a MAJOR issue for the past few decades (and especially the past 15 years). While you might not like their proposals (I'm not exactly sold on all of them myself) you can not deny that the Democrats have raised a lot of awareness of the issues involved.

That and they admit it the problem exists at all.

But don't play dumb about which party is actively trying to advance this issue and which party is simply obstructing it at every turn.

190 BARACK THE VOTE  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:05:05am

re: #187 Walter L. Newton

Actually I didn't.

Yes. Not a dem, not a republican. Hate the Dems only slightly less than I do the republicans.

191 Teh Flowah  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:05:11am

re: #173 Ojoe

I read all the lines.

What about my post was a "IM LEAVING AND I'M NEVER COMING BACK" then? It was in fact, the opposite. Politicians and bloggers fighting it out on the fringes about a scientific question that already has a well supported consensus is stupid. Charles gets that, most of the people here seem to get it now. So now that you learned to read, you should try learning to comprehend.re: #177 researchok

I did.

The fact is that LGF gets the science and the political ramifications. This isn't a zero sum game. We need to deal with scientific realities with political realities.


Durrr? That's exactly what I said? And no, I would say anyone here that doesn't think AGW is real and happening right now gets the scientific reality. However, the political reality is readily apparent. Republicans will continue to obfuscate the issue and show themselves the party NOT for science. They will continue to cry about cap and trade without offering any alternatives, plenty of which exist.

This would be so much easier if Republicans just accepted the science and suggested ideas that wouldn't cripple the American economy but doesn't doom future generations. I'm not holding my breath.

192 Rascal One  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:05:15am

re: #172 iceweasel

Touche.

I guess you won't be claiming it's only the Dems fault if significant legislation fails to pass. Good to know.

What? Why wouldn't it be the Dems' fault? Your side has all the numbers - they don't need a single Republican vote to pass the legislation and it certainly would be signed into law.

If no legislation is enacted, then own the fact that your Dems booted it. How can you make an excuse for people who have complete power?

193 soxfan4life  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:05:20am

re: #179 sattv4u2

The party that holds the White House
The party that holds a significant majority in the house of reps
The party that holds 60 seats in the senate
GIT ER DONE!

It's not that easy, they need a fall back position like blame the GOP for their lack of support or input when their ideas don't work. If their plan is so perfect and wonderful and they have all the votes they need why not implement them and finish off the republicans altogether. They can see it won't work and are doing what they do best going into self preservation/ reelection over all else mode. I would look for dwindling support for the President until after midterm elections and they get a real feeling for their constituency.

194 out_of_focus  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:05:22am

OT...thank you Charles.

OOF

195 swamprat  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:08:46am

re: #156 iceweasel

Fuck you. This is like all the smirking fucktards in the GOP whose only goal is to obstruct and block at every turn, and then smirk that "the dems are in charge, everything is THEIR fault".

Yeah. Right. Let's see how that works for you in 2010 and 2012.


They are returning what they got while Bush was in office. The trouble with these childish games is that the country is left wanting, while these idiots play "payback".

196 BARACK THE VOTE  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:09:23am

re: #188 swamprat

You're trying to turn a thread on AGW and denialism (which, it must be said, is a problem on the right, not the left) into an excuse to bash the Democrats.

This is exactly the kind of crap I was pointing out far earlier. The GOP is turning into the Party of No with but one idea: Screw the Democrats. Whatever they're fer, we're ag'in it.

Blame the people in the Republican party for not working with the Dems on the initiatives you apparently want to pretend to support-- rather than blaming the Dems for not unilaterally ramming them through.

If you did a little of that, your complaints about the Dems might sound less biased and less about gaining points. Just sayin'.

197 Guanxi88  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:10:08am

The real trick, as noted above, is to find better ways of doing things. The IC engine was a HUGE improvement for transport versus the horse. Can you imagine what NYC or London must have looked or smelled like on a hot day during the era of the horse and mule? The disease, the mess, the filth must have been unbearable. A benzine buggy was an elegant solution to the horse droppings problem.

Well, like any solution, it generates its own problems, and we've been facing them, off and on, for a while. There will have to be some new solution. It will hurt many folk in the short-run (look what it did to teamsters and muleteers when the gas engine came on-line) but the net effect, if all goes well, is a benefit. This is no different.

I'm not a scientist by training, but this much I do know - we're gonna have to do something, if only to obtain access to greater reserves of energy than we have now. We can't use what we have been indefinitely, or at least not in the way we have been. The time to jump is now.

198 swamprat  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:10:27am

I have derailed the thread. The subject is AGW.


Thank you.

199 BARACK THE VOTE  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:12:05am

re: #192 Rascal One

What? Why wouldn't it be the Dems' fault? Your side has all the numbers - they don't need a single Republican vote to pass the legislation and it certainly would be signed into law.

If no legislation is enacted, then own the fact that your Dems booted it. How can you make an excuse for people who have complete power?

1) I'm not a Democrat.

2) Some people genuinely think bipartisanship is a good idea, not merely for purposes of passing the buck.

3) If you know anything at all about Congressional politics, you'd know it's not as simple as that. I refer you to a group called the Blue Dogs. You may have heard of them.

200 Charles Johnson  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:12:42am

re: #118 zuckerlilly

By the way, let's take a closer look at one of the organizations you're citing to smear RealClimate with: ActivistCash.com, a production of The Center for Consumer Freedom -- a front group for tobacco, alcohol, and pesticide producers:

The forerunner to the CCF was the Guest Choice Network, which was organized in 1995 by Richard Berman, executive director of the public affairs firm Berman and Company, with $600,000 from the Philip Morris tobacco company,[2] "to unite the restaurant and hospitality industries in a campaign to defend their consumers and marketing programs against attacks from anti-smoking, anti-drinking, anti-meat, etc. activists ..." According to Berman, the GCN mission was to encourage operators of "restaurants, hotels, casinos, bowling alleys, taverns, stadiums, and university hospitality educators" to "support [the] mentality of 'smokers rights' by encouraging responsibility to protect 'guest choice.'"[3] Philip Morris donated $2.95 million to GCN between 1995 and 1998.

201 austin_blue  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:13:07am

The D's are doing their best to get the Government to engage in controlling emissions. The R's claim it will ruin America. The D's have science on their side. The R's have unease of change on theirs. Fear is a powerful motivator.

Hydrocarbon mining, be it oil, gas, or coal, is an extractive industry of a non-renewable resource. Eventually, we will have to wean ourselves off of it. Why not now?

202 BARACK THE VOTE  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:13:22am

re: #198 swamprat

I have derailed the thread. The subject is AGW.

Thank you.

Yes, you did derail it, and you had your ass handed to you.

You're welcome.

Let's now return to the AGW thread already in progress.

203 Guanxi88  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:13:56am

I half hope, half pray, that the market will find its own elegant solutions to these problems, will make a killing for those shrewd enough to get onboard at the right time, and will do some good while doing well. This would shut the mouths of ALL parties to the dispute, seems to me, and would prove that some problems DO NOT have political solutions.

204 cenotaphium  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:14:37am

re: #197 Guanxi88

Can you imagine what NYC or London must have looked or smelled like on a hot day during the era of the horse and mule? The disease, the mess, the filth must have been unbearable. A benzine buggy was an elegant solution to the horse droppings problem.

Damn city slicker! Do you think the smell of human droppings and gasoline is an improvement!?

/

205 Guanxi88  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:15:14am

re: #201 austin_blue


Hydrocarbon mining, be it oil, gas, or coal, is an extractive industry of a non-renewable resource. Eventually, we will have to wean ourselves off of it. Why not now?

Unless people figure this out, and start planning, as businesses ought to do, but won't, on 10, 20, and 100 year timeframes, we'll be caught flat-footed.

206 Guanxi88  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:15:57am

re: #204 cenotaphium

Damn city slicker! Do you think the smell of human droppings and gasoline is an improvement!?

/

Hey, you can get methane outta that stuff, you know?

207 soxfan4life  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:16:05am

re: #199 iceweasel

1) I'm not a Democrat.

2) Some people genuinely think bipartisanship is a good idea, not merely for purposes of passing the buck.

3) If you know anything at all about Congressional politics, you'd know it's not as simple as that. I refer you to a group called the Blue Dogs. You may have heard of them.


Some people might think bipartisanship is a good idea, but unfortunately the Speaker of the House and Senate Majority Leader don't. When the Republicans are shut out of meetings why should they go along for the sake of "bipartisanship"? Again proving that both sides need a major house cleaning and America needs a much better brand than what either party is selling.

208 swamprat  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:16:31am

re: #202 iceweasel

Delightful that you downdinged me for saying that the republicans are irrelevant. I truly enjoyed that.

209 Rascal One  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:16:42am

re: #198 swamprat

I have derailed the thread. The subject is AGW.


Thank you.

I'm new here. Is there a special button to click on to send my comments to "iceweasel" so he/she can approve them as being relevant to the topic? I see a "preview" button but not a "threadworthyapprovalform" button.

210 elclynn  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:18:06am

re: #106 Rascal One
Why, yes it it. Indubitably so.

211 Guanxi88  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:18:49am

re: #204 cenotaphium

Damn city slicker! Do you think the smell of human droppings and gasoline is an improvement!?

/

re: #206 Guanxi88

Hey, you can get methane outta that stuff, you know?

Youtube Video
212 BARACK THE VOTE  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:19:02am

re: #207 soxfan4life

Some people might think bipartisanship is a good idea, but unfortunately the Speaker of the House and Senate Majority Leader don't. When the Republicans are shut out of meetings why should they go along for the sake of "bipartisanship"? Again proving that both sides need a major house cleaning and America needs a much better brand than what either party is selling.

Well, the bolded part I might agree with as I can't stand them either.

213 swamprat  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:19:36am

re: #209 Rascal One

I'm new here. Is there a special button to click on to send my comments to "iceweasel" so he/she can approve them as being relevant to the topic? I see a "preview" button but not a "threadworthyapprovalform" button.

Ice was right. I said I had derailed the thread before I read her accusation. But I think I hit a nerve. And we have jousted before. It is all good.

214 winnd54  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:20:33am

Charles, do you believe that there is man caused global warming? If so, do you believe that we can reverse it?

215 poteen  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:20:54am

re: #183 Teh Flowah

They are reasonable extrapolations based on our working theories of earth's climate and how it functions. We do this all the time in science so pleeease don't say it's not within the scientific method. I mean, do you know how they look for extrasolar planets? They look for the gravitational wobble around stars hundreds or thousands of lightyears away. Just because it isn't intuitive doesn't mean it isn't the right conclusion to draw. At a certain point in science, intuition just falls apart. Nothing about gravity or quantum mechanics or global warming is intuitive.

I'm well aware of that and the fact that theories of physics have been modified and changed over the past years, hence my opinion that intuitive "Disaster" is overstated.
Gotta run. be back later to continue.

216 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:21:12am

re: #214 winnd54

Charles, do you believe that there is man caused global warming? If so, do you believe that we can reverse it?

New here?

217 winnd54  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:21:39am

re: #216 Walter L. Newton

No, I just don't comment very often, and I've been away.

218 soxfan4life  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:21:57am

re: #201 austin_blue

The D's are doing their best to get the Government to engage in controlling emissions. The R's claim it will ruin America. The D's have science on their side. The R's have unease of change on theirs. Fear is a powerful motivator.

Hydrocarbon mining, be it oil, gas, or coal, is an extractive industry of a non-renewable resource. Eventually, we will have to wean ourselves off of it. Why not now?

Why go back in time as far as standard of living goes? Until there is a viable plan that every nation participates equally in why should we step backwards? Lets develop all alternatives including nuclear and the amount of fossil fuels we burn will decrease while our standard of living doesn't.

219 BARACK THE VOTE  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:22:03am

re: #209 Rascal One

I'm new here. Is there a special button to click on to send my comments to "iceweasel" so he/she can approve them as being relevant to the topic? I see a "preview" button but not a "threadworthyapprovalform" button.

If you're new, it might behoove you to not be a dick because you mistakenly infer that it's 'safe' to pile on a particular poster.

220 Charles Johnson  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:24:22am

re: #214 winnd54

Charles, do you believe that there is man caused global warming? If so, do you believe that we can reverse it?

No, I don't believe there is man-made global warming. I accept the mountains of scientific evidence that global warming is real, and that humans are causing it -- because I've made a serious effort to educate myself by reading books and scientific literature on the subject. I no longer have any doubt that climate change is taking place.

221 swamprat  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:24:24am

re: #217 winnd54

No, I just don't comment very often, and I've been away.


A winndsock!

I love it!

222 BenghaziHoops  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:25:17am

re: #217 winnd54

No, I just don't comment very often, and I've been away.

Well welcome the hell back...Is that a Bass beer you are holding?
/If it isn't...just say it is..I've been lied to before
*wink*

223 Rascal One  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:25:17am

re: #219 iceweasel

If you're new, it might behoove you to not be a dick because you mistakenly infer that it's 'safe' to pile on a particular poster.

Then perhaps I need a mentor. :wink:

224 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:25:54am

Hey, Lizards!

If you haven't yet received this video in your email --watch it NOW

Meet Butch Lumpkin

225 winnd54  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:26:14am

re: #222 HoosierHoops

It's an "Icky" beer from Great Basin Brewery in Sparks Nevada!

226 soxfan4life  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:26:47am

re: #220 Charles

No, I don't believe there is man-made global warming. I accept the mountains of scientific evidence that global warming is real, and that humans are causing it -- because I've made a serious effort to educate myself by reading books and scientific literature on the subject. I no longer have any doubt that climate change is taking place.

Could you please pull a Keith Moon type of move on Michael Steele and take over the GOP so our leaders will stop trying to deny the problem and start finding reasonable ways to solve it.

227 BenghaziHoops  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:27:35am

re: #225 winnd54

It's an "Icky" beer from Great Basin Brewery in Sparks Nevada!

I love Sparks! I won some money once at the Golden Nugget..
/We won't discuss the money I lost..I'm a lousy gambler

228 Tom Reagan  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:28:46am

Always thought it was funny that pastors and right-wing commentators have such strong views on meteorology. I was flummoxed at the political or religius connection. Now it makes sense. Seriously addressing global warming is just too darn expensive! Kinda like reducing emissions.

229 winnd54  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:31:48am

re: #220 Charles

What percentage of CO2 is man caused vs. that that is naturally released by volcanoes, sea vents, and the oceans release? Don't most (if not all) of the computer models that finger man caused global warming not take water vapor into account as a green house gas? (the most important one). Hasn't the earth been better off (at least for humans) when the climate WAS a little warmer?

230 austin_blue  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:33:10am

re: #218 soxfan4life

Why go back in time as far as standard of living goes? Until there is a viable plan that every nation participates equally in why should we step backwards? Lets develop all alternatives including nuclear and the amount of fossil fuels we burn will decrease while our standard of living doesn't.

I'm all for increasing nuclear generation.

Why do you assume that decreasing hydrocarbon use decreases your standard of living?

231 wrenchwench  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:33:33am

Sure sign of a hard winter ahead.

232 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:34:21am

re: #229 winnd54

What percentage of CO2 is man caused vs. that that is naturally released by volcanoes, sea vents, and the oceans release? Don't most (if not all) of the computer models that finger man caused global warming not take water vapor into account as a green house gas? (the most important one). Hasn't the earth been better off (at least for humans) when the climate WAS a little warmer?

Don't forget ttermite flatulence.

;)

233 Charles Johnson  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:34:42am

re: #229 winnd54

How did I know the talking points were about to come out?

Your questions and most of the other talking points that are endlessly brought up in these threads are answered here:

[Link: scienceblogs.com...]

234 Guanxi88  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:35:42am

re: #229 winnd54

What percentage of CO2 is man caused vs. that that is naturally released by volcanoes, sea vents, and the oceans release? Don't most (if not all) of the computer models that finger man caused global warming not take water vapor into account as a green house gas? (the most important one). Hasn't the earth been better off (at least for humans) when the climate WAS a little warmer?

Is it the theory of AGW you oppose, or the proposals put forward to do something about it? These are two very different things. Me? I don't know so much about climate change and man's role in it, and, truth be told, wouldn't lose too much sleep whichever way it comes out. But the proposed remedies - on those I do have an opinion.

235 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:36:09am

re: #232 ggt

Don't forget ttermite flatulence.

;)

Sorry, termite flatuence and cow burps.

236 swamprat  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:36:57am

re: #229 winnd54

Why don't you tell us?

237 austin_blue  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:37:05am

re: #229 winnd54

What percentage of CO2 is man caused vs. that that is naturally released by volcanoes, sea vents, and the oceans release? Don't most (if not all) of the computer models that finger man caused global warming not take water vapor into account as a green house gas? (the most important one). Hasn't the earth been better off (at least for humans) when the climate WAS a little warmer?

Since 1800? 120 ppb. 40% greater than normal during recent interglacial cycles. All of it is attributable to us.

238 Killgore Trout  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:37:19am

Dan Riehl's bizzaire smears against the murdered census worker continue...
Bill "Fe Fe" Sparkman Remembered For His Curls

The commenters seem to think Fe fe is some sort of sexual reference.

239 Guanxi88  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:38:09am

re: #238 Killgore Trout

Dan Riehl's bizzaire smears against the murdered census worker continue...
Bill "Fe Fe" Sparkman Remembered For His Curls

The commenters seem to think Fe fe is some sort of sexual reference.

No a lot of yinglish spoken there in KY, my own relatives excluded.

240 soxfan4life  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:38:29am

re: #230 austin_blue

I'm all for increasing nuclear generation.

Why do you assume that decreasing hydrocarbon use decreases your standard of living?

Until we have other ways to generate electricity reducing our use of hydrocarbons requires producing less electricity or using less fuel in motor vehicles. Either way we would be looking at reducing our standard of living, which I am not totally against, but until every nation has the same standards to live up to why should we continue to do all the heavy lifting.

241 swamprat  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:38:58am

re: #238 Killgore Trout

Dan Riehl's bizzaire smears against the murdered census worker continue...
Bill "Fe Fe" Sparkman Remembered For His Curls

The commenters seem to think Fe fe is some sort of sexual reference.


"fey"

242 Cato the Elder  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:39:05am

re: #234 Guanxi88

Is it the theory of AGW you oppose, or the proposals put forward to do something about it? These are two very different things. Me? I don't know so much about climate change and man's role in it, and, truth be told, wouldn't lose too much sleep whichever way it comes out. But the proposed remedies - on those I do have an opinion.

Which is exactly my position. I fear eco-fascism as much or more as I do having to adjust to climate change.

243 Guanxi88  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:39:32am

re: #238 Killgore Trout

Dan Riehl's bizzaire smears against the murdered census worker continue...
Bill "Fe Fe" Sparkman Remembered For His Curls

The commenters seem to think Fe fe is some sort of sexual reference.

re: #239 Guanxi88

No a lot of yinglish spoken there in KY, my own relatives excluded.

[Link: en.wiktionary.org...]

244 swamprat  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:40:01am

re: #238 Killgore Trout


"fifi?"

245 Charles Johnson  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:40:28am

re: #238 Killgore Trout

Dan Riehl's bizzaire smears against the murdered census worker continue...
Bill "Fe Fe" Sparkman Remembered For His Curls

The commenters seem to think Fe fe is some sort of sexual reference.

What a sick human being Riehl is.

246 austin_blue  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:40:43am

re: #240 soxfan4life

Until we have other ways to generate electricity reducing our use of hydrocarbons requires producing less electricity or using less fuel in motor vehicles. Either way we would be looking at reducing our standard of living, which I am not totally against, but until every nation has the same standards to live up to why should we continue to do all the heavy lifting.

We have other ways *now*.

You would not really change a thing, would you?

247 Guanxi88  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:40:56am

re: #244 swamprat

"fifi?"

I'm thinking more like "fey-fey". Still, Riehl's grasping at straws to find some way to wash away the blood he sees on his ideological hands.

248 armylaw  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:40:56am

re: #228 Tom Reagan

Always thought it was funny that pastors and right-wing commentators have such strong views on meteorology. I was flummoxed at the political or religius connection. Now it makes sense. Seriously addressing global warming is just too darn expensive! Kinda like reducing emissions.

It's because they're worried their hot air will be regulated.

249 Killgore Trout  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:42:07am

re: #245 Charles

He really has a twisted obsession with smearing this poor guy who probably did nothing wrong.

250 former_secret_agent  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:42:45am

Finally got registered. Can't stay long today, but glad to be here.

251 Racer X  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:42:59am

re: #156 iceweasel

Uncalled for Ice.

Simmah down.

252 Killgore Trout  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:43:11am

re: #250 former_secret_agent

Welcome.

253 BenghaziHoops  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:43:53am

re: #230 austin_blue

I'm all for increasing nuclear generation.

Why do you assume that decreasing hydrocarbon use decreases your standard of living?

Yea..Hi blue
Nuclear Energy...I'm holding off on my opinion here...You just don't build Nuclear power plants...
We as a nation lack the training and education to run nuclear power plants..
I trust the US Navy and the French in Nuclear power Engineering...The private industry takes shortcuts in engineering and Safety and disposal...Ask any Naval Nuclear Officer what they think about the American Private nuclear Industry and you will get laughed at...
We need to start training students for at least 10 years to become real engineers...
/When was the last time you met a college grad that said..Hey mom and Dad I can run a Nuclear power plant? Didn't think so..We need to plan ahead before America become Nuclear...Otherwise..Employ the Navy or the French to run reactors...

254 Guanxi88  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:47:38am

re: #253 HoosierHoops

Make it the Navy, by all means. The Gauls are a hot-tempered and unstable people, and they talk funny. Not at all like squids.

255 austin_blue  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:48:07am

re: #253 HoosierHoops

Yea..Hi blue
Nuclear Energy...I'm holding off on my opinion here...You just don't build Nuclear power plants...
We as a nation lack the training and education to run nuclear power plants..
I trust the US Navy and the French in Nuclear power Engineering...The private industry takes shortcuts in engineering and Safety and disposal...Ask any Naval Nuclear Officer what they think about the American Private nuclear Industry and you will get laughed at...
We need to start training students for at least 10 years to become real engineers...
/When was the last time you met a college grad that said..Hey mom and Dad I can run a Nuclear power plant? Didn't think so..We need to plan ahead before America become Nuclear...Otherwise..Employ the Navy or the French to run reactors...

Hey Hoops!

That's the first time I've heard the "We aren't as smart as the Cheese-eating Surrender Monkeys" argument.

;-)

256 swamprat  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:48:14am

re: #249 Killgore Trout


I don't care if he wore a tutu and sang show tunes while eating cucumber sandwiches and reading Longfellow. AND WHO GAVE HIM THE RIGHT TO SMEAR THE DEAD OR IMPLY THEY DESERVED TO DIE!

257 Cato the Elder  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:49:22am

Meanwhile, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad turns out to be Jewish.

Schatten von Schicklgruber!

258 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:49:40am

re: #253 HoosierHoops

Yea..Hi blue
Nuclear Energy...I'm holding off on my opinion here...You just don't build Nuclear power plants...
We as a nation lack the training and education to run nuclear power plants..
I trust the US Navy and the French in Nuclear power Engineering...The private industry takes shortcuts in engineering and Safety and disposal...Ask any Naval Nuclear Officer what they think about the American Private nuclear Industry and you will get laughed at...
We need to start training students for at least 10 years to become real engineers...
/When was the last time you met a college grad that said..Hey mom and Dad I can run a Nuclear power plant? Didn't think so..We need to plan ahead before America become Nuclear...Otherwise..Employ the Navy or the French to run reactors...

I've received similar lecture from my Dad.

259 Dan G.  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:49:43am

Front Page:

Again, I’m struck by the similarity between the techniques of global warming deniers and creationists; they both use cherry-picked data, they both make outrageous claims couched in pseudo-scientific language that sounds convincing to gullible people, they both compile lists of skeptical “scientists” that turn out to be packed with ringers, frauds, and people who never signed in the first place, and they both use quote mining.

Remember, as revealed in the Wedge Strategy document, the target is Materialism and the science that supports it. So any science, especially science with a high degree of ambiguity (issues yet to be resolved) and difficulty (not easily understood by the layman) will be harped on like this with your aforementioned tactics/techniques.

260 Guanxi88  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:49:55am

re: #257 Cato the Elder

Meanwhile, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad turns out to be Jewish.

Schatten von Schicklgruber!

Yep, and he's a self-hating Jew, the worst kind.

261 Gus  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:50:28am

So I heard that Senator Inhofe is going to the global warming conference in Copenhagen this December. Now there's a climate "expert." Maybe he can tell all of the gathered scientists just how "oil doesn't pollute." Or maybe he'll go off on a tangent about the non-prevalence of homosexuals in his family tree as he did on the floor of the Senate. He's allegedly going to bring something called a "Truth Squad" to this conference.

262 Flyers1974  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:50:28am

In my opinion, the Democrats deserve criticism for not advocating greater use of nuclear energy, not to mention criticism for being against same. The Republican Party officially endorses nuclear energy, but the average person probably doesn't know this. Yet the Republicans have no problem communicating their stance on issues which they deem important, i.e., immigration, abortion, etc... . My conclusion is that because the Democrats have taken the stupid position of being against nuclear energy, the Republicans exploit this position by pointing to their official support of nuclear energy, without ever having offered real political support. Thus they are able to say, we don't believe in global warming, but even if we did, we are for nuclear power, the Democrats are against it, so are hands are tied. The Democrats are guilty of ignoring what may be at minimum, a partial solution to problem, while the Republicans are denying the problem altogether.

263 RRFan  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:51:03am

My opinion on global warming is the same as Freeman Dyson. And there is a name for settled science. It is called religion.

264 wrenchwench  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:51:43am

re: #260 Guanxi88

[reply deleted upon Preview]

265 Guanxi88  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:52:29am

re: #264 wrenchwench

What was that? Never seen that before.

266 BARACK THE VOTE  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:52:57am

re: #249 Killgore Trout

He really has a twisted obsession with smearing this poor guy who probably did nothing wrong.

I posted this the other day at the end of an old thread; apologies for the repost but it's topical:

For what it's worth this is far from the first time Inspector Dan, Internets Detective, decided to put on his sleuth hat and speculate wildly, without knowing any of the people involved, having any access to the facts, and without regard for how it would hurt the surviving family.

Here's a nice little smear about Natalee Holloway, about whom he appeared to be obsessed (he has a whole tag for her. I don't know how many articles. I stopped when I hit the 22nd page, the 220th post about her.)


The psychology of Natalee Holloway is likely a somewhat troubled one. She appears to have worked incredibly hard to have measured up. And it's at least possible that some of those same forces caused her to go a bit too near the edge when she found herself unrestrained by the dominating influence of her Mother.

I personally believe that for all her good intentions to get answers in the disappearance of her lovely daughter, the Mother of Natalee Holloway likely has her own set of truths in this matter she'd just as soon not acknowledge, or have revealed. From a psychological perspective, it's at least possible to consider that her extraordinary efforts and the ability to cast unproven accusations time and time again is the way she has consciously or unconsciously chosen to deal with this tragedy without being forced to examine her relationship with her daughter and how those dynamics may have influenced events.

Shorter Dan Riehl: Natalee asked for it, and it's her mother's fault.

And then this, from the same post:

It seemed rather clear from the start that the family of Natalee Holloway, specifically her Mother, wanted nothing less than a hanging for the rape and murder of Natalee. That persistent, intensely angry approach early on would most likely have driven the boys to cover up even more from the start, even if it was an accidental death.

Had this happened in America, LE wouldn't have allowed the almost lynch mob-like mentality with which the boys were confronted from the start to have driven the investigation.

Shorter Dan Riehl: The problem isn't the possible rape and murder of a girl, and her certain disappearance and death...the problem is that her family were just so durn angry about it.

Tool.

267 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:53:40am

I'm having trouble doing a vanity search in the links. To find your own posts it is user:__ggt, or is it one _ or is it something entirely different?

Thanks, in advance for your help!

268 Dan G.  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:53:50am

re: #263 RRFan

[...]And there is a name for settled science. It is called religion.

Bullshit. So are you saying that every know and settled fact (not necessarily the explanation behind it), as revealed by science is religion? Are you also inferring that evolution is religion?

269 BenghaziHoops  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:54:22am

re: #255 austin_blue

Hey Hoops!

That's the first time I've heard the "We aren't as smart as the Cheese-eating Surrender Monkeys" argument.

;-)

When I went to school the first day a teacher dumped all the NRC regs on the desk...
'Folks..These are the rules for regulating Nuclear Energy in the United States...We don't follow them at all...The day they come up to our standards..We may consider it.'
That's the way the Navy Rolls...
And the French? I'll give them a complement.. It's not playschool there...
The private industry worries about profit..Too damn expensive for them to eddy current the bundle every year...It's all about the buck.

270 wrenchwench  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:55:45am

re: #265 Guanxi88

I typed it myself, after deleting what I typed before that. (It had a nuke in it.)

271 austin_blue  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:56:05am

Gotta run some errands. BBIAB.

Stay groovy, Lizards.

272 BARACK THE VOTE  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:56:32am

re: #267 ggt

I'm having trouble doing a vanity search in the links. To find your own posts it is user:__ggt, or is it one _ or is it something entirely different?

Thanks, in advance for your help!

I thought it was just user:ggt ?

273 Guanxi88  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:56:37am

re: #270 wrenchwench

Oh, good. Thought maybe I'd finally become unhinged and started seeing SEEKRIT MESSAGES at LGF.

274 Guanxi88  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:56:53am

re: #271 austin_blue

Gotta run some errands. BBIAB.

Stay groovy, Lizards.

Raining by you? It's raining in 78704

275 Killgore Trout  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:57:08am

re: #266 iceweasel

Thanks for reposting that.

276 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:57:36am

re: #272 iceweasel

I thought it was just user:ggt ?

I just tried that and it didn't work either.

277 wrenchwench  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:57:54am

re: #267 ggt

I'm having trouble doing a vanity search in the links. To find your own posts it is user:__ggt, or is it one _ or is it something entirely different?

Thanks, in advance for your help!

put just your nic in the "filter" box in the linkviewer, then click "apply filter", or narrow it down with the date range thingy.

278 Bloodnok  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:00:35pm

re: #276 ggt

I just tried that and it didn't work either.

Try Ice's suggestion with no spaces. It should work (make sure to click "comments" instead of "articles" or whatever the default is set at).

279 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:01:08pm

re: #277 wrenchwench

put just your nic in the "filter" box in the linkviewer, then click "apply filter", or narrow it down with the date range thingy.

yep, that worked. I thought that it would get every possible "ggt" if for some reason, my nick was mentioned in a comment or something. I wanted only the ones I posted, but it seemed to work.

thanks!

280 AtadOFF  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:02:17pm

Creationists have data? huh!

281 Guanxi88  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:03:11pm

re: #280 AtadOFF

Creationists have data? huh!

Oh, they do. The quality of some of it, however, is a different matter, as is their interpretation and analysis.

282 Bloodnok  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:04:21pm

re: #281 Guanxi88

Oh, they do. The quality of some of it, however, is a different matter, as is their interpretation and analysis.

But apart from that they're really doing a bang-up job. /

283 Charles Johnson  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:04:27pm

re: #263 RRFan

My opinion on global warming is the same as Freeman Dyson. And there is a name for settled science. It is called religion.

So you appeal to the authority of a scientist, in the same post with a smear against science.

A perfect example of the self-debunking comment.

284 Racer X  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:04:58pm

I like it warm. I refuse to live anywhere that gets colder than my refrigerator. The question is how do we adapt to Global Warming? Because I highly doubt we will be able to reverse GW anytime soon.

285 Dante41  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:05:22pm

OT: Ahmadinejad found to have a Jewish past


Link

286 Charles Johnson  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:05:57pm

I'm really skeptical about that "Ahmadinejad is Jewish" story. It doesn't smell right to me.

287 Gus  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:05:58pm

re: #280 AtadOFF

Creationists have data? huh!

Yeah, negative data. They can't "see it" but they say "it's there." Since you can't prove the non-existence of "what's not there" they claim victory or something.

That and some petrified brains, coal, and the Creationist Banana ™.

//

288 Guanxi88  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:06:23pm

re: #285 Dante41

OT: Ahmadinejad found to have a Jewish past

Link

Aha! that proves it! My tribe really IS behind the tensions in the Mid-East! Bibi, you magnificent bastard! How did you get one of our guys at the helm in Iran?

289 Guanxi88  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:08:16pm

re: #286 Charles

I'm really skeptical about that "Ahmadinejad is Jewish" story. It doesn't smell right to me.

It may be a sort of psyop, just some whackiness, or simply a case of a jewish name in a non-jewish place, or there may be something to it. It's an amusing story, regardless.

290 Guanxi88  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:09:19pm

re: #287 Gus 802

Yeah, negative data. They can't "see it" but they say "it's there." Since you can't prove the non-existence of "what's not there" they claim victory or something.

That and some petrified brains, coal, and the Creationist Banana ™.

//

I love the petrified brain! That one kicks ass!

Follow this link to the worst web-page ever designed: [Link: www.petrifiedhumanbrain.com...]

291 Captain America 1776  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:09:19pm

For further reading, check out this link:

[Link: www.financialpost.com...]

"I get exasperated with fellow academics, and others who ought to know better, who pile on to the supposed global warming consensus without bothering to investigate any of the glaring scientific discrepancies and procedural flaws. Over the coming few years, as the costs of global warming policies mount and the evidence of a crisis continues to collapse, perhaps it will become socially permissible for people to start thinking for themselves again."

Read more: [Link: www.financialpost.com...]

292 Killgore Trout  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:09:24pm

Daily Show: Tea Partiers Advise G20 Protesters (video)
"Stay on message or I'll shoot you in the face with Jesus"
lol

293 Racer X  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:09:28pm

re: #285 Dante41

From your link:

Benjamin Netanyahu made an impassioned denunciation of the Iranian leader at the same UN summit. "Yesterday, the man who calls the Holocaust a lie spoke from this podium," he said. "A mere six decades after the Holocaust, you give legitimacy to a man who denies the murder of six million Jews while promising to wipe out the State of Israel, the State of the Jews. What a disgrace. What a mockery of the charter of the United Nations."

Ouch!

I sense another resolution against Israel is in the works.

294 swamprat  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:10:09pm

re: #263 RRFan

Karma: 1
Registered since: Aug 28, 2007 at 5:57 pm
(Logged in)
No. of comments posted: 3
No. of links posted: 0
Recent comments
Close this window

Say! Do you know Winnd54?

Karma: 15
Registered since: Mar 21, 2008 at 10:45 am
(Logged in)

No. of comments posted: 20
No. of links posted: 0

295 Killgore Trout  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:10:12pm

try that one again...
Daily Show: Tea Partiers Advise G20 Protesters (video)
"Stay on message or I'll shoot you in the face with Jesus"
lol

296 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:10:15pm

re: #290 Guanxi88

I love the petrified brain! That one kicks ass!

Follow this link to the worst web-page ever designed: [Link: www.petrifiedhumanbrain.com...]

Ugh!

297 Dante41  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:10:38pm

re: #286 Charles

I'm really skeptical about that "Ahmadinejad is Jewish" story. It doesn't smell right to me.

Maybe. It is still interesting. I have a feeling that he will be feeling some heat from the Ayatollahs for a few days at least even if it isn't true.

298 RRFan  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:10:40pm

Science is always open to new facts and therefore can never be settled. BTW: The component of the atmosphere most responsible for the green house effect is not carbon dioxide.

299 Guanxi88  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:11:56pm

re: #296 ggt

Ugh!

Yeah! Ain't that a beauty?

300 Ojoe  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:12:42pm

re: #207 soxfan4life

"America needs a much better brand than what either party is selling."

Yes, how can you have a middle class without a middle party?

Now I've probably posted this too many times, but Charles has these open registrations, so:

Modern Whig Party

301 Dante41  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:13:49pm

re: #293 Racer X

From your link:

Ouch!

I sense another resolution against Israel is in the works.

I don't know. Didn't like three quarters of the countries present walk out on Ahmadinnerjacket's speech?

302 Dan G.  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:14:19pm

re: #298 RRFan

Theories (i.e. explanations) might not be settled, but new facts cannot negate old ones.

So, is evolution a religion?

303 Racer X  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:14:38pm

re: #290 Guanxi88

I love the petrified brain! That one kicks ass!

Follow this link to the worst web-page ever designed: [Link: www.petrifiedhumanbrain.com...]

That link is gold mine of stupid.

304 Cato the Elder  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:14:48pm

re: #286 Charles

I'm really skeptical about that "Ahmadinejad is Jewish" story. It doesn't smell right to me.

I'm sure the 48-hour rule applies.

On the other hand, if it's true, it would be fun if he and Kejda ended up visiting Israel on the same Birthright tour...

305 Guanxi88  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:15:13pm

re: #303 Racer X

That link is gold mine of stupid.

Yes, a never-failing bran tub of pseudo-scientific quackery.

306 Pianobuff  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:15:41pm

re: #290 Guanxi88

I love the petrified brain! That one kicks ass!

Follow this link to the worst web-page ever designed: [Link: www.petrifiedhumanbrain.com...]

About halfway down are a couple of shots of what I've always pictured Justin and his Dad to look like.

307 Ojoe  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:16:18pm

re: #201 austin_blue

Energy sources will all have to renewable eventually.
The longer we delay making the transition, the more traumatic it will be.

308 Dante41  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:16:22pm

re: #290 Guanxi88

I love the petrified brain! That one kicks ass!

Follow this link to the worst web-page ever designed: [Link: www.petrifiedhumanbrain.com...]

Worse than the Timecube guy?

309 Charles Johnson  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:16:48pm

re: #290 Guanxi88

I love the petrified brain! That one kicks ass!

Follow this link to the worst web-page ever designed: [Link: www.petrifiedhumanbrain.com...]

LGF: Creation Scientists Display Fabulous Find - Update: The Discovery Institute's Next Scheme

310 Pianobuff  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:17:32pm

OT: For those sweating it out, the Hawkeyes just won.

311 wrenchwench  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:18:26pm

re: #309 Charles

LGF: Creation Scientists Display Fabulous Find - Update: The Discovery Institute's Next Scheme

Isn't Tim Blair using that brain now?

312 Gus  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:18:49pm

re: #290 Guanxi88

I love the petrified brain! That one kicks ass!

Follow this link to the worst web-page ever designed: [Link: www.petrifiedhumanbrain.com...]

There it is! I haven't seen that website in almost a year. I'm surprised they don't sell gold coins and water filters at that site.

313 Achilles Tang  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:19:04pm

re: #1 _RememberTonyC

Maybe it's true, but I need more convincing.

Then spend more time researching (not cherry picking) instead of waiting for people to come to you.

314 Cato the Elder  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:19:06pm

re: #290 Guanxi88

I love the petrified brain! That one kicks ass!

Follow this link to the worst web-page ever designed: [Link: www.petrifiedhumanbrain.com...]

My favorite bit of science there: "Research is currently ongoing to determine the degree of inactive cellular activity."

You noes, like inactive volcanic activity...

315 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:19:26pm

re: #312 Gus 802

There it is! I haven't seen that website in almost a year. I'm surprised they don't sell gold coins and water filters at that site.

How do they "know" it's a human brain?

316 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:19:54pm

re: #314 Cato the Elder

My favorite bit of science there: "Research is currently ongoing to determine the degree of inactive cellular activity."

You noes, like inactive volcanic activity...

OMG!

317 Charles Johnson  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:19:57pm

re: #314 Cato the Elder

My favorite bit of science there: "Research is currently ongoing to determine the degree of inactive cellular activity."

You noes, like inactive volcanic activity...

Hey, don't laugh. Inactive activity is the most active kind of inactivity.

318 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:20:33pm

re: #314 Cato the Elder

My favorite bit of science there: "Research is currently ongoing to determine the degree of inactive cellular activity."

You noes, like inactive volcanic activity...

Maybe it's just in some form of stasis waiting for the messiah.

/

319 Racer X  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:20:35pm

re: #317 Charles

Hey, don't laugh. Inactive activity is the most active kind of inactivity.

My brain hurts.

320 Ojoe  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:20:55pm

re: #214 winnd54

Perhaps the best outcome would be to slow it way way down, & not reverse it, because the Earth has been having these glacial episodes & if those swings continue, during the cold interval Canada is under ice, and the ice sheets come down into Ohio.

321 Guanxi88  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:21:13pm

re: #309 Charles

LGF: Creation Scientists Display Fabulous Find - Update: The Discovery Institute's Next Scheme

Read this exchange from the page:

Dr. Frederick Trexler, Phd. Geology, Physics
" Your work on the Petrified Human Brain appears to be thorough and convincing that it is an amazing find. You have convinced me that there exists conditions for rapid fossilization, and that this is a young fossil.

However, this evidence does not prove that the Earth must be young. It does help to establish that Adam's descendants are young on an old earth. The Bible does not claim an age for the Earth, it is an assumption made by YEC in interpreting Genesis

1. Your website would better serve the case for faith in Christ if you did not try to force the false logic that this young fossil implies a young Earth. God does His work in faithfulness and truth, He does not try to fool us by putting false evidences for an old Earth in the sedimentary rocks."

Thank you Dr. Trexler. Although I am totally convinced the universe and all things in it were created in a six day, six thousand year creation by the Diety, Jesus, I have learned a lot from your words. We must seek truth...in an honest fashion.
In keeping with this statement, I have come to realize I must reevaluate the presentation of some of the materials on this site.

I completely agree that these materials must be captioned as unbiased as humanly possible. To this end, I believe the most will be accomplished for mankind with this fossil.

It is my position to present facts as clearly as possible.

It is the job of others better suited, to debate the spiritual or physical meanings of those facts in relations to the materials on this site.

Everyones beliefs are clinically referred to as biases. For the sake of this fossil and what it will mean, I will be more cautious in the future."

That's some funny stuff right there.

322 Racer X  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:21:36pm

re: #319 Racer X

My brain hurts.

Probably from being inactive.

323 Gus  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:22:01pm

re: #315 ggt

How do they "know" it's a human brain?

Dr. Suzanne Vincent sez it iz teh brain.

She's affiliated with Oral Roberts University.

Some say they've confused it with their own brains.

324 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:22:09pm

re: #321 Guanxi88

Read this exchange from the page:

Dr. Frederick Trexler, Phd. Geology, Physics
" Your work on the Petrified Human Brain appears to be thorough and convincing that it is an amazing find. You have convinced me that there exists conditions for rapid fossilization, and that this is a young fossil.

However, this evidence does not prove that the Earth must be young. It does help to establish that Adam's descendants are young on an old earth. The Bible does not claim an age for the Earth, it is an assumption made by YEC in interpreting Genesis

1. Your website would better serve the case for faith in Christ if you did not try to force the false logic that this young fossil implies a young Earth. God does His work in faithfulness and truth, He does not try to fool us by putting false evidences for an old Earth in the sedimentary rocks."

Thank you Dr. Trexler. Although I am totally convinced the universe and all things in it were created in a six day, six thousand year creation by the Diety, Jesus, I have learned a lot from your words. We must seek truth...in an honest fashion.
In keeping with this statement, I have come to realize I must reevaluate the presentation of some of the materials on this site.

I completely agree that these materials must be captioned as unbiased as humanly possible. To this end, I believe the most will be accomplished for mankind with this fossil.

It is my position to present facts as clearly as possible.

It is the job of others better suited, to debate the spiritual or physical meanings of those facts in relations to the materials on this site.

Everyones beliefs are clinically referred to as biases. For the sake of this fossil and what it will mean, I will be more cautious in the future."

That's some funny stuff right there.

I think I'm going to vomit. Some levels of stupid are just repulsive.

325 Occasional Reader  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:22:50pm

re: #315 ggt

How do they "know" it's a human brain?

Because the inactive activity is IDENTICAL to human inactive activity.

/

326 Cato the Elder  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:23:01pm

re: #266 iceweasel

Riehl's inability not to capitalize the word mother tells me all I need to know about his own psychology.

Hey, if Lacan could diagnose people over the phone, I can do it on the interwebs, no?

327 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:23:14pm

re: #325 Occasional Reader

Because the inactive activity is IDENTICAL to human inactive activity.

/

ah!

328 Occasional Reader  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:23:33pm

Brain, brain, what is brain?!

329 Guanxi88  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:23:52pm

re: #326 Cato the Elder

Riehl's inability not to capitalize the word mother tells me all I need to know about his own psychology.

Hey, if Lacan could diagnose people over the phone, I can do it on the interwebs, no?

Don't forget, Cayce could diagnose by letter or telegram. Top that!

330 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:23:57pm

I think it's some art students first fired clay project.

331 Ojoe  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:24:07pm

re: #321 Guanxi88

Well it is an incomplete question to ask how old the earth is, because time is not really separate from space; no wonder they are having a hard time with finding an answer.

332 Racer X  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:24:11pm

re: #328 Occasional Reader

Brain, brain, what is brain?!

Nourishment.
- Zombie

333 Cato the Elder  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:24:48pm

re: #263 RRFan

My opinion on global warming is the same as Freeman Dyson. And there is a name for settled science. It is called religion.

If you're going to cite Freeman Dyson - as interesting a thinker as I've ever read - you might include a link. I, for one, have no idea what his "opinion" on global warming is.

Put up or shut up.

334 Kosh's Shadow  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:25:34pm

re: #321 Guanxi88

Read this exchange from the page:

Dr. Frederick Trexler, Phd. Geology, Physics
" Your work on the Petrified Human Brain appears to be thorough and convincing that it is an amazing find. You have convinced me that there exists conditions for rapid fossilization, and that this is a young fossil.

However, this evidence does not prove that the Earth must be young. It does help to establish that Adam's descendants are young on an old earth. The Bible does not claim an age for the Earth, it is an assumption made by YEC in interpreting Genesis

1. Your website would better serve the case for faith in Christ if you did not try to force the false logic that this young fossil implies a young Earth. God does His work in faithfulness and truth, He does not try to fool us by putting false evidences for an old Earth in the sedimentary rocks."

Thank you Dr. Trexler. Although I am totally convinced the universe and all things in it were created in a six day, six thousand year creation by the Diety, Jesus, I have learned a lot from your words. We must seek truth...in an honest fashion.
In keeping with this statement, I have come to realize I must reevaluate the presentation of some of the materials on this site.

I completely agree that these materials must be captioned as unbiased as humanly possible. To this end, I believe the most will be accomplished for mankind with this fossil.

It is my position to present facts as clearly as possible.

It is the job of others better suited, to debate the spiritual or physical meanings of those facts in relations to the materials on this site.

Everyones beliefs are clinically referred to as biases. For the sake of this fossil and what it will mean, I will be more cautious in the future."

That's some funny stuff right there.

Kind of funny that even by the young earth standards, Jesus didn't exist for about 5000 years, so how could he have created everything? The Christians believe his father created everything; Jews do not believe Jesus was divine.

335 Guanxi88  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:25:57pm

re: #331 Ojoe

Well it is an incomplete question to ask how old the earth is, because time is not really separate from space; no wonder they are having a hard time with finding an answer.

Why make it any worse for them by dragging in additional complications?

336 Semper Fi  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:26:19pm

re: #84 Ojoe

We just might be staving off the next ice age.

On this topic, here in an amazing time lapse video of the smoke rising off the San Gabriel Mountains during the Station Fire a few weeks ago.

Thank you. The time lapse video is really impressive.

337 Occasional Reader  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:26:57pm

re: #334 Kosh's Shadow

Kind of funny that even by the young earth standards, Jesus didn't exist for about 5000 years, so how could he have created everything? The Christians believe his father created everything; Jews do not believe Jesus was divine.

In principle, Jesus and "his father" are not exactly separate and distinct entities in Christian theology, of course.

338 Dante41  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:27:10pm

re: #334 Kosh's Shadow

Kind of funny that even by the young earth standards, Jesus didn't exist for about 5000 years, so how could he have created everything? The Christians believe his father created everything; Jews do not believe Jesus was divine.

You expect them to actually know and understand their religion?

339 Ojoe  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:27:13pm

re: #335 Guanxi88

Here's another one for them: At light speed, time stops.

This means that for a light particle, the universe is infinitely small and always brand new.

So I think.

340 Guanxi88  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:27:33pm

re: #334 Kosh's Shadow

Kind of funny that even by the young earth standards, Jesus didn't exist for about 5000 years, so how could he have created everything? The Christians believe his father created everything; Jews do not believe Jesus was divine.

As I understand Christian trinitarianism, Jesus and the Lord are one, and therefore, Jesus was there from before the beginning. I've heard that the prophets saying "the word of the Lord" is, or can be, interpreted to mean that they saw, heard, or spoke with, Jesus.

341 Guanxi88  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:28:19pm

re: #339 Ojoe

Here's another one for them: At light speed, time stops.

This means that for a light particle, the universe is infinitely small and always brand new.

So I think.

Like life in a small town.

342 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:28:30pm

re: #340 Guanxi88

As I understand Christian trinitarianism, Jesus and the Lord are one, and therefore, Jesus was there from before the beginning. I've heard that the prophets saying "the word of the Lord" is, or can be, interpreted to mean that they saw, heard, or spoke with, Jesus.

don't ask me, I'm Catholic.

343 Occasional Reader  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:28:31pm

re: #337 Occasional Reader

In principle, Jesus and "his father" are not exactly separate and distinct entities in Christian theology, of course.

(Not that I'm saying the concept actually makes sense to me, mind you.)

344 Guanxi88  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:29:25pm

re: #342 ggt

don't ask me, I'm Catholic.

Hell, as a Catholic, you'd be the one I'd go to - you guys have got Aquinas in your corner., and he was no slouch.

345 Dan G.  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:29:41pm

re: #333 Cato the Elder

I believe that Dyson was more against the catestrophism that is typically predicted than whether it is or is not happening. (i.e. “the fact that the climate is getting warmer doesn’t scare me at all” --F.D.) He seems to acknowledge that the atmosphere is warming, but doesn't believe that it is the end of the world.

The Civil Heretic

346 RRFan  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:30:02pm

Freeman Dyson Link:
[Link: www.edge.org...]

My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak. But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models.

HERETICAL THOUGHTS ABOUT SCIENCE AND SOCIETY [8.8.07]
By Freeman Dyson

347 Ojoe  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:30:08pm

re: #341 Guanxi88

LOL !

348 Randall Gross  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:30:14pm

re: #125 bluecheese

Indeed...

My point is that we can go forward with wind powered ships... right now.

It's not realistic. Modern urban transport requires fast shipping, the fastest tea clipper of yesteryear really can't compete well with modern superfreighters, otherwise there would be fleets of them all over.

349 Kosh's Shadow  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:30:39pm

re: #337 Occasional Reader

In principle, Jesus and "his father" are not exactly separate and distinct entities in Christian theology, of course.

Thank you.

350 Occasional Reader  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:30:56pm

I don't know why Dyson is being cited here. What does a guy who invents vacuum cleaners know about global warming?!

//

351 Ojoe  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:31:08pm

re: #336 Semper Fi

You're welcome.

352 Charles Johnson  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:31:14pm

re: #346 RRFan

Freeman Dyson Link...

Sure, but what does he know? He's obviously just blinded by the religion of science.

353 Dan G.  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:31:29pm

re: #346 RRFan

So, again, are you going to explain that science = religion claim, or just bravely run away?

354 Kosh's Shadow  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:31:41pm

re: #339 Ojoe

Here's another one for them: At light speed, time stops.

This means that for a light particle, the universe is infinitely small and always brand new.

So I think.

You are correct. Your prize is a photon, if you can catch it and keep it.

BTW, this is true of all massless particles, as they all travel at the speed of light.

355 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:32:31pm

As I've come to understand the concept of the "Trinity":

We are all G-d's children and therefore have the Divine within us. We were given free will, with that free will we have the choice to work to be in constant contact with the Divine. Jesus was a man who was born in "full" contact and lived his life accordingly. An example if what we can all be if we choose to live according to G-d's will for us.

/ (or follow the Church's rules--as interpreted by man)

Now as to the Holy Spirit?

Don't ask me, I'm Catholic.

356 debutaunt  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:32:47pm

Charles, thank you for your kind consideration.

357 funky chicken  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:32:50pm

re: #253 HoosierHoops

Yea..Hi blue
Nuclear Energy...I'm holding off on my opinion here...You just don't build Nuclear power plants...
We as a nation lack the training and education to run nuclear power plants..
I trust the US Navy and the French in Nuclear power Engineering...The private industry takes shortcuts in engineering and Safety and disposal...Ask any Naval Nuclear Officer what they think about the American Private nuclear Industry and you will get laughed at...
We need to start training students for at least 10 years to become real engineers...
/When was the last time you met a college grad that said..Hey mom and Dad I can run a Nuclear power plant? Didn't think so..We need to plan ahead before America become Nuclear...Otherwise..Employ the Navy or the French to run reactors...

there's plenty of retired navy nuke specialists...

358 Ojoe  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:33:08pm

re: #354 Kosh's Shadow

I can't stand neutrinos.


LOL


BBL

359 BenghaziHoops  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:33:13pm

re: #352 Charles

Sure, but what does he know? He's obviously just blinded by the religion of science.

Blinded by science?
/Hi Charles..How is the weather out there..My Daughter has been bitching about the heat last week up in NorCal.

360 Kosh's Shadow  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:33:32pm

re: #348 Thanos

It's not realistic. Modern urban transport requires fast shipping, the fastest tea clipper of yesteryear really can't compete well with modern superfreighters, otherwise there would be fleets of them all over.

Actually, sailing vessels require a lot of manpower as well, making them expensive to operate. Modern diesels are fairly fuel-efficient compared with steamships of the past.

361 reine.de.tout  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:34:36pm

re: #337 Occasional Reader

In principle, Jesus and "his father" are not exactly separate and distinct entities in Christian theology, of course.

True, however: my "brand" of Christianity makes a distinction between those things accomplished by God the Father, and the Son Jesus.

I've often found it odd that some Christians make reference to Jesus continuously, and rarely mention God the Father.

362 Occasional Reader  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:34:42pm

re: #358 Ojoe

I can't stand neutrinos.

I'm suspicious of them, myself. I understand that the State Department has been completely penetrated by neutrinos.

363 Kosh's Shadow  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:34:45pm

re: #358 Ojoe

I can't stand neutrinos.

LOL

BBL

Actually, neutrinos have a very small mass.
But don't worry, they don't like you either. Huge numbers are passing through you right now, but practically none are staying.

364 Dante41  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:35:22pm

re: #348 Thanos

It's not realistic. Modern urban transport requires fast shipping, the fastest tea clipper of yesteryear really can't compete well with modern superfreighters, otherwise there would be fleets of them all over.

Speed isn't the biggest issue. There is know way wind power could move the current size of cargo ships on the ocean. Wind just can't power a 100,000 grt bulker faster than 2 knots.

And even then, it doesn't have the reliability of diesel. Plus, they are enacting stricter pollution requirements for marine diesels. By like 2020, the amount of sulfur pollution from diesels should be minimum. The carbon pollution, I am not sure.

365 BenghaziHoops  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:35:28pm

re: #357 funky chicken

there's plenty of retired navy nuke specialists...

You betcha! World Class Nuclear Engineers...

366 MandyManners  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:35:30pm

re: #350 Occasional Reader

I don't know why Dyson is being cited here. What does a guy who invents vacuum cleaners know about global warming?!

//

That sucks.

367 Occasional Reader  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:35:41pm

re: #360 Kosh's Shadow

Actually, sailing vessels require a lot of manpower as well,

Manly, masculine manpower!

-"The Raging Queen", SNL skit, circa 1978

368 Guanxi88  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:35:56pm

re: #363 Kosh's Shadow

Actually, neutrinos have a very small mass.
But don't worry, they don't like you either. Huge numbers are passing through you right now, but practically none are staying.

I recall a cartoon from Scientific American, probably 20 years ago. Showed people running around, holding bags, newspapers, pots and such over their heads, and in absolute screaming panic. Caption: "Spreading misinformation about the mass of neutrinos"

369 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:36:16pm

re: #366 MandyManners

That sucks.

For what it costs, it' better!

370 Guanxi88  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:36:30pm

re: #367 Occasional Reader

Manly, masculine manpower!

-"The Raging Queen", SNL skit, circa 1978

With Eric Idle; proving, once more, that it all comes back to Monty Python.

371 Dante41  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:37:11pm

re: #360 Kosh's Shadow

Actually, sailing vessels require a lot of manpower as well, making them expensive to operate. Modern diesels are fairly fuel-efficient compared with steamships of the past.

Also true. If you ran a shipping company, which would you rather use: A 200 man giant sailing ship, or the 10 man diesel?

372 Kosh's Shadow  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:37:32pm

re: #367 Occasional Reader

Manly, masculine manpower!

-"The Raging Queen", SNL skit, circa 1978

That ship didn't make the most efficient use of manpower, IIRC.
I believe they had punishment for 8 hours, sailed for 2, and had more punishment. The crew would mutiny if they had less punishment.

373 Occasional Reader  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:37:40pm

re: #370 Guanxi88

With Eric Idle; proving, once more, that it all comes back to Monty Python.

"Why can't we ALL 'comfort' Miles?"

374 Guanxi88  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:38:14pm

re: #373 Occasional Reader

"Why can't we ALL 'comfort' Miles?"

"Nothing unmanly in that."

375 Kosh's Shadow  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:38:28pm

re: #370 Guanxi88

With Eric Idle; proving, once more, that it all comes back to Monty Python.

Michael Palin

376 Guanxi88  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:38:48pm

re: #375 Kosh's Shadow

Michael Palin

Palin, again? Can;t we ever get rid of that pesky clan?

377 reine.de.tout  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:39:13pm

re: #355 ggt

As I've come to understand the concept of the "Trinity":

We are all G-d's children and therefore have the Divine within us. We were given free will, with that free will we have the choice to work to be in constant contact with the Divine. Jesus was a man who was born in "full" contact and lived his life accordingly. An example if what we can all be if we choose to live according to G-d's will for us.

/ (or follow the Church's rules--as interpreted by man)

Now as to the Holy Spirit?

Don't ask me, I'm Catholic.

Heh.
Fr Bob Guste explains the Holy Spirit in this book.
If you're interested.

378 Occasional Reader  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:39:46pm

re: #366 MandyManners

That sucks.

O,reck my post, why don't you, go right ahead.

379 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:40:03pm

re: #377 reine.de.tout

Heh.
Fr Bob Guste explains the Holy Spirit in this book.
If you're interested.

Ugh, put it in the Book Links for future reference.

:)

380 Gus  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:40:26pm

re: #346 RRFan

You might want to listen to this video. Advance to 1:29 and you will find Dyson's concerns regarding the Arctic region.

Dyson argues for land management, irrigation, and forest management as a means for controlling carbon dioxide. Forest and land management would deal with deforestation issues.

381 Kosh's Shadow  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:41:05pm

re: #378 Occasional Reader

O,reck my post, why don't you, go right ahead.

Hoo, ver-y good pun.

382 Randall Gross  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:41:19pm

re: #360 Kosh's Shadow

Actually, sailing vessels require a lot of manpower as well, making them expensive to operate. Modern diesels are fairly fuel-efficient compared with steamships of the past.

Not so much anymore, there are "robotic" sail ships controlled by computer now. But you are correct that large versions capable of carrying the bulk of freight needed would need more crew.

Many environmentalists forget that all food is a form of hydrocarbon energy too, and that it was our very first fuel source. Of course in the days when we just had food and wood as fuel sources slavery was not uncommon.

383 reine.de.tout  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:41:54pm

re: #379 ggt

Ugh, put it in the Book Links for future reference.

:)

OK. You sure? Why the"Ugh"?

384 debutaunt  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:41:55pm

re: #378 Occasional Reader

O,reck my post, why don't you, go right ahead.

Kick it to the Kirby.

385 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:42:33pm

re: #383 reine.de.tout

OK. You sure? Why the"Ugh"?

sounds like I'd really have to engage my brain --that's been hard lately.

386 Guanxi88  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:42:40pm

re: #382 Thanos

Not so much anymore, there are "robotic" sail ships controlled by computer now. But you are correct that large versions capable of carrying the bulk of freight needed would need more crew.

Many environmentalists forget that all food is a form of hydrocarbon energy too, and that it was our very first fuel source. Of course in the days when we just had food and wood as fuel sources slavery was not uncommon.

I've come across references to the hydrocarbon economy as simply an analogue to the classical use of slave labor; untenable, in the long run, as everything is, but far worse in our case, as the equivalent labor power we derive from these fuels is quite high.

387 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:43:09pm

I have chores to do.

Have a great afternoon, Lizards!

388 Occasional Reader  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:43:16pm

re: #382 Thanos

there are "robotic" sail ships controlled by computer now

"Jibe the mainsail, HAL."

I'm afraid I can't do that, Dave.

389 Randall Gross  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:43:27pm

Gov Nexus is going to go berserk:

[Link: online.wsj.com...]

390 funky chicken  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:43:45pm

re: #371 Dante41

Also true. If you ran a shipping company, which would you rather use: A 200 man giant sailing ship, or the 10 man diesel?

It would make things more difficult for Somali pirates though :-).

391 Occasional Reader  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:44:08pm

re: #384 debutaunt

Kick it to the Kirby.

Eureka! I've discovered a great debutaunt post!

392 reine.de.tout  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:44:53pm

re: #385 ggt

sounds like I'd really have to engage my brain --that's been hard lately.

OH. No. Easy to read, not some long complicated thing at all. And all you need is the last chapter, anyhow.

393 debutaunt  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:44:54pm

re: #391 Occasional Reader

Ya made me laugh again!

394 Racer X  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:45:07pm

re: #378 Occasional Reader

O,reck my post, why don't you, go right ahead.

Dirty Devil.

395 Occasional Reader  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:45:11pm

re: #386 Guanxi88

I've come across references to the hydrocarbon economy as simply an analogue to the classical use of slave labor; untenable, in the long run, as everything is, but far worse in our case, as the equivalent labor power we derive from these fuels is quite high.

I'm having a little trouble with that analogy, to be frank.

396 BenghaziHoops  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:45:25pm

re: #388 Occasional Reader

"Jibe the mainsail, HAL."

I'm afraid I can't do that, Dave.

Hey you...Oct. 2005 I flew to San Diego for a week vacation to learn how to sail a boat.. Maybe the most fun week of my life...Sailing is so much fun

397 Occasional Reader  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:47:05pm

re: #396 HoosierHoops

Hey you...Oct. 2005 I flew to San Diego for a week vacation to learn how to sail a boat.. Maybe the most fun week of my life...Sailing is so much fun

I can sail reasonably well, but am a little out of practice.

398 Occasional Reader  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:47:49pm

Later.

399 _RememberTonyC  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:48:24pm

re: #151 cenotaphium

So.. basically you're saying you can attack him as a dimwitted fool driven by guilt, unless I show you proof that he isn't?

Is this along the lines of that article about attacking the murdered census worker for being a child molester (perhaps possibly show me he isn't)?

I rarely downding anyone but you just got really close. In your mind, my skepticism about an unsettled issue and my mistrust of a media personality's motives make me the equivalent of someone who condones murder. Get a fucking grip, rookie.

400 ryannon  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:48:41pm

re: #67 Rascal One

I remember when the whole "catch and release" craze came about and after decades now of it, we have the same fish population that we had when we kept and ate everything we caught.

As opposed to no fish at all.

401 MandyManners  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:48:50pm

re: #395 Occasional Reader

I'm having a little trouble with that analogy, to be frank.

I don't know beans about that topic.

402 Cato the Elder  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:49:11pm

re: #345 Dan G.

I believe that Dyson was more against the catestrophism that is typically predicted than whether it is or is not happening. (i.e. “the fact that the climate is getting warmer doesn’t scare me at all” --F.D.) He seems to acknowledge that the atmosphere is warming, but doesn't believe that it is the end of the world.

The Civil Heretic

Good read.

Climate change doesn't scare me either. It is what it is. And deniers will have no effect on it. The ones who scare me are the climate-change hysterics, who see this as the main chance of their lives to impose their ideas about society on the entire rest of the world. The eco-fascists.

What will save us from that is human inertia. You simply cannot scare people into action with the predicted track of a hurricane that's two weeks off. Thank God. Hurricanes rarely stay on track for two days, even.

So, the hockey stick may be valid, but shaking it in my face is not going to make me go live in a yurt.

403 Charles Johnson  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:49:59pm

re: #359 HoosierHoops

Blinded by science?
/Hi Charles..How is the weather out there..My Daughter has been bitching about the heat last week up in NorCal.

Weather's perfect right now in CA.

404 Guanxi88  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:51:19pm

re: #395 Occasional Reader

I'm having a little trouble with that analogy, to be frank.

"The energy the world currently gets from fossil fuels is equivalent to having 22 billion slaves working for us. That's around three slaves for every person on earth, without taking into account that the Western world uses a hugely disproportionate share of the earth's resources, whilst many people in the developing world have no access to fossil fuel energy."

Exclude the immorality of slavery itself from the discussion, and it becomes somewhat easier.

The theory is that the standard of living in the classical world was largely dependent upon the cheap and abundant labor of slaves, who provided an excellent return, in work, for the comparatively small amounts of energy required to maintain them. Grain + slave = work, with the slave, in effect, a solar-powered machine; it was possible, therefore, to increase productive output by simply taking on another slave, provided one had the grain to feed him

The idea is that the hydro-carbon economy is doing much the same thing, albeit far more efficiently than in the classical world.

405 Dante41  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:51:20pm

re: #390 funky chicken

It would make things more difficult for Somali pirates though :-).

Not especially. We would just return to the pirating days of old, with larger ships.

406 cenotaphium  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:52:00pm

re: #399 _RememberTonyC

I rarely downding anyone but you just got really close. In your mind, my skepticism about an unsettled issue and my mistrust of a media personality's motives make me the equivalent of someone who condones murder. Get a fucking grip, rookie.

You just rephrased both accounts. That's like twice the amount of rephrasing you did in the last comment.

I am completely in awe.

Or, maybe you completely missed the point about using the same kind of empty accusations to further your narrative point? I'm not saying you did it with malice, but maybe you did. And not just with malice, perhaps it's all a conspiracy by the moon people. I haven't seen any evidence that it's not.

407 RRFan  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:52:24pm

Settled Science = religion

Settled means that no new facts will change the outcome and that all reasonable people believe that it it true. There are numerous qualified and reasonable people (i.e. Freeman Dyson, Joe Bastardi - AccuWeather, etc.) who do not believe that global warming is settled. Therefore it is not settled. Global warming may be correct, but it is not settled

408 doubter4444  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:55:36pm

re: #80 funky chicken

Correct. I'd love to have an electric car, but right now it's kinda stupid since my electric utility burns coal to make the electricity. That's not exactly "green" power.

I'd buy a natural gas powered vehicle in a heartbeat since I now live in OK, which has huge natural gas reserves. The fuel would come from the local area, could be refined locally, and distributed locally. Zero megatankers, zero costs to transport fuel half way around the world, etc.

Perhaps GW Bush's greatest failure was that he didn't use the bully pulpit and executive power in the wake of 9/11 to jump start that kind of technology and energy distribution system...but he was in the Saud's pockets. damn shame


Amen to that.
This is not a Bush bashing, but of all the mistakes people try to blame him for, (most of them unfair and obnoxious), I think the one that will stick decades from now is that, when the opportunity arose to throw off the yoke of oil and coal based energy and really change the paradigm for energy production for the future, he doubled down on petroleum based fuels.
It's almost a cosmic joke that the one time there was the will to really make a change (in the wake of 9/11, 90% approvals and bipartisanship possibilities), we had two short view oil men in charge.
I think that had he said, let's open safe nuclear plants, let's get off foreign oil and conserve our reserves, let's treat energy independence and new fuel research as a Manhattan type project, and pitched it as a national security issue, we'd be living a different world now.

409 Randall Gross  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:55:56pm

re: #407 RRFan

Science and religion are two very different things. Science gives us the best current explanation of the world and universe we can know, Religion gives us speculation on a universe we can't know. Try again.

410 _RememberTonyC  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:56:47pm

re: #406 cenotaphium

You just rephrased both accounts. That's like twice the amount of rephrasing you did in the last comment.

I am completely in awe.

Or, maybe you completely missed the point about using the same kind of empty accusations to further your narrative point? I'm not saying you did it with malice, but maybe you did. And not just with malice, perhaps it's all a conspiracy by the moon people. I haven't seen any evidence that it's not.


Or maybe you're projecting motives onto me that I don't have. You said I called Lauer a dimwitted fool. But I did not. And if you can find where I did, bring it! You seem pretty bright, but your attempt to twist this discussion in your favor is not being done in an intellectually honest way.

411 Dante41  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:57:20pm

re: #409 Thanos

Science and religion are two very different things. Science gives us the best current explanation of the world and universe we can know, Religion gives us speculation on a universe we can't know. Try again.

That is the best description of the distinction between the two I have ever heard. Upding for that.

412 Randall Gross  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 12:57:56pm

re: #407 RRFan

I will give you credit for hitting the thread at the bottom to pimp a standard Discovery Institute talking point hower "Science=Religion".

pfft.

413 Randall Gross  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 1:00:23pm

re: #411 Dante41

Thanks, however I stole it from somewhere but really can't remember where. Maybe Michael Shermer or Eugenie Scott.

414 Mary Garth  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 1:00:26pm

re: #407 RRFan

Settled Science = religion

I think 'settled science' is an oxymoron. Science is always open to new evidence. Some scientific results are so well-founded that we now take them as facts. But even those are open to question if new evidence is found.

415 _RememberTonyC  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 1:02:08pm

heading off to work soon ... so long Lizards

416 debutaunt  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 1:03:06pm

Science changes as more information is discovered and proven one way or the other. Facts and reality, do your thing.

417 Randall Gross  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 1:03:21pm

re: #415 _RememberTonyC

heading off to work soon ... so long Lizards

Have fun, that's what it's all about

418 Dante41  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 1:04:36pm

re: #417 Thanos

Have fun, that's what it's all about

I thought that was the Hokey-Pokey.

419 RRFan  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 1:04:53pm

Science:
In order, Earth's most abundant greenhouse gases are:
* water vapor
* carbon dioxide
* methane
* nitrous oxide
* ozone
* CFCs

When will we start being concerned about the most abundant green house gas? I plan on sequestering water. The science is still out on the contribution of each of these components, but don't worry, everything is settled.

420 Randall Gross  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 1:05:04pm

re: #418 Dante41

I thought that was the Hokey-Pokey.

Well that too!

421 Cato the Elder  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 1:06:15pm

re: #419 RRFan

Science:
In order, Earth's most abundant greenhouse gases are:
* water vapor
* carbon dioxide
* methane
* nitrous oxide
* ozone
* CFCs

When will we start being concerned about the most abundant green house gas? I plan on sequestering water. The science is still out on the contribution of each of these components, but don't worry, everything is settled.

What is settled is that you're an inane bore with a wee little axe to grind. I predict a short future for you here.

422 Dante41  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 1:06:20pm

re: #419 RRFan

Science:
In order, Earth's most abundant greenhouse gases are:
* water vapor
* carbon dioxide
* methane
* nitrous oxide
* ozone
* CFCs

When will we start being concerned about the most abundant green house gas? I plan on sequestering water. The science is still out on the contribution of each of these components, but don't worry, everything is settled.

Did you just list off the major components of the Earth's atmosphere?

423 Guanxi88  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 1:07:23pm

re: #395 Occasional Reader

I'm having a little trouble with that analogy, to be frank.

Here's a good introductory article for the concept, from the 80's yet:

[Link: www.coadengineering.com...]

424 Canadhimmis  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 1:11:03pm

...and the latest claim of the AGW deniers is that the data is not only wrong, but fraudulent.

Charles' statement here implies that AGW is established scientific fact and demonizes those that refute it as being such. Just by using the word denier Charles sets the table with the very same language that we use to characterize the nasty people that deny the Holocaust. Similarly the harsh language Charles employs here tends to give free pass to political groups that use propagandistic and non-empirical science to promote their political agenda to destroy the financial system of Western liberalism.

I don't very often disagree with Charles, but on this particular use of language I definitely do.

.

425 Charles Johnson  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 1:15:17pm

re: #424 Canadhimmis

That's ridiculous. The word "denial" is not exclusively owned by Holocaust deniers. It applies equally well to the people who dishonestly deny and obfuscate the science of climate change.

I'm not going to be guilt-tripped into avoiding that term.

426 Achilles Tang  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 1:16:55pm

re: #315 ggt

How do they "know" it's a human brain?

It's not a brain at all. It's a rock with a superficial resemblance. Can't remember the links.

427 Guanxi88  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 1:17:58pm

re: #426 Naso Tang

It's not a brain at all. It's a rock with a superficial resemblance. Can't remember the links.

Up-thread; the links are up-thread.

428 Randall Gross  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 1:20:10pm

re: #424 Canadhimmis

What are you some kind of language denialist?

429 Achilles Tang  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 1:20:48pm

re: #414 Mary Garth

I think 'settled science' is an oxymoron. Science is always open to new evidence. Some scientific results are so well-founded that we now take them as facts. But even those are open to question if new evidence is found.

So on what basis do you choose to question when you have no evidence nor seek any?

430 cenotaphium  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 1:21:20pm

re: #410 _RememberTonyC

Maybe we're both just shooting past each other?

Let's walk through this.

Walkman's original post stated that a guy named Matt Lauer had been on a TV show and defended his position on AGW in regards to him using a lot of CO2 for an entertainment piece by saying "We bought carbon credits."

You responded:

"good story. it assuaged his guilt, but did not reduce pollution or planetary damage."

I wanted to know where you got the "guilt" bit from, and how you knew buying said credits did nothing. I also remembered your earlier post where you'd said: "Unless I'm misunderstanding things, carbon credits are a license to pollute where the guilty "polluter" pays for his sin." Again, to me, reinforcing a view that the whole thing is based solely on some kind of guilt nonsense.

In response to this you turn the tables and say I should ask him if guilt is an issue and if the guy in question knows what the carbon credits achieved.
Obviously, I don't know either, but the point was how you knew his feelings or what the credits did. I thought this a rather lame rhetorical device.

The rest is pretty much bollocks all around, and the whole thing based on what may have just been a throw-away comment.

In apology to all who are forced to scroll by this I give you Puma Man flying about.

Youtube Video
431 RRFan  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 1:21:58pm

The main components of the atmosphere are nitrogen (78), oxygen (21) and about 1 percent CO2 etc. As for me having a short future: Maybe on LGF, but my science experience goes back to the time when a cubic centimeter was NOT equal to a milliliter.

432 Achilles Tang  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 1:22:06pm

re: #427 Guanxi88

Up-thread; the links are up-thread.

Oh. Ok. Late to the party, but at least my memory is still working.

433 Guanxi88  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 1:22:31pm

re: #432 Naso Tang

Oh. Ok. Late to the party, but at least my memory is still working.

Not petrified, eh?

434 Randall Gross  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 1:23:02pm

re: #431 RRFan

I see you are a master of the obvious who doesn't understand much.

435 Ojoe  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 1:23:29pm

re: #407 RRFan

ho do not believe that global warming is settled. Therefore it is not settled.

Global warming is whatever it is.

Anything unsettled you fine in people's attitudes & beliefs about it.

436 cenotaphium  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 1:23:32pm

re: #424 Canadhimmis

Similarly the harsh language Charles employs here tends to give free pass to political groups that use propagandistic and non-empirical science to promote their political agenda to destroy the financial system of Western liberalism.

I have no idea what this means. Can you elaborate?

437 Ojoe  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 1:23:55pm

re: #435 Ojoe

fine = find

PIMF

438 Ojoe  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 1:27:04pm

re: #431 RRFan

You forgot Argon.

439 Achilles Tang  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 1:27:48pm

re: #438 Ojoe

You forgot Argon.


That was etc.

440 John Neverbend  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 1:30:37pm

re: #15 _RememberTonyC

I'm glad someone mentioned carbon credits. That's one I have trouble wrapping my brain around. Unless I'm misunderstanding things, carbon credits are a license to pollute where the guilty "polluter" pays for his sin. Am I essentially correct?

The two key points of carbon credits are to (i) provide an annual limit to how much a company can pollute, beyond which a steep fine is payable and (ii) to reduce the amount of pollution over time by reducing the available amount of credits and by imposing progressively lower ceilings on the total amount of pollution. The second point is really important, as without it, there wouldn't be as much of an incentive to reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions.

As was mentioned in an earlier thread, once credits have been allocated (this can be done by giving them away for nothing or by auctioning them), if company A finds that they have too many, they can sell them to company B who doesn't have enough. This has already happened in Europe on two occasions. In stage I, there was a substantial overallocation, and the value of credits fell to near zero. Stage II was better managed with credits currently trading around the equivalent of nearly $20 per metric ton of CO2equivalent.

441 cenotaphium  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 1:34:48pm

re: #407 RRFan

Settled Science = religion

Settled means that no new facts will change the outcome and that all reasonable people believe that it it true. There are numerous qualified and reasonable people (i.e. Freeman Dyson, Joe Bastardi - AccuWeather, etc.) who do not believe that global warming is settled. Therefore it is not settled. Global warming may be correct, but it is not settled

If "settled science" meant that no new facts would change the outcome, it would be an oxymoron.

There are some rebuttals of Freeman Dyson's statements out there. From Climate Progress. From RealClimate "Freeman Dyson's selective vision". There's a piece over at Discover too, all with further links. (I can't personally vouch for this assortment of links, it's just a stepping off point for anyone interested)

Maybe it's also worth pointing out that the man is a physicist, not a climate scientist. It may seem a small point (obviously his ideas should be critiqued, not his record), however, were he speaking on behalf of the common view, you can rest assured it would be brought up.

442 Canadhimmis  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 1:35:17pm

re #425 Charles

It's your website, Charles and of course you can use whatever language you want to. However, your use of the word is demonizing as the word denial is most often associated with the Holocaust and I think immediately springs to mind of most people whenever they hear the word.

For an example (that you as a web designer would be most familiar with) try googling the two words denial and Holocaust. See how many results come back. Next, Google the word denial with anything else you can think of. I'm betting that there isn't any other word you can pair with "denial" that comes even remotely close in terms of returned results. I'll also venture the risk free guess that the second highest result you can find to match with the word denier turns out to be "Global Warming" ...or some such.


.

443 Dr. Shalit  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 1:35:54pm

Just a question - The Last Time Global Temperatures rose significantly, wasn't that about the time there were large Norse settlements in Greenland and a few in Maritime Canada? Maybe a BIT of warming is not such a bad thing. It was the "Little Ice Age" that more or less ended these early European Attempts at Settlement, not to arise again until the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Discussion?

-S-

444 Dante41  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 1:40:13pm

re: #442 Canadhimmis

"Denial" simply means the process of denying something. It does not have any inherent positive or negative characteristics. To claim that someone is being smeared by being called a denier is just plain silly.

445 Charles Johnson  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 1:41:27pm

re: #442 Canadhimmis

However, your use of the word is demonizing...

No, it's purely descriptive.

denial %P%diˈnīəl%P%
noun
the action of declaring something to be untrue : she shook her head in denial.
• the refusal of something requested or desired : the denial of insurance to people with certain medical conditions.
• a statement that something is not true : official denials %P% his denial that he was having an affair.
• Psychology failure to acknowledge an unacceptable truth or emotion or to admit it into consciousness, used as a defense mechanism : you're living in denial.

446 cenotaphium  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 1:42:12pm

re: #443 Dr. Shalit

about the time there were large Norse settlements in Greenland

Speaking as a Swede, this particular (implied) point is particularly annoying. The idea that Greenland was somehow "green" at the time is false. Like today, there is a coastal region that's inhabitable. Erik Röde, the founder of the west-bound colonies, engaged in a bit of marketing by naming it "Greenland" - apparently one of the most successful PR campaigns, as the idea still twists minds today.

447 Canadhimmis  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 1:45:03pm

correction on my #442.
It's actually the word denier that Charles employs rather than the word denial.

448 Dante41  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 1:46:30pm

re: #447 Canadhimmis

correction on my #442.
It's actually the word denier that Charles employs rather than the word denial.

It changes nothing.

449 Randall Gross  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 1:50:55pm

re: #447 Canadhimmis

You are still striking out, a long established word that means the same even in French if you look at the etymology

c.1300, from O.Fr. denier, from L. denegare, from de- "away" + negare "refuse, say 'no,' " from Old L. nec "not," from Italic base *nek- "not," from PIE base *ne- "no, not"

450 Dr. Shalit  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 1:53:39pm

re: #419 RRFan

Science:
In order, Earth's most abundant greenhouse gases are:
* water vapor
* carbon dioxide
* methane
* nitrous oxide
* ozone
* CFCs

When will we start being concerned about the most abundant green house gas? I plan on sequestering water. The science is still out on the contribution of each of these components, but don't worry, everything is settled.

RRFan -

Ah, yes - DiHydrogen Monixide - stuff can kill you if you breathe enough in.

As for "Cap and Trade" - Horsehockey - just another excuse for taxation AND a new derivatives market. If required, a "BTU" or Carbon Tax is a better way to go - honest, upfront - a consumption tax to cut demand and raise revenue. Just understand that such taxes will act as a brake on economic growth - a devil's bargain, yet a bargain nonetheless if cutting fossil fuel use is the goal. Call me a cockeyed optimist, mankind has to date come up with technological fixes, usually on a just in time basis. When is the last time you heard about a Whale Oil shortage or the Horse Manure removal problem in Manhattan?
#446 cenotaphium
And what Real Estate Developer didn't puff a bit about their new project. Fact is the Little Ice Age more or less killed off Norse settlement in North America. Tak Skal Du Ha 'y'all.

-S-

451 tradewind  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 1:56:10pm

The climate change denial is even responsible in part for denying Chicago the Olympics, and getting us involved in a war! Jesse Jackson says so:

"There must be" resentment against America, the Rev. Jesse Jackson said, near the stage where he had hoped to give a victory speech in Daley Center Plaza. "The way we [refused to sign] the Kyoto Treaty, we misled the world into Iraq. The world had a very bad taste in its mouth about us

Oh brother.
[Link: www.suntimes.com...]

452 Canadhimmis  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 1:58:18pm

Charles,
I fully understand the meaning of the word denial (or the word denier). I think you're being more than a little condescending.

The word denier was (until recently) used almost exclusively in conjunction with the Holocaust. Thus, your use appears to be intended in the same manner as the race card is often played by leftists, that is, an expressed desire to stifle discussion, in your case an effort to relegate the AGW issue to the status of "settled science" .

453 William of Orange  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 2:00:53pm

As someone living 2 meters (or more than 6 feet) below sea level, I onle have one thing to say...


WAKE UP!!!

454 William of Orange  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 2:04:07pm

More,

Have you seen the mayhem going on in south east Asia lately? The record droughts in Australia? Even here in The Netherlands we suffer from a lack of rainwater. (Suffer is on our case a big word but tell that to our farmers.)

455 cenotaphium  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 2:04:44pm

re: #450 Dr. Shalit

And what Real Estate Developer didn't puff a bit about their new project. Fact is the Little Ice Age more or less killed off Norse settlement in North America. Tak Skal Du Ha 'y'all.

First, that's "Tack skall du ha!"

Secondly, the settlements in North America were never permanent. The most common reasoning as to why is that the relationship with the natives never became good.
Where did you get the idea that there were permanent settlements and that the Little Ice Age killed them off?

I find it far more likely that the travels to North America waned with the Norse culture.

456 Right Brain  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 2:09:33pm

I'll give RealClimate points for producing better than average insults, but they failed address the core problem with the entire slightly hysterical article:

"This led many sceptics, among them a Canadian mathematician named Steve McIntyre to smell a rat. He tried to replicate Mann’s tree ring work but was stymied by lack of data: ie the global community of climate-fear-promotion scientists closed ranks and refused to provide him with any information that might contradict their cause."

Is this true? Did the people harboring the tree ring data refuse to provide it to a mathematician who wished to confirm it? And if so why? Did they later claim to have misplaced it? Why were they refusing a peer review?

RealClimate does a great and funny job of mopping up this latest hysteria, but never addressed what caused it: refusing to provide verification to someone outside of their clique who might puncture their theory.

457 cenotaphium  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 2:17:04pm

re: #450 Dr. Shalit

As for "Cap and Trade" - Horsehockey - just another excuse for taxation AND a new derivatives market. If required, a "BTU" or Carbon Tax is a better way to go - honest, upfront - a consumption tax to cut demand and raise revenue. Just understand that such taxes will act as a brake on economic growth - a devil's bargain, yet a bargain nonetheless if cutting fossil fuel use is the goal. Call me a cockeyed optimist, mankind has to date come up with technological fixes, usually on a just in time basis. When is the last time you heard about a Whale Oil shortage or the Horse Manure removal problem in Manhattan?

Now, I'm no good with economics, so feel free to correct me here.
Placing a carbon tax is significantly different from increasing an income tax in that it's clearly defined to a particular area of investment. That is, if your industry has nothing to do with carbon emissions, it is unaffected - unlike income tax or any general tax that's next to unavoidable.
As a specific tax, doesn't it work well at shaping the market forces toward non-carbon reliant alternatives? Isn't it a great boon to making the now barely profitable alternative energy market all the more attractive, thus increasing investment, increasing mass production and decreasing overall costs (in said market and transitioning to alternative energy)?
And if so, will it not only "brake economic growth" for the companies that refuse to adapt to it?

As for creating a derivatives market, I understand that it is a possible source of corruption and back-handed deals if left unregulated, but isn't it in essence opening up a whole new market (ergo, a good thing for capitalism?).

458 poteen  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 2:18:08pm

re: #451 tradewind

The climate change denial is even responsible in part for denying Chicago the Olympics, and getting us involved in a war! Jesse Jackson says so:

Oh brother.
[Link: www.suntimes.com...]

But can he tell us who really kidnapped the Lindbergh baby?/

459 Hawaii69  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 2:34:30pm

re: #1 _RememberTonyC

I feel the global warming climate change issue is still one that requires more study and balanced debate. So I am not willing to see our economy crash, while allowing china and india (worse polluters) to be unafffected until I KNOW that we can fix the planet by capping emissions. Maybe it's true, but I need more convincing.

We've already had our industrial revolution, and put out more pollution than either of them, years ago.

460 Right Brain  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 2:48:28pm

Simple way to settle this debate: Bet.

The global warming alarmists can place short positions on natural gas, since they believe the planet is warming there is less need for home heating fuel. The skeptics can go long and count the tree rings in the Vermont Stove in their ski chalet. Money talks, peer-review walks.

Here's where to bet:
[Link: www.nymex.com...]

FUTURES SETTLEMENT NET CHANGE
Nymex Oct $3.609 +3.3c
Nymex Nov $4.520 +9.8c
Nymex Dec $5.218 +10.4c

CASH HUB RANGE PREVIOUS DAY
Henry Hub $3.32-$3.42 $3.30-$3.45
Transco 65 $3.36-$3.46 $3.32-$3.43
Tex East M3 $3.65-$3.75 $3.55-$3.75
Transco Z6 $3.62-$3.75 $3.54-$3.65
SoCal $3.55-$3.71 $3.38-$3.83
El Paso Perm $3.30-$3.41 $3.25-$3.41
El Paso SJ $3.29-$3.35 $3.27-$3.42
Waha $3.31-$3.40 $3.25-$3.41
Katy $3.31-$3.38 $3.25-$3.38

461 elclynn  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 2:57:13pm

re: #164 Walter L. Newton

Not to bash, but the Dems have even put the halt on windfarms in the oh so exclusive Mass shore line and the solar panels planned for the Mojave. Both times saying "not in our backyards". That is a big problem with new green energy. No one wants it anywhere near their beloved homes to ruin their coastline or mess up their desert. Dems are really not much different from Repubs in that respect. They both sound like the party of no to me.

462 cenotaphium  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 3:07:21pm

re: #461 elclynn

No one wants it anywhere near their beloved homes to ruin their coastline or mess up their desert.

While your point might be true in the US, I doubt it. The experiments they did in Germany by subsidising investments in solar energy turned out fruitful; people using their roofs, or even buying space on their neighbours roofs - some farmers even switching some fields to whole rows of solar panels. I'm sure there's plenty of fault to dig up about this initiative, but the point about no-one wanting the technology just doesn't fly.
"No one" wanted factories or nuclear plants or any type of hazardous or polluting plants near their doorstep, but eventually - of course - they all got built anyway.

463 elclynn  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 3:10:12pm

re: #457 cenotaphium
Cap and Trade will affect much more then energy production. It will impact the building trades significantly and home ownership as well. Every home in the US will be directly affected by that legislation, even yours. Fed will set standards for every building product and if you decide to sell your property, you will be required to meet those standards before you sell. Accordingly the average home will cost up to $24,000 to upgrade. Builders see it coming and know the average cost of a home will increase significantly. Our solar co-efficient is now .33 in most areas, it will be .29 when this bill passes.

464 elclynn  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 3:19:21pm

re: #462 cenotaphium

Ted Kennedy= no windfarms
Barbara Boxer and Feinstein= no solar panel array
Both of them were slated to be built. What farmers and business wants does not translate to Congress very well. It really never has.

465 jackflash  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 3:20:23pm

re: #457 cenotaphium

Well, I am an economist and I can tell you, cenotaphium (if that's your real name) that the problem with taxes that are industry-specific (like excise taxes) is that they distort the market. The free market works to make production more efficient through prices and profit signals, which reflect both the underlying cost of the output and the preferences of the consumers. Goods with high input costs, relative to other goods, are produced less. This increases efficiency, allowing us to have more resources with which to make other things we might want. But when government taxes one of these competing goods (like electric generation using coal) while not taxing or even subsidizing other goods (like generation using solar cells and lead batteries), this distorts the market artificially, causing consumers to purchase more of the more expensive good (solar) at the expense of the less expensive good (coal).

If solar had some potential technological breakthrough down the road, and if it was actually less polluting than new coal plants, I might support a distortionary tax temporarily, but when I started working in this area (I work for a utiltity regulatory agency) in 1972 I heard all those "smart" scientists talk about how solar only needed a few breakthroughs in battery technology to be able to compete with coal or natural gas. At the time solar was about 8 times the cost per MWhr as coal. I heard the came story from these jokers in the 1980s, when solar was 6-7 times the cost of coal. I'm still hearing this story today, and solar is still 5-6 times the cost of coal (wind is only 2-3 times the cost, but it really can't be used for base load or RM. Biofeuls are 3 times the cost, but they suck, and they're dirty). What's worse, they still use the same three basic materials to make the cells as they used in the 1970s, and the last battery "breakthrough" were the lithium batteries in the 1980s. Why are we subsidizing these people? Because we buy the myth that solar is cleaner than coal? I hope that all of those people buying electric cars find out soon how expensive and polluting those things are. And all they do is push the pollution out of their white neighborhoods into those poor black neighborhoods where the big generators are.

I'm starting to blather, but I hope you get the idea. France uses nuclear for the most part, while Germany (those politically correct fun-lovers!) has a hugh solar program. Every year the Germans end up buying a few billion MWhrs from the French. Solar is a money pit and a very inefficient joke.

As for this topic, Charles, the hockeystick "analysis" doesn't bother me as much as the underlying studies used to bolster that first IPCC report in the mid-1990s. I'm sure you're smart enough to understand regression analysis. Just look at those underlying studies - there's no diagnostic statistics, and when they do provide t-scores they're so small we're left with the conclusion that we just don't know what the effect of GHG is on temperatures. These things aren't so hard to find. Five 'em a look. If I cna find some time, I'll post the links. They'll curl your hair. JF

466 reine.de.tout  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 3:21:34pm

re: #430 cenotaphium

Maybe we're both just shooting past each other?

Let's walk through this.

Walkman's original post stated that a guy named Matt Lauer had been on a TV show and defended his position on AGW in regards to him using a lot of CO2 for an entertainment piece by saying "We bought carbon credits."

You responded:

I wanted to know where you got the "guilt" bit from, and how you knew buying said credits did nothing. I also remembered your earlier post where you'd said: "Unless I'm misunderstanding things, carbon credits are a license to pollute where the guilty "polluter" pays for his sin." Again, to me, reinforcing a view that the whole thing is based solely on some kind of guilt nonsense.

In response to this you turn the tables and say I should ask him if guilt is an issue and if the guy in question knows what the carbon credits achieved.
Obviously, I don't know either, but the point was how you knew his feelings or what the credits did. I thought this a rather lame rhetorical device.

The rest is pretty much bollocks all around, and the whole thing based on what may have just been a throw-away comment.

In apology to all who are forced to scroll by this I give you Puma Man flying about.


[Video]

I've tried to follow your conversation, and it does look to me as if the two of you are shouting past each other.

there are the large "carbon credit" programs used for businesses to try to reduce pollution over time as explained here:
re: #440 John Neverbend

I think what Tony is talking about are "carbon credit" programs like this one, where a person can pay to "offset their car for a year". In other words, they buy and drive a huge luxury pollution machine, and then, to assuage their guilt over their use of a luxury item, they "buy" credits to "offset" their usage. It appears Tony believes (as do I), that if individual people really want to reduce pollution, they are better taking steps personally to do it, rather than living as large as they want to and buying "offsets" for their lifestyle.

467 cenotaphium  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 3:35:20pm

re: #465 jackflash

Well, I am an economist and I can tell you, cenotaphium (if that's your real name)

You do realize this bit alone is going to make me wonder if your entire post is in jest.. right?
I'll get back to it when I've read it, a bit tl;dr there.

re: #466 reine.de.tout

Shouting past. Not shooting past. At least it sounded right in my head..

if individual people really want to reduce pollution, they are better taking steps personally to do it, rather than living as large as they want to and buying "offsets" for their lifestyle.

I don't get this. And I live in a horrible lutheran work ethic socialist country. If you have the money and a system of judging the environmental impact, why isn't it a good thing to provide a way for someone to use transport or goods that have no good green alternative (a stopping block for many people who want to use their money in an environmentally friendly way) to offset some of that impact through a service?
Of course there are problems with this idea, I've said so from the beginning of this thread. But what's wrong with the concept?

re: #463 elclynn

I appreciate the comment. What I was talking about in #457 was the general economic effects of creating carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system. I'm very badly informed about the specifics of the proposal that's being promoted now (that is, while I'm sure you can bungle a cap-and-trade system, is it at fault as a concept?).

Not living in the US, I'm personally unaffected by the rules proposed. But I can understand that it's going to be painful for homeowners, if it works out as you detail. In Sweden, we're pretty used to government regulation of the building code, and it's not as painful when pretty much all buildings are already at or near the standards set.

468 reine.de.tout  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 3:41:30pm

re: #467 cenotaphium

There is nothing wrong with the concept.

What I have a problem with is the hypocrisy of people like, say, gee, Al Gore, lecturing the rest of us as to how we have to make personal sacrifices in order to save the planet, while he lives in a 20-room mansion that uses 12 times the electricity of the average American home; instead of making his home more energy efficient (or living smaller), he then may buy "carbon credits", continue on his merry way lecturing the rest of us as to why WE have to make personal sacrifices.

469 Charles Johnson  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 3:42:07pm

re: #465 jackflash

Well, I am an economist and I can tell you, cenotaphium (if that's your real name)...

I'm glad everyone's using their real names here. Right, 'jackflash?'

ahem

As for this topic, Charles, the hockeystick "analysis" doesn't bother me as much as the underlying studies used to bolster that first IPCC report in the mid-1990s. I'm sure you're smart enough to understand regression analysis. Just look at those underlying studies - there's no diagnostic statistics, and when they do provide t-scores they're so small we're left with the conclusion that we just don't know what the effect of GHG is on temperatures. These things aren't so hard to find. Five 'em a look. If I cna find some time, I'll post the links. They'll curl your hair. JF

The point of this totally escapes me. Are you saying that the first IPCC report is lacking in statistical analysis? Because I'm no expert in that field, but from everything I've read, this claim seems to be ... uh ... more than slightly exaggerated.

470 Charles Johnson  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 3:54:42pm

It's hard to escape the conclusion that some of the people dinging down this post and dinging up all the anti-AGW comments are doing it simply because they have an ideological objection to the topic.

The fact is that the RealClimate showed conclusively that this so-called "massive lie" story was nothing but another bogus attempt to distort the scientific data, in order to serve a deceptive agenda.

It's really pathetic that so many self-identified conservatives are in the business of denial and willful ignorance, and refuse to educate themselves on these issues in any real way.

471 cenotaphium  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 3:55:38pm

re: #468 reine.de.tout

There is nothing wrong with the concept.

What I have a problem with is the hypocrisy of people like, say, gee, Al Gore, lecturing the rest of us as to how we have to make personal sacrifices in order to save the planet, while he lives in a 20-room mansion that uses 12 times the electricity of the average American home; instead of making his home more energy efficient (or living smaller), he then may buy "carbon credits", continue on his merry way lecturing the rest of us as to why WE have to make personal sacrifices.

Even though jumping on Al Gore is a bit tired, I completely agree. I personally know much better advocates for a "near zero footprint". One of them essentially lives out in the woods in a log cabin, rides a bike.. and that's pretty much it. However, his message isn't going to reach a lot of people either. The days when people sought out knowledge in wise hermits is pretty much gone.
Point being this, Al Gore might be an opportunistic bastard, a hypocritical bloated arse, an uninformed buffoon with a good Keynote presentation.
It doesn't change anything about what's actually happening with the climate.

472 reine.de.tout  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 3:59:29pm

re: #471 cenotaphium

Even though jumping on Al Gore is a bit tired, I completely agree. I personally know much better advocates for a "near zero footprint". One of them essentially lives out in the woods in a log cabin, rides a bike.. and that's pretty much it. However, his message isn't going to reach a lot of people either. The days when people sought out knowledge in wise hermits is pretty much gone.
Point being this, Al Gore might be an opportunistic bastard, a hypocritical bloated arse, an uninformed buffoon with a good Keynote presentation.
It doesn't change anything about what's actually happening with the climate.

No, it doesn't change anything about what's happening with the climate, and I don't believe that either I or Tony claimed otherwise.

At least part of your original conversation with Tony had to do with you taking issue with him saying people used "carbon credits" to "assuage" their guilt. The conversation sort of spun outward from there; but that is the only part I was trying to explain to you

473 Dogness  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 4:01:12pm

Charles said:
"Again, I’m struck by the similarity between the techniques of global warming deniers and creationists; they both use cherry-picked data, they both make outrageous claims couched in pseudo-scientific language that sounds convincing to gullible people, they both compile lists of skeptical 'scientists' that turn out to be packed with ringers, frauds, and people who never signed in the first place, and they both use quote mining."

That's funny because, to me, it sounds like you are describing the global warming supporters.

474 Charles Johnson  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 4:04:53pm

re: #473 Dogness

That's funny because, to me, it sounds like you are describing the global warming supporters.

And as if to illustrate my point, we get the "I know you are, but what am I?" defense.

475 Canadhimmis  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 4:08:04pm

I seem to have garnered some down dings for my earlier comments that strayed from the mainstream of the commentary. Among the those dinging down my comments was Charles. Even though I'm a longtime lizard, I find myself wondering whether there's actually in danger of being banned for disagreeing with Charles and a weblog that I usually agree with?
Is just me or do I detect a shift in the winds? Charles does seem to have been picking on conservative viewpoint more often than leftist views as of recently. (not to say that he hasn't been correct in criticizing the loons such as the creationist, pro-life crazies and birthers etc)

.

476 cenotaphium  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 4:17:01pm

re: #472 reine.de.tout

No, it doesn't change anything about what's happening with the climate, and I don't believe that either I or Tony claimed otherwise.

The point was that you both seem to be taking individuals feelings and motivations far above and beyond any argument on the viability or usefulness of individual programs. Why should I care if Al Gore is a hypocrite, or Matt Lauer motivated by guilt, if the programs they use work?

At least part of your original conversation with Tony had to do with you taking issue with him saying people used "carbon credits" to "assuage" their guilt. The conversation sort of spun outward from there; but that is the only part I was trying to explain to you

Yes. I still take issue with the idea that the only motivation (or the default assumption as to the motivation) of people who want to use carbon credit systems is guilt, hypocrisy or being uninformed.
Maybe that's not at all what you're suggesting? In that case I have no quarrel.

477 BARACK THE VOTE  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 4:37:50pm

re: #452 Canadhimmis

Charles,
I fully understand the meaning of the word denial (or the word denier). I think you're being more than a little condescending.

The word denier was (until recently) used almost exclusively in conjunction with the Holocaust. Thus, your use appears to be intended in the same manner as the race card is often played by leftists, that is, an expressed desire to stifle discussion, in your case an effort to relegate the AGW issue to the status of "settled science" .

I think you're being more than a little thick when you claim the word 'denier' is being used to stifle discussion. That's horseshit and it's been pointed out to you above.

'Denier' is a perfectly apt, purely descriptive term to denote the people who are, well, deniers about climate change. This is quite different from someone who is genuinely a sceptic. The sceptic merely suffers from a lack of knowledge, and given the evidence will draw the conclusion that AGW is real.

Deniers, on the other hand, do not deserve the label of sceptic-- because they are not genuinely openminded, are not interested in looking at the evidence, and are heavily invested not in inquiry and scepticism, but in denial.

Deniers seek to co-opt the term 'sceptic' with this particular whine you're repeating in an attempt to lend themselves some legitimacy. It isn't working.

478 lolohead  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 4:38:43pm

Longtime LGFer, mostly lurker, I will weigh in as a scientist. The hockey stick graph is a terrible bit of "science". Random numbers fed in for its proxy number create the same graph. Historical data refutes a cold then warm now model. Lastly what percentage of green house c gases are manmade? maybe 1% if we give them heavy weighting factors. Sorry, if the earth is warming, which would be a good thing, it's not our fault and nothing we can do will change the climate. What people should be concerned about is global cooling. Historically warm periods are associated with peace and prosperity and colder times with famine, war and dislocation. If we are to do anything we should increase wealth and technology to better weather a cooling spell. Carbon limitations will NOT lead to economic growth but will restrict growth, bad idea. Forget about any scheme that purports to solve a "problem" like the climate and get on with building a strong society.

479 BARACK THE VOTE  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 4:39:57pm

re: #475 Canadhimmis


Is just me or do I detect a shift in the winds? Charles does seem to have been picking on conservative viewpoint more often than leftist views as of recently. (not to say that he hasn't been correct in criticizing the loons such as the creationist, pro-life crazies and birthers etc)
.

This place is anti-idiotarian. At present, there are more idiots on the right than the left-- or rather, the idiocy on the right is a lot stronger than that on the left.

480 JWill  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 4:40:17pm

I had much interest and education in the field of science in my early life. My education shifted into engineering as the need to feed myself became a priority into adulthood. I've never put my head into a hole when faced with an unpleasant "inevitability".

I spent YEARS underwater on a nuclear submarine. Ignoring the dangers of science in that environment would have been stupid.

But I became a student of history 30 years ago, primarily military history. And when science is used by politicians (of any era), intentions and ambitions become part of the issue. And to ignore this fact is naive.

Example (staying with the submarine tone): When we entered WW2, we sent out our men into harms way with a torpedo (also effecting torpedo planes) that had been tested twice. And it failed once. To the politicians and bureaucrats in charge of procuring these weapons, two live tests was more than sufficient to "prove" that they were adequate for the job. Even though the tests showed a 50% failure rate( it was actually a bit over 75% in real use).

OK, we all make mistakes, right?

It wasn't until early 1944 before we got these problems straitened out. Why? Ambition and intent.

The people in charge of the program (congressionally speaking) would not accept that the failure of these weapons was anything other than the incompetence of those using them. When in fact the weapon system was deeply flawed.

People who's primary skill is ambition (which politicians fall squarely into ) will hide the "scientific mistakes" that might interfere with their rise in power. Not just ignore, hide.

Politics and religion are the two worst environments in which honest, productive scientific research and discovery can develop.

Sorry, Charles. I'm incredibly skeptical when impatient politicians are in charge of the science debate. Especially when their own lifestyles don't reflect their commitment.

If this debate is about power, that is one thing. But this "feels" more about power. Personal power.

JW

481 Charles Johnson  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 4:48:50pm

re: #475 Canadhimmis

I seem to have garnered some down dings for my earlier comments that strayed from the mainstream of the commentary. Among the those dinging down my comments was Charles. Even though I'm a longtime lizard, I find myself wondering whether there's actually in danger of being banned for disagreeing with Charles and a weblog that I usually agree with?
Is just me or do I detect a shift in the winds? Charles does seem to have been picking on conservative viewpoint more often than leftist views as of recently. (not to say that he hasn't been correct in criticizing the loons such as the creationist, pro-life crazies and birthers etc)

.

Do I really need to point out that you aren't banned yet?

But there is a really good way to get banned, and that's to whine and complain about what's posted at LGF, or to complain about being down-rated. I absolutely did ding your posts down, and not only that -- I explained to you very clearly why I did it.

482 Barflytom  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 4:50:13pm

re: #474 Charles

I came to this thread a bit late, so apologies if a bit OT. But, you said..

"National Review is a big promoter of the Discovery Institute’s creationist fables in addition to being a leading proponent of AGW denial."

Creationist fables ? Examples ?

I read NR fairly regularly, and I don't see them as "anti-science".

483 Charles Johnson  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 4:52:26pm

re: #478 lolohead

Longtime LGFer, mostly lurker, I will weigh in as a scientist.

Really? Which field of science is that?

The hockey stick graph is a terrible bit of "science". Random numbers fed in for its proxy number create the same graph.

Sorry, but this is complete nonsense.

Historical data refutes a cold then warm now model.

No, it does not.

Lastly what percentage of green house c gases are manmade? maybe 1% if we give them heavy weighting factors. Sorry, if the earth is warming, which would be a good thing, it's not our fault and nothing we can do will change the climate.

And this is even more ridiculous, because there are mountains of scientific data and evidence that show the Earth is warming, and that CO2 produced by human beings is a major contributing factor.

What people should be concerned about is global cooling.

Oh, good grief.

484 Charles Johnson  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 4:53:23pm

re: #482 Barflytom

I came to this thread a bit late, so apologies if a bit OT. But, you said..

"National Review is a big promoter of the Discovery Institute’s creationist fables in addition to being a leading proponent of AGW denial."

Creationist fables ? Examples ?

I read NR fairly regularly, and I don't see them as "anti-science".

[Link: www.nationalreview.com...]

485 Charles Johnson  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 4:55:25pm

re: #480 JWill

This post doesn't say one word about political solutions. Before we can even get to that point, we need to understand and accept the scientific evidence, and it's very clear from the comments posted at the end of this thread that this is a huge stumbling block for many people.

486 lolohead  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 5:36:57pm

Really? Which field of science is that?

The hockey stick graph is a terrible bit of "science". Random numbers fed in for its proxy number create the same graph.

Sorry, but this is complete nonsense.

Historical data refutes a cold then warm now model.

No, it does not.

Lastly what percentage of green house c gases are manmade? maybe 1% if we give them heavy weighting factors. Sorry, if the earth is warming, which would be a good thing, it's not our fault and nothing we can do will change the climate.

And this is even more ridiculous, because there are mountains of scientific data and evidence that show the Earth is warming, and that CO2 produced by human beings is a major contributing factor.

What people should be concerned about is global cooling.

Oh, good grief.

Well at least you're a peanuts fan. My area is creation science (kidding) I'm a chemist (PhD). I'm working on a system of hydrogen delivery for fuel cell vehicles. I make the catalysts that liberate H2 from hydrocarbons and allows ringed hydrocarbons to store H2. We call it recyclable gasoline.
I wouldn't want to stake my reputation on the "hockey stick" graph but you pick your battles, you've won some big ones so go ahead. It is a very flawed piece of work. When Sherwood Roland linked chloroflourocarbons to ozone depletion he gave a mechanism, that is why the fight against CFCs had credibility. Show me one credible mechanism where the marginal amounts of "greenhouse gases" produced by humans translates into a measurable amount of warming. All they have are computer models, no mechanism and no real data. In the last 15 years most of the computer models have been shown to be consistently wrong, yet we cling to their conclusions because they are politically correct. As for historical climate fluctuation, it was warmer 1000 years ago,ask any viking (or read their written (read`reported) records). It was warmer during the first few centuries AD, and it has been, thankfully, warming for the last few hundred years. If we are lucky the warming will continue. For the past decade or so the warming has abated and there have been signs that cooling may be on the way and might be the trend of the future. Am I sure of the future cooling? No, I have no idea, but the people who preach global warming have no better idea of where temperatures are heading. There are real scientist on the skeptics side, look into Chemical and Engineering News, the weekly publication of the American Chemical Society. The editor kept beating the global warming drum and finally the rank and file rose up and demanded a balanced view. Turns out most chemists are "skeptics" and very few buy into the Al Gore global warming alarmist nonsense. Lastly, please provide a molehill of that mountain of evidence that credibly links both warming and gas emissions. There is no mechanism and no theory can at this time state X amount of gases equals Y amount of warming or removing X amount of gases will result in Y amount of cooling. There isn't any study that has said "this past amount of gas release" is responsible for "this much of a past warming". Why not? A scientific theory could predict these things, where does that leave global warming theory?
Please read "The Emperors New Clothes" and "Chicken Little". Which side do you put the global warmers?

487 Coracle  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 5:50:22pm

re: #486 lolohead

There isn't any study that has said "this past amount of gas release" is responsible for "this much of a past warming". Why not?

As you should know from the chemistry of any complicated system, it is often simply not that simple. You make such an array of unsupported statements and outright incorrect it is hard to know where to begin. I'm surprised and disappointed that as a scientist you feel comfortable ignoring both the models and measurements of the last several decades. It is neither chicken little nor emperor's new clothes to look at what the data is saying.

As has been posted here many, many times try the AIP Summary as a starting point. It shows you the mechanisms you pretend don't exist. So does realclimate.org, for that matter, but you seem un-interested in looking there.

488 jaunte  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 5:58:54pm

CFC connection with ozone depletion had kneejerk deniers too:


...the Rowland-Molina hypothesis was strongly disputed by representatives of the aerosol and halocarbon industries. The chair of the board of
DuPont was quoted as saying that ozone depletion theory is "a science fiction tale...a load of rubbish...utter nonsense."
[Link: www.absoluteastronomy.com...]
489 RRFan  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 6:08:57pm

re: #486 lolohead

I have my BS in chemistry and MS in CompSci. I could not agree with your posting more. Anyone who claims that this is settled is closed minded or worse. The Chem & Eng News is the best example. My old advanced organic chem professor (and former president of the American Chemical Society) use to say scientists like to use two data points. It makes a straighter line.

490 Charles Johnson  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 6:11:00pm

re: #489 RRFan

Really. So you're a scientist who thinks science = religion.

That's a new one.

491 Bagua  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 6:16:00pm

re: #475 Canadhimmis

I seem to have garnered some down dings for my earlier comments that strayed from the mainstream of the commentary. Among the those dinging down my comments was Charles. Even though I'm a longtime lizard, I find myself wondering whether there's actually in danger of being banned for disagreeing with Charles and a weblog that I usually agree with?

I have observed and analysed dozens of bannings, not one has ever been blocked or have posts deleted for disagreeing with Charles, nor is a downding from Charles related, unless it is for poor behaviour, willful and repeated ignorance, slander, racism, and similar which can serve as "just" cause for a banning or deletion.

Is just me or do I detect a shift in the winds? Charles does seem to have been picking on conservative viewpoint more often than leftist views as of recently. (not to say that he hasn't been correct in criticizing the loons such as the creationist, pro-life crazies and birthers etc)

Such whingeing over the blogs topics is often accompanied by emotional good-bye messages which are deleted as a stated policy since they foul the blog. Yet such whining is otherwise tolerated from my observation, though it certainly shows poor behaviour on the part of the poster. (Not to say that a blog owner or forum owner is under any obligation to be "just".)

What I suggest is that you ask yourself why some people are now taking such exception with the kind of blog posts which they favoured when the target was a Leftist or Islamist? What this reveals is that the complainer is reading with a great deal of partisan bias which Charles does not share.

A sensible person would take this as an opportunity to reflect upon their own beliefs and bias, and give Charles the benefit of the doubt. Those consumed by bias and unwilling to learn generally make a "the blog direction has changed" comment and flounce off to an echo-chamber who panders to thier beliefs with inferior material.

492 RRFan  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 6:16:50pm

Settled Science = religion As per previous post.

And when scientists have different opinions on an issue it indicates insufficient or bad data.

493 lolohead  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 6:20:06pm

<

As you should know from the chemistry of any complicated system, it is often simply not that simple. You make such an array of unsupported statements and outright incorrect it is hard to know where to begin. I'm surprised and disappointed that as a scientist you feel comfortable ignoring both the models and measurements of the last several decades.

I'm glad you know what I've read and what I ignore. Unlike many on either side I have read both sides and have come to my conclusions. Much of the "science" is "we know the conclusion here is some evidence that may support it". Much of this is driven by funding but that is another debate. If the system is so complicated that it can't be expected to yield measurable predictions, why are your conclusions about a few degrees shift in temperature somehow supported?

As has been posted here many, many times try the AIP Summary as a starting point. It shows you the mechanisms you pretend don't exist. So does realclimate.org, for that matter, but you seem un-interested in looking there.

Again with assigning me my personal reading list. They don't give a mechanism. They explain the greenhouse effect, I am 100% in agreement with their explanation. Computer models are not facts and they have been very wrong about the last decade.

I'm not a denier, I'm a skeptic. What will we do if the temperature continues to fall? Will there be government boondoggles encouraging people to produce CO2?

494 lolohead  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 6:23:34pm

re: #490 Charles

Really. So you're a scientist who thinks science = religion.

That's a new one.

Where does the poster equate science with religion? I think he was saying any science that acts like a religion is not credible.

495 Bagua  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 6:24:26pm

re: #492 RRFan

A BS in Chemistry is insufficient to pass such judgement on a complex science involving many fields and a large body of research. Blogging and journalism (good or bad) will never falsify the dominant AGW theories, if and when this happens, it will occur though peer-reviewed papers on research conducted by other scientists.

Anyone who alleges otherwise is simply mistaken and unfamiliar with science.

496 Randall Gross  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 6:27:55pm

RR, are you getting paid to shill Heartland and Discovery Institute's talking points?

497 jaunte  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 6:28:30pm

re: #496 Thanos

He's just "teaching the controversy."
/

498 Randall Gross  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 6:30:15pm

Wow, I see a buttload of assertions upthread with no links to data, studies, or peer reviewed papers to back them up. That gets the FAIL here.

499 Achilles Tang  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 6:39:53pm

re: #480 JWill

Sorry, Charles. I'm incredibly skeptical when impatient politicians are in charge of the science debate. Especially when their own lifestyles don't reflect their commitment.

If this debate is about power, that is one thing. But this "feels" more about power. Personal power.

JW

What makes you think politicians are in charge of the science debate, to the extent that science is called a debate?

Some of them are smart enough to understand the science; some are not. That sounds a lot like the difference between you and many of us.

500 lolohead  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 6:43:33pm

re: #495 Bagua

A BS in Chemistry is insufficient to pass such judgement on a complex science involving many fields and a large body of research. Blogging and journalism (good or bad) will never falsify the dominant AGW theories, if and when this happens, it will occur though peer-reviewed papers on research conducted by other scientists.

Anyone who alleges otherwise is simply mistaken and unfamiliar with science.

WOW, The guy isn't passing judgment he came to his own conclusion. If he is a scientist worth his salt he would be happy to be wrong. Science progresses when people are shown to be wrong. We're not married to our conclusions but we are entitled to them. I'm sure some ancestor of your is somewhere in the past smashing Gutenburg(sp) presses. I don't know RR but I'm sure he will shortly be a dupe of the petroleum industry or a flack of some ignorant person or organization.

501 Charles Johnson  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 6:44:51pm

re: #500 lolohead

I hope you'll forgive me if I note that this comment doesn't seem very scientific.

502 Achilles Tang  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 6:45:25pm

re: #492 RRFan

Settled Science = religion As per previous post.

And when scientists have different opinions on an issue it indicates insufficient or bad data.

Your religion insertion is too stupid to comment on; but in science a difference of opinion results from a difference in interpretation of available data (as opposed to imaginary data), backed up by verifiable analysis of that data.

You offer nothing but slogans you have read somewhere, without even understanding those.

503 Coracle  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 6:48:05pm

re: #493 lolohead

<

Again with assigning me my personal reading list. They don't give a mechanism. They explain the greenhouse effect, I am 100% in agreement with their explanation. Computer models are not facts and they have been very wrong about the last decade.

I'm not a denier, I'm a skeptic. What will we do if the temperature continues to fall? Will there be government boondoggles encouraging people to produce CO2?

Do you, a chemist, need to be handheld through the absorption and emission physics of CO2 and other greenhouse? The claim that global temperatures have been falling in the last decade is outright false.

504 Achilles Tang  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 6:49:19pm

re: #500 lolohead

Science progresses when people are shown to be wrong.

Sorry to disappoint, but science progresses when it (scientists) can prove they are right. There is little point in proving people are wrong when they cannot prove they are right.

505 lolohead  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 6:52:02pm

re: #501 Charles

I hope you'll forgive me if I note that this comment doesn't seem very scientific.

> Charles

I don't know. I type rather slowly. I made a prediction at the end of my post and by the time I posted it it was fulfilled. ( he is a shill of discovery inst.) I'm having fun don't get mad. Saying a good scientist would rather be shown to be wrong than right, that is the essence of science. Of course our ego gets bruised but in the long run science makes its best progress when what "everybody knows is right" is shown to be wrong.

506 Bagua  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 6:52:11pm

re: #500 lolohead

WOW, The guy isn't passing judgment he came to his own conclusion. If he is a scientist worth his salt he would be happy to be wrong. Science progresses when people are shown to be wrong. We're not married to our conclusions but we are entitled to them. I'm sure some ancestor of your is somewhere in the past smashing Gutenburg(sp) presses. I don't know RR but I'm sure he will shortly be a dupe of the petroleum industry or a flack of some ignorant person or organization.

You misunderstand me, I am responding to his inference of authority by noting his BS Chemistry.

507 Achilles Tang  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 6:54:31pm

re: #506 Bagua

You misunderstand me, I am responding to his inference of authority by noting his BS Chemistry.

Bull Shit Chemistry?

508 lolohead  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 6:56:34pm

re: #506 Bagua

You misunderstand me, I am responding to his inference of authority by noting his BS Chemistry.

True, that would be "I'm an expert so I'm right". I thought his initial post was pretty funny and somewhat lighthearted, I don't think he wanted a heavy argument. RR is probably gone , if not he can speak for himself.

509 jackflash  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 6:56:53pm

Referring to Charles' post at #469:
"Well, I am an economist and I can tell you, cenotaphium (if that's your real name)...

I'm glad everyone's using their real names here. Right, 'jackflash?'"

Well, heck, Charles, I don't read these blogs as often as I should, but it seems to me that joking is dangerous. Yes, I use a pseudonym as does everyone else, and THAT's the joke. Sorry if it didn't come across well. Don't you remember the "if that's your real name" joke from the old Sid Caesar shows (or am I the only old fart here?). It referred to the habit of Jews in NY shortening their names, e.g., from Steinberg to Stone, for professional reasons. A sad practice, of course, because anti-semitism was still accepted and somewhat mainstream in the early 1960s, but it made for a good joke and was picked up by Milton Berle and Jack Benny from time to time.

Whatever, you then say, in response to my criticism of the papers underlying the first IPCC report:

"The point of this totally escapes me. Are you saying that the first IPCC report is lacking in statistical analysis? Because I'm no expert in that field, but from everything I've read, this claim seems to be ... uh ... more than slightly exaggerated."

No, Charles, I'm not saying that. Of course it had statistics. (And lots of pretty pictures, too!) However, my complaint is that it based its conclusions about the effect of GHG on some closed modeling which used assumed parameters, not observed data. And the few times one of these researchers (mostly in the Scandinavian countries) actually used observed data and ran an actual regression, they either failed to include the diagonistics that show the significance of their explanatory variables (very suspicious to someone who uses these methods all the time), or when they included them, they showed that their variables were insignificant; they failed to comment on this - maybe they didn't understand what those little t-scores were for? This was very disappointing to me, because I want to think we aren't spending billions for nothing. But all of the subsequent IPCC reports build on and use this very thin, assumption-laden research.

What I want to see, Charles, is some regression of the following (very simplified) form:

T = a + bGHG + cW + dX

where T is the average temperature for several time periods, GHG is the amount of measured GHG in the atmosphere for each of these periods; W is either some measure of water vapors or some similar variable for each period; X is some other variables considered important in the determination of T; b, c, and d are coefficients of these variable to be estimated by the regression, and a constant scalar to be estimated as well. This way we can measure the effects of GHG on T by looking at the estimated b. If it's positive and significant (i.e., the t-score is 2 or more), we can say that GHG increases temperatures. This seems simple but it just hasn't been done. Instead we have these closed models with assumed parameters.

To those who believe what Charles believes, please show me the regressions. And please don't just throw long bibliographies at me and just say "read 'em and convert, heathen." That's so tiring from you folks. JF

510 lolohead  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 6:57:51pm

re: #507 Naso Tang

re: #507 Naso Tang

Bull Shit Chemistry?

Piled High and Deep

511 Achilles Tang  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 6:59:32pm

re: #505 lolohead

...but in the long run science makes its best progress when what "everybody knows is right" is shown to be wrong.

"That may be very well for Pigwidgeons," said
the King, " but I can learn nothing from a govern-
ment like that, where everything seems to be work-
ing in an opposite direction from what everybody
knows is right and proper. A king anxious to
deserve the good opinion of his subjects ! What
nonsense ! It ought to be just the other way."

512 Achilles Tang  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 7:01:00pm

re: #509 jackflash

How much do you want to bet you've had more to drink tonight than I have?

513 Coracle  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 7:04:14pm

re: #509 jackflash

You talk like regression techniques are not used in climate models when they are.

514 lolohead  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 7:06:37pm

This way we can measure the effects of GHG on T by looking at the estimated b. If it's positive and significant (i.e., the t-score is 2 or more), we can say that GHG increases temperatures. This seems simple but it just hasn't been done. Instead we have these closed models with assumed parameters.

Are you saying that you can have a positive (or negative) correlation, or slope of a regression line, and if it isn't significant (small t or p>.05) it means that no association is just as valid as any conclusion the correlation would imply?
The dickens you say!

515 Achilles Tang  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 7:16:25pm

re: #505 lolohead

Well, thanks for the ding, but I hope you realize that I was making fun of your logic. I just hate misunderstandings.

516 lolohead  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 7:17:39pm

re: #503 Coracle

Do you, a chemist, need to be handheld through the absorption and emission physics of CO2 and other greenhouse? The claim that global temperatures have been falling in the last decade is outright false.

Wow, read the post. Don't try to say I don't think greenhouse gasses exist or that there isn't a greenhouse effect. Maybe I know enough not to be led by the hand down a dark alley. We'll just have to disagree on what it means for a number to be higher or lower but the mean global temperature now has a number associated with it that is to the left of the number associated with the mean global temperature in 1998. FACT interpret anyway you want. What percentage of GHGs are man made? Can this percentage have a significant effect on temperature? That's all I'm asking and NO, none of the sources cited earlier, and none of the IPCC referenced papers can show that. (I've read them, don't say I haven't)

517 lolohead  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 7:20:42pm

re: #515 Naso Tang

Well, thanks for the ding, but I hope you realize that I was making fun of your logic. I just hate misunderstandings.

Yes, I like a sense of humor and intelligence (good reference). Maybe I'll refine my thoughts a little better next time. How about knowledge isn't a laundry list of what you know but an awareness of what it is you don't. We are close to going officially off topic.

518 Achilles Tang  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 7:21:57pm

re: #516 lolohead

Funny. All the analyses I have read say the opposite (of course unlike you I haven't read all the papers and had the data to refute them)./

519 Achilles Tang  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 7:25:54pm

re: #517 lolohead

Yes, I like a sense of humor and intelligence (good reference). Maybe I'll refine my thoughts a little better next time. How about knowledge isn't a laundry list of what you know but an awareness of what it is you don't. We are close to going officially off topic.

Oh no. We are totally on topic. You are making up nonsense as you go. We are not talking of knowledge, we are talking of the understanding of knowledge.

We are not talking of the awareness of what we don't know, which is an oxymoron.

520 swamprat  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 7:26:21pm

Gee. People with few comments and long association coming to a thread that is pretty dead to post a contrary viewpoint.

This is a new phenomina.

Guess all the previous climate threads were OK.

521 FoolsMate  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 7:26:55pm

There is considerable disagreement among scientists as to the current status of climate science and of the certainty of warming predictions endorsed by the IPCC. Based on these IPCC reports and their conclusions, the degree of overreaching and alarmism from the press, politicos and activists is mind-boggling to me. On both sides. It also obscures the science for decision makers.

It's very important to get the science right and to understand how reliable the predictive models are; there are serious criticisms that should not be overshadowed by the ridiculous.

Among them are: (1) the human and natural factors affecting climate are not completely understood and significant gaps are present in current models; (2) a small subset of climate scientists are evaluating the robustness of their own research that is used in IPCC reports.

522 Achilles Tang  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 7:31:29pm

re: #521 FoolsMate

When you have something new to contribute, please come back. As of this time at night you are just another bore reminiscent of the gods of the gaps.

I'm moving on, but someone will make sure the last post is answered, if it is worth the effort.

523 lolohead  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 7:33:48pm

re: #518 Naso Tang

Funny. All the analyses I have read say the opposite (of course unlike you I haven't read all the papers and had the data to refute them)./

I've been at this for some time. I first became curious because EVERYTHING associated with global warming was negative. I mean there had to a list of better when warmer and worse when warmer. It was all warming is coming and it's all bad. That is why I know what was predicted in the mid nineties and what has been presented from both sides. Why has it become "climate change" if they are so sure of the warming? Where are all of the huge hurricanes since Katrina? I could go on but I think we know where my opinion lies. I've got just short of 15 years worth of watching this circus. That is why I wanted to warn Charles about the Hockey Stick graph, he doesn't want to stick to that tart baby or pin his credibility on it. Why should he, he had nothing to do with it. It just purports to back up his opinion on this subject. Isn't that what Charles has been saying lately that has created so much of a stir? That just because someone (in this case something) is on the same side of an issue with you doesn't mean it your friend.

524 jaunte  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 7:34:03pm

re: #521 FoolsMate

Here's an interesting statement from Professor Pielke:

Humans are significantly altering the global climate, but in a variety of diverse ways beyond the radiative effect of carbon dioxide. The IPCC assessments have been too conservative in recognizing the importance of these human climate forcings as they alter regional and global climate. These assessments have also not communicated the inability of the models to accurately forecast the spread of possibilities of future climate. The forecasts, therefore, do not provide any skill in quantifying the impact of different mitigation strategies on the actual climate response that would occur.

525 FoolsMate  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 7:34:22pm

re: #522 Naso Tang

What a class act you are. I am sure you didn't follow the link and read it before posting that.

526 lolohead  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 7:37:17pm

re: #521 FoolsMate

There is considerable disagreement among scientists as to the current status of climate science and of the certainty of warming predictions endorsed by the IPCC. Based on these IPCC reports and their conclusions, the degree of overreaching and alarmism from the press, politicos and activists is mind-boggling to me. On both sides. It also obscures the science for decision makers.

It's very important to get the science right and to understand how reliable the predictive models are; there are serious criticisms that should not be overshadowed by the ridiculous.

Among them are: (1) the human and natural factors affecting climate are not completely understood and significant gaps are present in current models; (2) a small subset of climate scientists are evaluating the robustness of their own research that is used in IPCC reports.

Great post FM. I now retire and will let you defend the forces of reason.

527 FoolsMate  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 7:39:02pm

re: #524 jaunte

Here's an interesting statement from Professor Pielke:

Indeed I find it interesting that that non-CO2 human climate forcings have been underestimated. The implication may be that CO2 emissions are less important than previously thought but we must remain open minded.

528 jaunte  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 7:43:00pm

re: #527 FoolsMate

Yes, I think the need for better understanding of all of the feedback processes will require a lot of research. Those who might prefer to say there's no problem at all may not want to spend that money.

529 Coracle  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 7:59:39pm

re: #516 lolohead

Wow, read the post. Don't try to say I don't think greenhouse gasses exist or that there isn't a greenhouse effect. Maybe I know enough not to be led by the hand down a dark alley. We'll just have to disagree on what it means for a number to be higher or lower but the mean global temperature now has a number associated with it that is to the left of the number associated with the mean global temperature in 1998. FACT interpret anyway you want. What percentage of GHGs are man made? Can this percentage have a significant effect on temperature? That's all I'm asking and NO, none of the sources cited earlier, and none of the IPCC referenced papers can show that. (I've read them, don't say I haven't)

It's cute that you cherrypick 1998. Why not 1999? Why not 1997? Could it be because if you pick either of those, or the average of those 3 compared with the average of the last 3 years your FACT changes?

As for percentages of GHGs. About 25-30% of current atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic. This paper, almost 10 years old, and thus likely somewhat dated, goes into natural and anthropogenic forcings on climate.

The EIA has some good US numbers, and a discussion of Carbon.

I first became curious because EVERYTHING associated with global warming was negative.

I have no idea what you were reading, but it sounds ridiculous on its face.

As for Climate Change vs. Global Warming, you should know, after "15 years of following" the issue that the change in average global temperature is not the only result from changing climate, and that regional variability will result in different changes in different places.

530 jackflash  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 8:10:27pm

re: #513 Coracle

You talk like regression techniques are not used in climate models when they are.

Really, Coracle? Show me! Show me a regression, using observed data, either time series or cross-section, showing a positive correlation between GHG emissions (or levels) and temperatures, with strong diagnostics, i.e., R-squared and t-scores for the explanatory variables. Don't just throw a reading list at me, please! Show a reference to the refereed journal article and talk to me about the diagnostics. I've looked everywhere, starting with the IPCC reports, but can only find the closed, assumption-driven models, using no empirical data (except some results derived from lab experiments); those few times I've seen regressions using observed data gave either no diagnostics or the diagnostics showed the relevant coefficients to be insignificant in the regression!

Please, Coracle, stop saying "you're wrong" and give me specifics. I'm begging you! JF

531 jackflash  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 8:13:52pm

re: #512 Naso Tang
I've had nothing to drink. Sorry. I'm working on a project for work and am playing hookey reading these posts. I'm ashamed but sober as a judge (which, coincidentally...).

532 MPH  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 8:22:19pm
US negotiators have told European counterparts that the Obama administration intends to sweep away almost all of the Kyoto architecture and replace it with a system of its own design.

[Link: www.guardian.co.uk...]

533 MPH  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 8:28:34pm

Sea Ice Extant 2002-2009:
Image: AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png

534 Coracle  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 8:29:14pm

re: #530 jackflash

I'm not sure what you mean by "closed, assumption driven models". Models like NASA's GISS GCM ModelE are freely available to anyone down to the source code. All assumptions are there and free for anyone to test.

535 jackflash  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 8:34:27pm

re: #514 lolohead

"Are you saying that you can have a positive (or negative) correlation, or slope of a regression line, and if it isn't significant (small t or p>.05) it means that no association is just as valid as any conclusion the correlation would imply?"

What this means is that the estimated correlation has a standard deviation that is more than half its value. So, if the regression estimates a positive coefficient of, say, 3 for the GHG explanatory variable, but if its standard deviation is 2, its t-score is 3/2=1.5. In this case, at the 95% level of confidence, we cannot reject the null hypothesis that the coefficient is zero. If the measured standard deviation were, instead, 1, its t-score would be 3/1=3. In this case, at 95%, we can reject the null hypothesis and can safely say the coefficient is significant and thus the corresponding explanatory variable (GHG in this example) is significant and we can conclude that GHG emissions raise temperatures.

My point, lolohead, Charles, intelligent readers, is that this proof of significance has not been conducted and/or published. Nor has the hypothesis that "most" of the observed increase in temperatures have been caused by man. Both of these analyses are lacking in the literature, but I would like to be proved wrong. Just show me the t-scores! Please, folks. And stop calling people with legitimate questions and objections names. JF

536 Pythagoras  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 8:46:33pm

re: #534 Coracle

Dude! How ya doin'? Wish I had time to engage this properly but I'm on vacation and gotta be in Epcot at 8am. I do think the saga of how hard it was to get Briffa's data is troubling and the response posted above is of the "yeah but look at all the other data that agrees" sort. That's actually a good response in some ways but the behavior is still disquieting.

As you know, I pretty much agree with the "consensus" on the past -- it's the future acceleration I question. But, why was he so secretive with the data?

This one might have legs. I'll check back some time tomorrow. Sorry to eat and run but I will check back.

537 lolohead  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 9:15:51pm

re: #529 Coracle


As for percentages of GHGs. About 25-30% of current atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic.
Now for some multiplication What % of GHGs are CO2? 10% at best
So .30 * .1 and you end up with Man made CO2 being about 3% at best of all GHGs. ALL of our CO2 is 3% of GHGs and curbing our CO2 output will change something?

538 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 9:15:54pm

re: #509 jackflash

Jack, Jack, Jack,

We already danced on another thread about this.

In that thread we established:

1. You do not read all the papers. In fact you refused out right to read any of the papers I linked to you. This one had too much survey of the literature, that one was too much of a seminal paper, (and even though a seminal paper) too old, that other one had too much math, yet another one too little. The bottom line was that you do not read the papers and you do not want to read the papers.

2. We established (big bad physicist and all proved to too you) that this regression analysis stuff you keep blathering about is not the correct math to blather about. Once again, we need to propagate a coupled non-linear system. This is done by dividing the Earth and various systems into spatio-temporal cells and invoking boundary conditions. You will find that the actual system does not have an analytic solution to do a regression like you are speaking of on. The input parameters are of course real data, taken from tens of thousands if sensors around the world.

3. If you wonder if the outputs of the models match observed data, they do. In that sense of course we do regressions on the data and it does match.

This paper goes into details about how to look for these matches and rule out non man made sources for the warming. There are many like it of course, but you won't read them. I give you this, from Nature, sited 229 times as an example of the models matching the data and ruling out non made forcing.

Detection of Anthropogenic Climate Change in the World's Oceans

[Link: www.sciencemag.org...]

Abstract:

Large-scale increases in the heat content of the world's oceans have been observed to occur over the last 45 years. The horizontal and temporal character of these changes has been closely replicated by the state-of-the-art Parallel Climate Model (PCM) forced by observed and estimated anthropogenic gases. Application of optimal detection methodology shows that the model-produced signals are indistinguishable from the observations at the 0.05 confidence level. Further, the chances of either the anthropogenic or observed signals being produced by the PCM as a result of natural, internal forcing alone are less than 5%. This suggests that the observed ocean heat-content changes are consistent with those expected from anthropogenic forcing, which broadens the basis for claims that an anthropogenic signal has been detected in the global climate system. Additionally, the requirement that modeled ocean heat uptakes match observations puts a strong, new constraint on anthropogenically forced climate models. It is unknown if the current generation of climate models, other than the PCM, meet this constraint.

539 lolohead  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 9:17:36pm

re: #535 jackflash

"Are you saying that you can have a positive (or negative) correlation, or slope of a regression line, and if it isn't significant (small t or p>.05) it means that no association is just as valid as any conclusion the correlation would imply?"

My point, lolohead,

I agree! I was just offering an easier to digest definition of significance.

540 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 9:27:14pm

re: #530 jackflash

Read this paper. Like I said, it lays out all of the analysis and shows the models matching observed data, while ruling out "natural" forcing.
[Link: www.sciencemag.org...]

541 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sat, Oct 3, 2009 9:31:53pm

re: #509 jackflash

What I want to see, Charles, is some regression of the following (very simplified) form:

T = a + bGHG + cW + dX

where T is the average temperature for several time periods, GHG is the amount of measured GHG in the atmosphere for each of these periods; W is either some measure of water vapors or some similar variable for each period; X is some other variables considered important in the determination of T; b, c, and d are coefficients of these variable to be estimated by the regression, and a constant scalar to be estimated as well.

And you won't because this is a non-linear system (look up what that means and learn it) and therefore what you are talking about does not apply. You won't find it because it is the wrong math to use.

Very simple really, only you are too arrogant to assume that your mighty application of mathematics is just wrong and not appropriate to the issues.

again:

read this:
[Link: www.sciencemag.org...]

Go to a library and read the paper. You won't understand it, because the math will be way over your head: I know this because of the type of math errors you are making in your wrong arguments, however, you will at least see what the appropriate math looks like.

542 jackflash  Sun, Oct 4, 2009 12:53:35am

This is in response to #538 by LudwigVanQuixote:

First of all, Lud, read lolohead's excellent posts in this thread, especially #537. His arguments are much more elegant than mine; he points out that, even by the estimates of the climate change mavens, man's contribution to the GHG soup is very small, so that even if we take heroic and economically devastating actions to reduce our emissions it is unlikely to have much effect on temperatures. Great point, lolohead!

As to your endless screeds, Lud:
1) You say that "we established" several things. "We" never established anything, Lud. You made several claims and threw several undergraduate reading lists at me, promising that I would see the light if only I would read all of them. You're no different than any self-absorbed student I've ever had in class - very certain that the books they have read should be read by all. Only then will the world gain the wisdom they themselves have cloaked themselves in these past three years. Halleluyah!

2) You never cited a seminal paper. You talked about some old book that was assigned for a class you took, but no papers. And in case you've forgotten, I remind you that I've read most of the academic, refereed journal articles in those lists of yours. And survey articles are usually too cursory to be of any use anyway.

3) You actually make the following incredible claim:
"We established (big bad physicist and all proved to too you) that this regression analysis stuff you keep blathering about is not the correct math to blather about." "We" never established anything about regressions, and you never "proved to too you" (sic) because you never indicated you had any idea what a regression or its diagnostics are.

"Once again, we need to propagate a coupled non-linear system."
I talked about a system of regressions, simultaneous or lagged, and agreed that nonlinear relationships should be used (nothing I've ever said even implies that OLS is the only way to go; sheesh!).

"You will find that the actual system does not have an analytic solution to do a regression like you are speaking of on." This is the most absurd, pooly worded statement of your entire screed. If you knew anything about regressions you'd know they are estimates of the impact of variables on the values of other variables, not solutions (like there are five variables and five unknowns). And now for your crowning glory:

"The input parameters are of course real data, taken from tens of thousands if sensors around the world." Are you on the pipe again, son? All of these computer simulations use assumed, controlled inputs for their many parameters. The Parallel Climate Model, of which you are apparently proud as you cite that old chestnut of a paper from UCSD (something I read about three years ago and was one of the things that convinced me they really had no empirical evidence re the actual causes of observed temperature change - thanks for the trip down memory lane, Lud), use a multitude of assumptions and scenarios. Just look at the list provided by the DOE:
[Link: www.nersc.gov...] . These aren't files of observations, just lists of assumed parameter values.

And look this great quote from your precious data-poor but conclusion-rich UCSD paper, after they've tried to show some correlation between their mathematical model and historical observations (after first tweeking several of the parameters - after all, they're only assumptions): "This suggests, with confidence exceeding 95%, that one may accept anthropogenic forcing as one possible explanation for the observed changes in heat content of the global oceans. There may be other possible explanations that were not included in the model simulations--hence the word "consistent" used above."
This just shows they have no idea how to apply confidence intervals, if all they can say is that human activity "may" be one possible explanation. They essentially admit they have misspecified their model. This is why regressions are used.

543 Charles Johnson  Sun, Oct 4, 2009 9:25:36am

P.S. And just like creationists, climate change deniers will relentlessly continue churning out deceptive comments long past the point where it's obvious what they're doing, in a strange attempt to get the last word -- as if by doing so, they can somehow alter the nature of reality, and make global warming go away by having the final comment in a thread at LGF.

544 saik0max0r  Sun, Oct 4, 2009 9:37:38am

re: #27 Thanos

I don't think RealClimate has made a technical response on the merits of McIntyre's work as of yet, and neither has Dr. Briffa, who's response has been pretty neutral so far. What they have done is thrown up more smoke and mirrors and have attempted to change the subject. For long time watchers of this "debate" this is sadly nothing new.

Notice that their "zomg!! smackdown" rebuttal graphs heavily rely on tail weighted time series, only a single hockey stick related to *temperature* graph shows anything earlier than the year 1000, where the temperatures were at similar levels as the year 2000 time frame. If they are smacking down the strawman argument that hockey stick patterns don't exist, then wow, they are so clever. But that wasn't the point of McIntyre's research.

Comments about advocates turning the findings into a wholesale rebuttal of the AGW is a little premature, but both sides are guilty of hyping whatever research supports their forgone conclusion.

545 Pythagoras  Sun, Oct 4, 2009 11:00:14am

re: #544 saik0max0r

I don't think RealClimate has made a technical response on the merits of McIntyre's work as of yet, and neither has Dr. Briffa, who's response has been pretty neutral so far. What they have done is thrown up more smoke and mirrors and have attempted to change the subject. For long time watchers of this "debate" this is sadly nothing new.

The inflammatory statements in non-scientific publications such as the telegraph and the National Review were unhelpful and Charles should not have focused on them. Brifa makes a spirited defense that his selection of the 12 Yamal trees was not fraudulent or even biased -- after admitting that such charges did not originate with McIntyre. He ends his piece (as linked from RealClimate) with this near concession:

Whether the McIntyre version is any more robust a representation of regional tree growth in Yamal than my original, remains to be established.

My colleagues and I are working to develop methods that are capable of expressing robust evidence of climate changes using tree-ring data. We do not select tree-core samples based on comparison with climate data. Chronologies are constructed independently and are subsequently compared with climate data to measure the association and quantify the reliability of using the tree-ring data as a proxy for temperature variations.

We have not yet had a chance to explore the details of McIntyre's analysis or its implication for temperature reconstruction at Yamal but we have done considerably more analyses exploring chronology production and temperature calibration that have relevance to this issue but they are not yet published. I do not believe that McIntyre's preliminary post provides sufficient evidence to doubt the reality of unusually high summer temperatures in the last decades of the 20th century.

We will expand on this initial comment on the McIntyre posting when we have had a chance to review the details of his work.

I agree with McIntyre -- it isn't fraud -- but the updated results are better and lose the hockey-stick shape.

And that aint creationism folks.

546 Charles Johnson  Sun, Oct 4, 2009 11:41:46am

re: #545 Pythagoras

The inflammatory statements in non-scientific publications such as the telegraph and the National Review were unhelpful and Charles should not have focused on them. Brifa makes a spirited defense that his selection of the 12 Yamal trees was not fraudulent or even biased -- after admitting that such charges did not originate with McIntyre. He ends his piece (as linked from RealClimate) with this near concession...

That is not even close to being a "concession." Very much to the contrary -- it's a completely devastating refutation of the claims made by McIntyre. The statement is here:

[Link: www.cru.uea.ac.uk...]

547 jackflash  Sun, Oct 4, 2009 12:05:11pm

In #543, our host Charles says,
"P.S. And just like creationists, climate change deniers will relentlessly continue churning out deceptive comments long past the point where it's obvious what they're doing, in a strange attempt to get the last word -- as if by doing so, they can somehow alter the nature of reality, and make global warming go away by having the final comment in a thread at LGF."
Well, I hesitate to be rude to you in your own house, but isn't that what you're doing with that statement?

And for those who think it's impossible for these scientists to commit fraud, I work for a regulatory agency who oversees, among other things, electric utilties. We recently had a proceeding investigating whether we should restrict the placement of transmission lines because of potential harm to locals from the electromagnetic force (EMF) fields around the lines. We found that one of the researchers who had published in this area had "cooked the books" in order to get more research grants and consulting gigs. We discovered this when I and another analyst saw how regular and surprisingly smooth some of his graphs and results were. (They looked like those "Keeling Curves" (sp?) you see in this GHG stuff over and over.) Observed data is just not that well-behaved - it's a mess, unless it's based on assumed parameters and scenarios like we see in these big climate models purporting to "prove" the connection between emissions and rising temperatures.

So, Charles, I'm not trying to be the last commenter here; I'm just repeating what I've asked you and others before: please help me out here and point me to the empirical, not assumed, analysis that proves this connection. How much is man-made? Where is that number and how is it derived? If you believe in this connection I'm sure you've reviewed this sort of analysis, so just let the rest of us (you know, the ones who are apparently "in denial") in on it. Thanks, JF

548 tracycoyle  Sun, Oct 4, 2009 12:32:12pm

The world's climate is changing. 6 billion people will have that impact. My question is, is it good or bad? What is the 'correct' temperature? We all know there isn't one. We have a dynamic system that changes all the time. Obviously we don't want an ice age, but is there some method humans can use to 'stabilize' the temperature at some range acceptable to our lifestyles? The answer is clearly no. How can I say that in the face of 'CO2 change'? Our CO2 didn't reduce the number sunspots - and we have been told that the sunspot count hasn't changed the 'energy' output of the Sun. But sunspot changes - from what I have read - have some correlation to planet temperature. Is there some component we are not measuring that has an impact?

Four billion years of weather and we are using a couple dozen data types, and information from a fraction of the timeline and making judgments about that is causing the changes and whether it is good or bad.

CO2 jumps 300-400%, what will the response be by our climate? IT WILL respond. Is the response good orbad? Will there be an impact on humanity? Sure - so sorry to the people in low lying areas - although I haven't done the research, how much of the Arctic and Antarctic icepacks are over water?

As a species we are extremely short sighted. The climate is going to change, warmer, cooler, wetter, drier. Assuming that the Planet is going to behave in the next decade as it did in the last ignores history.

Personally, I am seeking efficiencies in my energy consumption without regard to the CO2 output. I am reducing my debt, building my savings and improving efficiencies. I will adjust to the future rather than demand either society or the planet adjust to me.

549 Sharmuta  Sun, Oct 4, 2009 12:41:28pm

re: #548 tracycoyle

Changing Sun, Changing Climate?

This article lays out the evidence from studies on the Sun and how it's impacted climate on earth.

All this helped to guarantee that scientists would continue to scrutinize any possibility that solar activity could influence climate, but always with a skeptical eye. If meteorologists had misgivings, most astronomers dismissed outright any thought of important solar variations on a timescale of hundreds or thousands of years. Surface features like sunspots might cycle over decades, but that was a weak, superficial, and short-term effect. As for the main energy flow, improved theories of the nuclear furnace deep within the Sun showed stability over many millions of years. Alongside this sound scientific reasoning there may have been a less rational component. "We had adopted a kind of solar uniformitarianism," solar physicist John (Jack) Eddy suggested in retrospect. "As people and as scientists we have always wanted the Sun to be better than other stars and better than it really is."

550 Charles Johnson  Sun, Oct 4, 2009 12:46:08pm

re: #547 jackflash

So, Charles, I'm not trying to be the last commenter here; I'm just repeating what I've asked you and others before: please help me out here and point me to the empirical, not assumed, analysis that proves this connection.

And this is another thing anti-AGW people and creationists have in common -- endless demands that others do their research for them. "Show me this, point me to that..."

There is a mountain of evidence, all over the web and in many books on the subject. It's not hard to find. But of course, you have to want to see it.

551 Brooklyn Squid  Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:32:30pm

re: #550 Charles

And this is another thing anti-AGW people and creationists have in common -- endless demands that others do their research for them. "Show me this, point me to that..."

There is a mountain of evidence, all over the web and in many books on the subject. It's not hard to find. But of course, you have to want to see it.

If alarmists are going to insist that we all spend hundreds of billions of dollars to combat climate change, I think they should have a webpage where the basic argument and evidence is outlined. That way, when anyone asks for evidence, you could just provide the link, rather than explaining why you don't have to give a link or mocking the person for asking for a link. I think the skeptics should be treated slightly different than creationists, because you ultimately insist on taxing the skeptics. Thus, they can ask more from the alarmists, and the alarmists have more of an obligation to provide a concise argument when asked. (Gore's An Inconvenient Truth could have been the basic argument I'm referring to, but it's too flawed for that role. The alarmists need to make a succinct explanation available somewhere).

552 Sharmuta  Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:34:56pm

re: #551 Brooklyn Squid

I think they should have a webpage where the basic argument and evidence is outlined. That way, when anyone asks for evidence, you could just provide the link

[Link: www.aip.org...]

553 tracycoyle  Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:40:21pm

I appreciate the link and the article did a great job of covering the issues. The more I read the more I am convinced that the mechanism of climate change is complex and subject to subtle changes. It also reinforces the point that we are making estimates based on data that realistically is only several decades old.

It seems to me that the idea held in the past that the Sun has little impact on global climate "because we can not measure any effects" is pretty arrogant! One thought I had while reading was how much of an impact does magnetic effects have on climate - shortly thereafter in the article, the issue was raised.

In the end, some day in the FAR future, we are going to have a good idea of ALL the mechanisms associated with climate change, and it will include the impact of humanity. Until that day - yes, until that day, it is arrogant to point to a single item (CO2) and say that 1) we are dramatically altering our climate permanently and 2) that we know enough to decide what is the 'appropriate' climate the Earth should have.

Three times solar influence has been ruled out and three times it has be revived. The science is not settled and I am encouraged by the article that most scientists are willing deal with new information and to suggest new avenues of research.

Solar variation - magnetic, particle and other outputs; cosmic variations; Earth's magnetosphere, greenhouse gases, aerosols, clouds, precipitation and ocean currents. All part of the puzzle. And in the end, my original question remains: what is the 'correct' temperature for the Earth. Are we too cool and only approaching something correct? Are we too warm and getting further away? Are we in the middle of a 1000 year, or 100,000 variation? The inconvenient truth in my mind is, we don't know.

554 tracycoyle  Sun, Oct 4, 2009 3:08:21pm

One last point, from the AIP site:

The climate system and ecosystems are complex and only partly understood, so there is a chance that the impacts will not be as bad as predicted. There is a similar chance of impacts grievously worse than predicted. If the CO2 level keeps rising to well beyond twice the pre-industrial level along with a rise of other greenhouse gases, as must inevitably happen if we do not take strong action soon, the results will certainly be worse.

Things could be not as bad or much worse. WE are only part of the response. The Planet is going to respond also - how? I don't see a discussion there off hand. We don't know. We can make assumptions based on estimates, based on data that is a fraction of the issues involved. Six billion people are living and breathing on the planet today - a number never before seen. It is silly to suggest we are not having an impact but here is the arrogance:

* There will be significant unforeseen impacts. Most of these will probably be harmful, since human and natural systems are well adapted to the present climate.

Gee, we are comfortable now, why let the planet change? What if the changes were happening and CO2 was NOT changing dramatically? What if the Sun were entering a period of higher energy output across the spectrum? We would have to adapt, or fail as a species.

555 Sharmuta  Sun, Oct 4, 2009 3:18:41pm

re: #554 tracycoyle

Yes- the system is delicate. So what happens when one of those other factors does come in to play? Because the increase in CO2 from human activity is definitely playing a role. An additional natural addition of other factors would aggravate the system more. Feedback loops, for example, such as thawing bogs in the tundra releasing methane. You can rule in as many other natural causes as you'd like, but the data shows you can't rule out the increased CO2 from humans, and its significance to altering the climate.

556 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Oct 4, 2009 5:06:20pm

re: #542 jackflash

Undergraduate reading lists?

How many different ways are there to say that you will not read and that you do not wish to read?

Look, The paper I linked to, you never saw before in your life. If you had seen it, and read it, you would not make the false claims about it that you do - for instance, what is used as input parameters. You are banking on the idea that most people will never look at the actual paper, and as a result buy your preposterous, made up, lies.

Of course the model output recreates past observed data faithfully. If the models did not, no one would take these things seriously at all.

This paper which you seem to be annoyed came out in 2002 (or thereabouts) was sited over 200 times by actual scientists as opposed to web loser blowhards like you. You climate be some sort of sophisticated economist, and therein lies your problem. You see, real physic models have to eventually match the data, which ours do. Read that or a slew of other papers proving it, rather than falsely predicting the market and earning you a raise from government bailout money.

Do not presume to call me son. Do not presume to critique something you have never read and that you clearly would not understand.

Here's the bottom line on how these things work.

You make up a bunch of stuff and whine a lot about math in a way that demonstrates to anyone who knows math that you are just a fatuous ass.

I keep explaining the stuff clearly - like the actual math that needs to be used -propagation techniques over many cells- and people believe me, because I am not a whiny liar.

Now as to you bitching about undergraduate reading lists. Actually if you look through these threads, I have dozens of links to the journal papers themselves. I pointed one out to you that meets all of your challenges and you insult it.

So what really is your problem with the paper. Don't claim it does not use real data as inputs. It does. You see you are lying when you say otherwise.

Don't say you read it. You see, you are lying when you say otherwise, because had you actually read it, you would know all about the data sets used.

So rather than whine about all the papers I keep giving you. Critique the science in a meaningful way, stop lying and shut up with the drivel - or better yet, just STFU and learn some science. You fool no one.

557 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Oct 4, 2009 5:11:36pm

re: #550 Charles

And this is another thing anti-AGW people and creationists have in common -- endless demands that others do their research for them. "Show me this, point me to that..."

There is a mountain of evidence, all over the web and in many books on the subject. It's not hard to find. But of course, you have to want to see it.

Oh please he is like Goldilocks. This one is too long, this one is too short, this one (I never saw, but I will pretend I did and make some shit up), this one is too old (never mind that it is sited hundreds of times and well true) that one doesn't use math I understand (so therefore must be wrong), This one would be too clear to understand (so I will call it undergraduate, and pretend that I can understand the "real" science).

And so on and so on.

Please don't ever wonder why I tire of these fuckwits and call them so.

558 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Oct 4, 2009 5:16:09pm

re: #523 lolohead

I've been at this for some time. I first became curious because EVERYTHING associated with global warming was negative. I mean there had to a list of better when warmer and worse when warmer. It was all warming is coming and it's all bad. That is why I know what was predicted in the mid nineties and what has been presented from both sides. Why has it become "climate change" if they are so sure of the warming? Where are all of the huge hurricanes since Katrina? I could go on but I think we know where my opinion lies. I've got just short of 15 years worth of watching this circus. That is why I wanted to warn Charles about the Hockey Stick graph, he doesn't want to stick to that tart baby or pin his credibility on it. Why should he, he had nothing to do with it. It just purports to back up his opinion on this subject. Isn't that what Charles has been saying lately that has created so much of a stir? That just because someone (in this case something) is on the same side of an issue with you doesn't mean it your friend.

The fact that you think the hockey stick graph is anything other than a side show, in the face of much more direct and compelling evidence, like ice cores and direct atmospheric measurements of concentrations indicates only that you have no idea how the science works and have only reading biased reporting on the science rather than the science itself.

Why not look at carbon from a period that was actually trapped in ice and direct measurements over tree ring proxy data? It's what the professionals do.

559 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Oct 4, 2009 5:17:23pm

re: #545 Pythagoras

But it is a side show at best even if you are right. But you aren't.

560 Pythagoras  Sun, Oct 4, 2009 7:56:58pm

re: #559 LudwigVanQuixote

But it is a side show at best even if you are right. But you aren't.

Right about what?

561 Pythagoras  Sun, Oct 4, 2009 8:09:12pm

re: #546 Charles

That is not even close to being a "concession." Very much to the contrary -- it's a completely devastating refutation of the claims made by McIntyre. The statement is here:

[Link: www.cru.uea.ac.uk...]

OK. in the interest of comity, I'll concede that my calling it a "near concession" was too strong. Furthermore, I commend him for being professional and scholarly about this issue. However, I think "devastating refutation" is also too strong. Here's his ending again.

Whether the McIntyre version is any more robust a representation of regional tree growth in Yamal than my original, remains to be established.

My colleagues and I are working to develop methods that are capable of expressing robust evidence of climate changes using tree-ring data. We do not select tree-core samples based on comparison with climate data. Chronologies are constructed independently and are subsequently compared with climate data to measure the association and quantify the reliability of using the tree-ring data as a proxy for temperature variations.

We have not yet had a chance to explore the details of McIntyre's analysis or its implication for temperature reconstruction at Yamal but we have done considerably more analyses exploring chronology production and temperature calibration that have relevance to this issue but they are not yet published. I do not believe that McIntyre's preliminary post provides sufficient evidence to doubt the reality of unusually high summer temperatures in the last decades of the 20th century.

We will expand on this initial comment on the McIntyre posting when we have had a chance to review the details of his work.

562 jackflash  Sun, Oct 4, 2009 8:37:05pm

This is in response to Charles #550 (the reply buttons don't seem to be working for me - what gives?): You say, "And this is another thing anti-AGW people and creationists have in common -- endless demands that others do their research for them. "Show me this, point me to that..."
There is a mountain of evidence, all over the web and in many books on the subject. It's not hard to find. But of course, you have to want to see it."

Charles, please don't insult me. I'm a phd economist and statistician, and I have only the most pure, truth-seeking motives; I have no dog in this fight. I just want to advise my boss (an energy utility regulator) what evidence exists and is reliable, i.e. what he can base his decisions on. I've been reading everything I can find on this subject for the past six years, both for my job and my own curiosity. I've done my own research, I'm a good researcher and I understand analysis as well as the statistics. I've never found the published, refereed report or paper that shows the connection between our emissions and temperature rise, let alone one that shows how much is due to the total GHG (ours and nature's) in the atmosphere.

I'm not asking for much - you and several posters here seem so convinced of your positions that you must be basing them on hard, empirical data and what they show when robust methods, like regression analysis, are applied to them. You say there's a mountain of evidence - show me a few of the rocks. Please don't dismiss legitimate inquiry, just as you were no doubt dismissed when you questioned those "Dan Rather memos."

Thanks, JF

563 Sharmuta  Sun, Oct 4, 2009 8:41:24pm

re: #562 jackflash

and I have only the most pure, truth-seeking motives

Riiight.

564 Bagua  Sun, Oct 4, 2009 9:20:00pm

re: #562 jackflash

[...]

Charles, please don't insult me. I'm a phd economist and statistician, and I have only the most pure, truth-seeking motives; [...]

Impossible, such a statement goes against the very foundation of Global Warming, Warmist beliefs.

I would suggest that people who take part in the climate change debate are all intelligent, honourable and reject manmade climate change, but they never possess more than two of these qualities at once.

565 VRWC Man  Sun, Oct 4, 2009 11:27:36pm

I will admit from the outset that I have not read all 500+ comments for this article. Please allow me some leeway. (This means you, Charles.)

You seem to lump everyone who doesn't believe in the Algore Apocolypse into the "Global Warming Denier" category. As we are both afficianados of Carl Sagan, you should be more accepting of divergent points of view. Have you not read (and taken to heart) Sagan's next-to-last masterpiece "The Demon Haunted World"? In a Universe that is about 13 BILLION years old, on a planet that is about 5 BILLION years old, does it seem reasonable that a few Chevy Suburbans could destroy an entire ecosystem?

Sagan was one of the original proponents of the AGW theory, based on his observations of Venus. Our "sister planet" is very hot, and has an atmosphere that is composed almost entirely of CO2. In the age-old tradition of confusing causation with causality, Sagan assumed that the CO2 which dominated Venus' atmosphere made it a 900 degree (celcius) hellhole.

Never mind that Venus is several million miles closer to Sol, the source of ALL heat, light, and life in this star system. And never mind that the Venusian atmosphere is 92 times more dense than our own, a pressure equivalent to about one kilometer below the surface of the ocean. And never mind the well-known scientific principle that an object (or atmosphere) of greater density can hold more thermal energy.

Who is the denier now?

I would urge you to read "Unstoppable Global Warming; Every 1500 Years" by Fred Singer, et al. Our planet has been warmer than now, and colder than now, and there's not a damn thing we can (or could) do about it.

566 freetoken  Sun, Oct 4, 2009 11:34:01pm

re: #565 VRWC Man

Fred Singer? Good grief, I suppose you are now going to tell us that smoking doesn't cause cancer.

As for Sagan, he was about 50 years too late to have been an early supporter of AGW.

As for Venus... what you obviously don't know is that the albedo of Venus is significantly different than that of Earth. The sulfur in the upper atmosphere of Venus gives it some very reflective (white) clouds. Turns out the surface of Venus is in dimmer light than the surface of Earth. And yes, Venus has it's high temperature because it has so much more CO2 in it's atmosphere than Earth does.

"Who is the denier now?" you ask. Answer: you. You deny quite a few things, actually, and one of them is that there are people here who actually understand quite a bit about science and are also willing to expose your ignorance.

567 Bagua  Sun, Oct 4, 2009 11:57:19pm

re: #566 freetoken

Fred Singer? Good grief, I suppose you are now going to tell us that smoking doesn't cause cancer.

[...]

What? Smoking causes Cancer? You Warmists will fall for anything!

/

568 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Oct 4, 2009 11:58:30pm

re: #562 jackflash

Charles, please don't insult me. I'm a phd economist and statistician, and I have only the most pure, truth-seeking motives;

That would be a lie - about the pure motives at least. As to the PhD economist, well take this from the PhD physicist, you don't know what you are talking about and you refuse to learn.

I have no dog in this fight.

The why won't you read any of the very credible science that has been given to you? Enough with the Goldilocks routine.

I've been reading everything I can find on this subject for the past six years, both for my job and my own curiosity. I've done my own research,

That too would be a lie. Read the paper I linked to you, or for that many any of them. Or come up with an actual scientific reason it is not a good paper. 212 citations and published in Nature is not trivial.

I'm a good researcher and I understand analysis as well as the statistics. I've never found the published, refereed report or paper that shows the connection between our emissions and temperature rise,

I linked you one above. Try reading it. That would be something a good researcher does. Idiot.

569 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Oct 4, 2009 11:59:13pm

re: #562 jackflash

let alone one that shows how much is due to the total GHG (ours and nature's) in the atmosphere.

Again try reading it.


You say there's a mountain of evidence - show me a few of the rocks. Please don't dismiss legitimate inquiry, just as you were no doubt dismissed when you questioned those "Dan Rather memos."

Spare me the crap. You have seen, in the course of your time here at least two dozen links I have personally linked for you. If you were honestly interested in legitimate inquiry, you would know the basic mathematics well enough to not keep making the same errors. You would already know what percentages of CO2 are man caused. There are only a dozen papers on it in good journals. You have yet to read one.

Here are several.

[Link: www.sciencedirect.com...]

Carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere and is of considerable concern in global climate change because of its greenhouse gas warming potential. The rate of increase has accelerated since measurements began at Mauna Loa Observatory in 1958 where carbon dioxide increased from less than 1 part per million per year (ppm yr−1) prior to 1970 to more than 2 ppm yr−1 in recent years. Here we show that the anthropogenic component (atmospheric value reduced by the pre-industrial value of 280 ppm) of atmospheric carbon dioxide has been increasing exponentially with a doubling time of about 30 years since the beginning of the industrial revolution (1800). Even during the 1970s, when fossil fuel emissions dropped sharply in response to the “oil crisis” of 1973, the anthropogenic atmospheric carbon dioxide level continued increasing exponentially at Mauna Loa Observatory. Since the growth rate (time derivative) of an exponential has the same characteristic lifetime as the function itself, the carbon dioxide growth rate is also doubling at the same rate. This explains the observation that the linear growth rate of carbon dioxide has more than doubled in the past 40 years. The accelerating growth rate is simply the outcome of exponential growth in carbon dioxide with a nearly constant doubling time of about 30 years (about 2%/yr) and appears to have tracked human population since the pre-industrial era.

[Link: www.agu.org...]
[Link: www.sciencemag.org...]
[Link: www.sciencemag.org...]
[Link: www.sciencemag.org...]


And do stop blathering about regressions. It is the wrong math to apply. So please spare me the whole you are some sort of PhD economist crap. If you are, then you might realize that the math you are blathering about, in the way you are blathering about it is incorrect. Again, how do you propagate a system of linked partial differential equations?

So really, you are not fooling anyone.

570 jackflash  Sun, Oct 4, 2009 11:59:20pm

re: #564 Bagua

Bagua, you say, "Impossible, such a statement goes against the very foundation of Global Warming, Warmist beliefs.

I would suggest that people who take part in the climate change debate are all intelligent, honourable and reject manmade climate change, but they never possess more than two of these qualities at once."

This is one of the most cogent examples of how religion has replaced analysis in this debate. Just like LudwigVanQuixote, you make a sweeping, ad homenim statement rather than an argument.

571 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 12:00:45am

re: #570 jackflash

Bagua, you say, "Impossible, such a statement goes against the very foundation of Global Warming, Warmist beliefs.

I would suggest that people who take part in the climate change debate are all intelligent, honourable and reject manmade climate change, but they never possess more than two of these qualities at once."

This is one of the most cogent examples of how religion has replaced analysis in this debate. Just like LudwigVanQuixote, you make a sweeping, ad homenim statement rather than an argument.

So here is a sweeping ad hominem for you... I just linked some good papers from Nature that tell you the anthropogenic contributions.

How about you spare me the Goldilocks routine and read them?

572 Bagua  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 12:03:45am

re: #570 jackflash

Bagua, you say, "Impossible, such a statement goes against the very foundation of Global Warming, Warmist beliefs.

I would suggest that people who take part in the climate change debate are all intelligent, honourable and reject manmade climate change, but they never possess more than two of these qualities at once."

This is one of the most cogent examples of how religion has replaced analysis in this debate. Just like LudwigVanQuixote, you make a sweeping, ad homenim statement rather than an argument.

Just for the record jackflash, what point do you suppose I was making?

573 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 12:05:16am

re: #572 Bagua

Just for the record jackflash, what point do you suppose I was making?

Bagua, don't. The difference is in all the data I keep bringing and the fact that I explain the science.

Now get it through your head that the science is real and that the predictions are very alarming.

574 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 12:17:11am

re: #562 jackflash

Ohh and just for good measure...

[Link: ams.confex.com...]

[Link: www.ehleringer.net...]

[Link: www.agu.org...]

575 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 12:18:26am

re: #562 jackflash

So jackie, there are eight papers about the anthropogenic contributions to GHs.

An honest researcher would read them.

576 [deleted]  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 6:22:21am
577 Elle Plater  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 6:34:27am

Word for word from the Wegman report:

The debate over Dr. Mann’s principal components methodology has been going on for nearly three years. When we got involved, there was no evidence that a single issue was resolved or even nearing resolution. Dr. Mann’s RealClimate.org website said that all of the Mr. McIntyre and Dr. McKitrick claims had been ‘discredited’. UCAR had issued a news release saying that all their claims were ‘unfounded’. Mr. McIntyre replied on the ClimateAudit.org website. The climate science community seemed unable to either refute McIntyre’s claims or accept them. The situation was ripe for a third-party review of the types that we and Dr. North’s NRC panel have done.
While the work of Michael Mann and colleagues presents what appears to be compelling evidence of global temperature change, the criticisms of McIntyre and McKitrick, as well as those of other authors mentioned are indeed valid.
Where we have commonality, I believe our report and the [NAS] panel essentially agree. We believe that our discussion together with the discussion from the NRC report should take the ‘centering’ issue off the table. [Mann's] decentred methodology is simply incorrect mathematics …. I am baffled by the claim that the incorrect method doesn’t matter because the answer is correct anyway.
Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science.
The papers of Mann et al. in themselves are written in a confusing manner, making it difficult for the reader to discern the actual methodology and what uncertainty is actually associated with these reconstructions.
It is not clear that Dr. Mann and his associates even realized that their methodology was faulty at the time of writing the [Mann] paper.
We found MBH98 and MBH99 to be somewhat obscure and incomplete, and the criticisms of MM03/05a/05b to be valid and compelling.
Overall, our committee believes that Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.
[The] fact that their paper fit some policy agendas has greatly enhanced their paper’s visibility… The ‘hockey stick’ reconstruction of temperature graphic dramatically illustrated the global warming issue and was adopted by the IPCC and many governments as the poster graphic. The graphics’ prominence together with the fact that it is based on incorrect use of [principal components analysis] puts Dr. Mann and his co-authors in a difficult face-saving position.
We have been to Michael Mann’s University of Virginia website and downloaded the materials there. Unfortunately, we did not find adequate material to reproduce the MBH98 materials. We have been able to reproduce the results of McIntyre and McKitrick
Generally speaking, the paleoclimatology community has not recognized the validity of the [McIntyre and McKitrick] papers and has tended to dismiss their results as being developed by biased amateurs. The paleoclimatology community seems to be tightly coupled as indicated by our social network analysis, has rallied around the [Mann] position, and has issued an extensive series of alternative assessments, most of which appear to support the conclusions of MBH98/99… Our findings from this analysis suggest that authors in the area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus ‘independent studies’ may not be as independent as they might appear on the surface.
It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though they rely heavily on statistical methods, they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community. Additionally, we judge that the sharing of research materials, data and results was haphazardly and grudgingly done. In this case we judge that there was too much reliance on peer review, which was not necessarily independent.

578 elle Plater  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 6:37:06am

Continued...

Based on the literature we have reviewed, there is no overarching consensus on [Mann's work]. As analyzed in our social network, there is a tightly knit group of individuals who passionately believe in their thesis. However, our perception is that this group has a self-reinforcing feedback mechanism and, moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that they can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility.
It is clear that many of the proxies are re-used in most of the papers. It is not surprising that the papers would obtain similar results and so cannot really claim to be independent verifications.
Especially when massive amounts of public monies and human lives are at stake, academic work should have a more intense level of scrutiny and review. It is especially the case that authors of policy-related documents like the IPCC report, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, should not be the same people as those that constructed the academic papers.

579 freetoken  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 6:42:19am

re: #578 elle Plater

Especially when massive amounts of public monies and human lives are at stake, academic work should have a more intense level of scrutiny and review. It is especially the case that authors of policy-related documents like the IPCC report, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, should not be the same people as those that constructed the academic papers.

First off, AGW science and the need to address the consequences of AGW do not rest of Michael Mann's papers. As the Realclimate entry to which Charles linked makes clear, there are many different "hockey stick" graphs covering a variety of types of measurements. Furthermore, the theoretical underpinnings behind CO2's effects are well founded.

Finally the claim that the "Scientific Basis" report ought to exclude as authors those who wrote and published the original papers is absurd. While I agree that writing a consensus document such as "Scientific Basis" ought to include scientists from the entire scope of climatology related sciences, excluding the very people doing the work is a way to intentionally blind the people trying to write the consensus.

580 jackflash  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 6:42:53am

re: #569 LudwigVanQuixote

I'm so glad you decided to put an actual quote before us, Lud. This illustrates the major problem I've had over the past six years reading this literature. A lot of research has gone into proving temperatures are going up, and a lot of research has gone into proving anthropogenic emissions are going up, but almost nothing has been done connecting the two events. All your quote (and most of those papers on your class reading list) does is prove one side of the argument - that emissions are going up. So? I'm still looking for the paper proving this is causing temperatures to go up, using actual overservations and not "scenarios." Here's your quote:

"Carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere and is of considerable concern in global climate change because of its greenhouse gas warming potential. The rate of increase has accelerated since measurements began at Mauna Loa Observatory in 1958 where carbon dioxide increased from less than 1 part per million per year (ppm yr−1) prior to 1970 to more than 2 ppm yr−1 in recent years. Here we show that the anthropogenic component (atmospheric value reduced by the pre-industrial value of 280 ppm) of atmospheric carbon dioxide has been increasing exponentially with a doubling time of about 30 years since the beginning of the industrial revolution (1800). Even during the 1970s, when fossil fuel emissions dropped sharply in response to the “oil crisis” of 1973, the anthropogenic atmospheric carbon dioxide level continued increasing exponentially at Mauna Loa Observatory. Since the growth rate (time derivative) of an exponential has the same characteristic lifetime as the function itself, the carbon dioxide growth rate is also doubling at the same rate. This explains the observation that the linear growth rate of carbon dioxide has more than doubled in the past 40 years. The accelerating growth rate is simply the outcome of exponential growth in carbon dioxide with a nearly constant doubling time of about 30 years (about 2%/yr) and appears to have tracked human population since the pre-industrial era."

Where in this is there any mention of how increased emissions cause increased temperature?

Charles, Lud, this is why we ask you to show the proof that has convinced you of this causal link. This crap is what we always get. It's like the DA putting up pictures of the bloody crime scene, and then dragging the defendant in chains before the jury, hoping they'll convict because the crime is so hideous. Lud, you'll just have to come up with better quotes if you want to convince us, son.

JF

581 freetoken  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 6:45:53am

re: #580 jackflash


Where in this is there any mention of how increased emissions cause increased temperature?

Charles, Lud, this is why we ask you to show the proof that has convinced you of this causal link.

The causality is due to conservation of energy, quantum mechanics, and the physics of fluids. Try any atmospheric physics text, or a textbook on climatology. If you can't hang with that, then tough.

582 jackflash  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 8:02:40am

re: #581 freetoken

QUANTUM MECHANICS??? Are you snorting your Ritalin this morning? (If Heisenberg was so uncertain, why aren't you...) This is the sort of nonsense I get from the religious members of this cult. Particle physics might give you brain bubbles, but it doesn't show how our 3-5% contribution to CO2 levels pushes temperatures up. (Maybe these are the sorts of nonsensical statements poor Max Planck had to deal with.)

I know how this stuff works on paper, but before we spend trillions on a "fix" that may not work, I want to see some empirical analysis not based on assumption-laden models and a lot of arm waving by grant writers.
If it's so obvious to anyone who reads a climatology or atmospheric physics textbook, why do so many who publish in these fields in refereed journals say they're skeptical about all these dire predictions?

I KNOW! Maybe quantum mechanics tells us that we can measure emissions, and we can measure temeprature increase, and we can measure the amount of grant funding you'll receive, but if we know the first two we can't know the amount of funding with certainty (only within some stochastic envelope). That's why these articles cited (note the correct spelling, Ludwig - it's cited, not sited) by Lud and other students on this topic only deal with one topic - either emissions or temperature. They never seem to show the actual connection with actual observations. This way they can be "certain" about the grant money. Thanks for the insight, FT.

JF

583 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 8:24:50am

re: #580 jackflash

Where in this is there any mention of how increased emissions cause increased temperature?

Charles, Lud, this is why we ask you to show the proof that has convinced you of this causal link.

Jackie.. You know, for someone who claims to have read everything and angrily claims to be too sophisticated to be bothered with "undergraduate level" texts, you certainly don't know freshman physics. Well at least you are accepting that there is a giant manmade contribution. It's bigger than you misquote, but we can always hope you read a paper.

Now as to the mechanism:

Energy is conserved. Heat - and hence temperature (they are not the same thing) is caused by molecular motions. Absorption of light causes molecular motions. The types of light absorbed are dictated through the electron structure of the atoms or molecules involved. This is governed by basic QM. In short, light in certain bands (IR) hits CO2 and causes the CO2 to vibrate and get hot.

QUANTUM MECHANICS??? Are you snorting your Ritalin this morning? (If Heisenberg was so uncertain, why aren't you...)


Ummm, so now you don't believe in quantum mechanics? Are you really that stupid? Why yes, yes, unfortunately you are that stupid. If Heisenberg were so uncertain? That should be a bumper sticker for the morons. Well, I can see that in your extensive researches into this you never learned basic science, and given that you really do have the scientific understanding of a mildly head-wounded chimp, I can understand why you never actually read all those papers you claim to have read.

But in defense of QM, there would be no transistors, or computers or internet without it. The very fact that you can write your mind-numbing stupidity to shout out your pathetic ignorance to the world, is provided to you by QM. The very act of you writing your BS on the web is proof that we got something right about it.

Jackie... I do pray to G-d that you are not actually advising anyone on anything important as you have claimed. The reason is that you are painfully stupid. Of course given how the economy gets run, I would not be too surprised if on that point you were not lying for a change.

So just to recap: Quantum mechanics is real. You don't need a supercollider to see it being real, in fact the theory was mature around 1925. It is the ultimate reason why CO2 makes the atmosphere hot, and you are too stupid to know even something that basic. In fact, you are so mind numbingly stupid, you are willing to rant about one of the most well proven scientific theories in existence. BTW, there would be no atomic technology, or cat scans or NMR or lasers without QM. Do you not believe in those things also?

Moron.

584 Charles Johnson  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 8:39:59am

I'll repeat myself, since it's incredibly obvious what's going on here:

Just like creationists, climate change deniers will relentlessly continue churning out deceptive comments long past the point where it's obvious what they're doing, in a strange attempt to get the last word -- as if by doing so, they can somehow alter the nature of reality, and make global warming go away by having the final comment in a thread at LGF.

585 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 8:40:44am

re: #582 jackflash

I KNOW! Maybe quantum mechanics tells us that we can measure emissions, and we can measure temeprature increase, and we can measure the amount of grant funding you'll receive, but if we know the first two we can't know the amount of funding with certainty (only within some stochastic envelope). That's why these articles cited (note the correct spelling, Ludwig - it's cited, not sited) by Lud and other students on this topic only deal with one topic - either emissions or temperature. They never seem to show the actual connection with actual observations. This way they can be "certain" about the grant money. Thanks for the insight, FT.

Yes, yes, it is all a conspiracy... that was started for grant money in 1905 when Einstein and Plank et al founded quantum theory.

We have here a completely laughable dance of the denier. As soon as one topic gets nailed down - yes there is a lot more CO@ in the atmosphere and we caused it. You shift your arguments to ever more lunacy and high pitched stupidity - all in a sneering tone that mocks science.

For the record I do too sometimes employ a sneering tone. However, I am not sneering at science. Rather, I am sneering at your stupidity.

586 Alan the Brit  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 8:45:37am

I haven’t checked into LGF for some time and I am sad to see that Charles is using language like “AGW deniers” an “shills” regarding Steve McIntyre’s work. I scanned the Real Climate link and note that they don’t address Steve McIntyre’s analysis of the Yamal data in a serious way and instead employ sarcasm, misdirection and smoke. Instead of examining McIntyre’s analysis Charles lampoons the media headlines based on his work and likens his analyses to the techniques of creationists. Charles also writes “National Review is a big promoter of the Discovery Institute’s creationist fables in addition to being a leading proponent of AGW denial” but I think you will find that Steve McIntyre’s analysis has nothing to do with the political affiliations of National Review or anyone else for that matter. As far as I can see from reading McIntyre’s work over the years his only other interest outside of mathematical and statistical analysis is playing squash. Read Steve McIntyre’s work at Climate Audit and decide for yourself if he has a case. Charles seems to have abandoned objectivity and has lost his perspective on this topic, it would seem.

AC

587 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 8:54:01am

re: #586 Alan the Brit

I haven’t checked into LGF for some time and I am sad to see that Charles is using language like “AGW deniers” an “shills” regarding Steve McIntyre’s work. I scanned the Real Climate link and note that they don’t address Steve McIntyre’s analysis of the Yamal data in a serious way and instead employ sarcasm, misdirection and smoke. Instead of examining McIntyre’s analysis Charles lampoons the media headlines based on his work and likens his analyses to the techniques of creationists. Charles also writes “National Review is a big promoter of the Discovery Institute’s creationist fables in addition to being a leading proponent of AGW denial” but I think you will find that Steve McIntyre’s analysis has nothing to do with the political affiliations of National Review or anyone else for that matter. As far as I can see from reading McIntyre’s work over the years his only other interest outside of mathematical and statistical analysis is playing squash. Read Steve McIntyre’s work at Climate Audit and decide for yourself if he has a case. Charles seems to have abandoned objectivity and has lost his perspective on this topic, it would seem.

AC

Alan, how about you read the thousands of papers by professional scientists who make the case for AGW and look at the mountains of evidence for it.

588 Charles Johnson  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 8:56:02am

re: #586 Alan the Brit

Charles seems to have abandoned objectivity and has lost his perspective on this topic, it would seem.

To the contrary -- I've taken quite a bit of time and effort to educate myself on what real scientists have learned about global warming. This effort has resulted in a real change in my opinions on the issue.

This is often the result when ignorance becomes knowledge -- it's difficult to hang onto beliefs that are clearly wrong, if you're at all interested in being intellectually honest.

589 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 8:58:06am

re: #588 Charles

To the contrary -- I've taken quite a bit of time and effort to educate myself on what real scientists have learned about global warming. This effort has resulted in a real change in my opinions on the issue.

This is often the result when ignorance becomes knowledge -- it's difficult to hang onto beliefs that are clearly wrong, if you're at all interested in being intellectually honest.

And that is why you are a decent sort. Intellectual honesty is a rarity in any age.

590 jackflash  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 9:09:14am

Response to #583 by LudwigVanQuixote (the reply button still doesn't work-grrr):

I always know I'm on the right track when someone starts with the silly insults ("you stupid moron," "you haven't read anything," "you're a liar," etc.). If you really have a PhD, you should learn how to argue without ad homenim. Just a suggestion.

Where do I say I don't believe in quantum mechanics? I just think it's laughable to suggest that it shows the causal connection between anthropogenic emissions and warming. Of course quantum mechanics is real and proved - I spent a couple of quarters in college just trying to absorb the math (and keeping my eigenvalues straight)(a joke) - it's just irrelevant for this particular discussion.

And save your breath on the effect of light on molecules. Good grief! So what if light makes CO2 dance and heat up? The important issue is whether this effect is significant in determining the average temperatures we observe when compined with all of the other things acting on temperature (sun, water vapor, all the other variables). Your argument is just ceteris paribus, which is why you seem to like partial derivatives so much. When we can't hold all other variables constant, like in the real world, we need methods and systems like regression analysis to show how the individual variables affect temperatures - we don't need assumption-driven models that give us the results we want in the first place. That is all that you're offering.

591 Sharmuta  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 9:11:23am

re: #590 jackflash

And save your breath on the effect of light on molecules. Good grief! So what if light makes CO2 dance and heat up?

Look, jack. That's the entire point right there! The CO2 heats up. What do you think that's doing to the climate?

592 jackflash  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 9:19:56am

re: #584 Charles

Well, just like creationists, human-caused global warming believers will say, when confronted by skeptics, that the evidence for their position is overwhelming (without being specific about this evidence) and that the skeptics are just in denial. And where does anyone say that ovserved changes in temperatures aren't real. All I've said is that the causality of human emissions has not been proved. Please don't be the head priest in this process.

593 jaunte  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 9:27:54am

re: #592 jackflash

Please don't be the head priest in this process.

That's both rude and unpersuasive.

594 Charles Johnson  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 9:35:01am

re: #593 jaunte

That's both rude and unpersuasive.

And totally expected.

595 Bagua  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 9:42:37am

re: #590 jackflash

Response to #583 by LudwigVanQuixote (the reply button still doesn't work-grrr):

I always know I'm on the right track when someone starts with the silly insults ("you stupid moron," "you haven't read anything," "you're a liar," etc.). If you really have a PhD, you should learn how to argue without ad homenim. Just a suggestion.
[...]

For the record: I disagree that Ludwig’s frequent use of insults is ad hominem. This is due to the fact the Ludwig also offers replies to the actual arguments on a factual basis, thus the added insults, while gratuitous, do not constitute a logical fallacy and to cite “ad hominem” is a typical misuse of the term.

However, the use of the word “stupid” seven times in one comment (#583), along with “moron” and “pathetic ignorance” and “mildly head-wounded chimp” is an excessive use of personal abuse. I don’t see how this is warranted or adds credibility to the commenter as an expert or a professional.

For my part, I do give Ludwig the benefit of the doubt that he is the more knowledgeable person on matters of science and mathematics. Yet I find the constant resort to anger and insults distracting and troubling.

The mechanism for demonstrating AGW is the “absorption of light causes molecular motions” if I understand correctly, yet it seems the most popular mechanism cited is not this, it is that AGW “deniers” are either stupid, or if intelligent, dishonest. Any serious discussion is quickly shot down in this manner. While it may be true that there is a great deal of stupid and dishonest people and arguments, especially on politicised issues, it never the less makes for a weak argument and there are in fact skeptics who are both intelligent and honest in their concerns.

596 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 9:42:37am

re: #590 jackflash

Oh stop the whining. If you believe in QM then then you know the mechanism and you wouldn't be whining about causality.

There is no religion here save your own of denialism.

If you honestly want to see the causality of how much heating we are putting into the atmosphere, you could read those eight links I gave you.

They discuss that at length, as that is the main reason to worry about it.

You would know that, and all of the other basics if you read and comprehended a hundredth of what you claim to read and understand.

And yes, I do get to call an anti science cretin like you a moron. Yes it is ad-hominem, but I frankly did not spend all of that time dedicating my life to science and actually working in the field, to treat an ignorant, proselytizing, anti-science, cretin like you the remotest shred of being an equal in scientific pursuits. You are not. You get exactly as much respect as I would give a flat Earther or someone who was convinced that Evolution didn't happen. I refuse to even let you think you deserve equal status.

You are no innocent skeptic. You are a fraudulent blowhard who has been caught attempting to claim authority he does not have on a field he knows nothing of.

Nope you get the full boot up your ass treatment like you deserve.

597 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 9:48:00am

re: #595 Bagua

No buddy. You are just off in your understandable attempts to give the benefit of the doubt to people.

This guy has repeatedly sneered at what he calls "undergraduate" work. He should know basic QM. He does not get to claim any sort of equal status to the science as an "honest skeptic" any more than would an ID troglodyte.

If you were following the discussions, Jackie showed up some weeks ago on a different thread and was treated to great respect untill he became the petulant fool that you see before you right now.

Sorry Bagua, once you start mocking QM, you are going to get called stupid and worse repeatedly by physicists. You seem to have a certain very romantic notion as to how we argue.

What you are missing is that there is no amount of evidence that would sway Jackie. He does not want to see it. Therefore the correct response is to debunk his BS and call him stupid sop that a thrid party who does not know better will get the idea that these really are cretins and not scientists at all.

598 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 9:51:12am

And another stealth sock dinger! Do come out midow!

599 Liberal Classic  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 9:53:34am

re: #590 jackflash

And save your breath on the effect of light on molecules. Good grief! So what if light makes CO2 dance and heat up?

As freetoken tried to explain to you above the effect of light on molecules is what this is all about, your hand waving about quantum mechanics and jokes about the uncertainty principle not withstanding.

Quantum mechanics tells us why carbon dioxide gas is transparent at visible wavelengths and opaque at infrared wavelengths, Maxwell's equations can tell us how much energy is absorbed, and classical thermodynamics tells us the earth's temperature is determined by the balance between the amount of solar energy absorbed and the amount of energy that escapes back into space.

600 Alan the Brit  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 10:01:24am

Re: #586 Charles.

“…it's difficult to hang onto beliefs that are clearly wrong, if you're at all interested in being intellectually honest.”

This is not about beliefs it is about evidence. Even Kieth Briffa (the principal subject of this controversy) has responded to Steve McIntyre with a more balanced response than you have managed. It has taken years for McIntyre to be given access the datasets underlying the work of Briffa et al. Good science demands peer review and the fact that McIntyre had to fight for this data should be enough to raise concerns about it. McIntyre has found that a single tree in the Yamal dataset exhibits the hockey stick signature (see his post YAD06 - the Most Influential Tree in the World) and has also found that the large number of Yamal cores that were not included in the Briffa analysis do not exhibit hockey stick behaviour. This is peer review.

This finding does not invalidate other work on AGW (this is where the RC response is incoherent) but it may yet show that this portion of Briffa’s work does not bear up to scrutiny.

See Climate Audit for the story so far
[Link: www.climateaudit.org...]

601 Bagua  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 10:04:23am

re: #597 LudwigVanQuixote

Ludwig, I wasn't aware of the prior thread and so it is not in my context. Clearly though it is your stock answer, your opponents are always either ignorant or dishonest or both according to your statements. Even my point earlier in the thread, which was based upon logic and the use of language, was "dense" in your estimation.

This may or may not be how you argue in your peer group, but in the context of a chat forum it is a bully technique and only weakens your points. You are certainly entitled to question the knowledge or expertise of those purporting to have same and the knowledge you bring to the table is welcome and useful, but is it not possible to do so with some measure of courtesy?

I am not suggesting that you should accept as "experts" those who you believe are not, simply that it is possible to dispute them on the grounds that they are incorrect without the added insults and allegations of impure motives and thoughts.

602 Charles Johnson  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 10:05:28am

re: #600 Alan the Brit

Even Kieth Briffa (the principal subject of this controversy) has responded to Steve McIntyre with a more balanced response than you have managed.

My post isn't balanced, and it's not trying to be balanced, because I don't believe in being "balanced" about issues where one side is promoting fraud.

It has taken years for McIntyre to be given access the datasets underlying the work of Briffa et al. Good science demands peer review and the fact that McIntyre had to fight for this data should be enough to raise concerns about it.

McIntyre is clearly grinding an axe, and I don't blame any climate scientist for mistrusting him, or resisting sharing data with him, when his only purpose -- demonstrated repeatedly -- is to issue misleading, cherry-picked propaganda.

603 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 10:11:40am

re: #601 Bagua

your opponents are always either ignorant or dishonest or both according to your statements.

You unfairly mischaracterize me. If someone hwo does not knw the science asks a question in a neutral tone. I will spend, and have spent, since before you got here, long periods of time explaining the science as carefully and respectfully as I can.

If someone is legitimately skeptical, again, I will carefully point out the science.

However, Jack et al, most of my so - called opponents actually are liars, frauds, fools and hypocrites.

C'mon Bagua, look at his rant on QM... what more evidence do you need?

604 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 10:20:09am

re: #601 Bagua

In fact, it just occurred to me, the best way to communicate the principle to you.


Suppose some fellow got on here and claimed that since he had studied boxing, he was an expert in martial arts - all of them - and that he continued by claiming that bagua was a Japanese style based on high spinning kicks.

Now honestly, lives are not endangered by some fellow fronting false knowledge about martial arts. But with AGW they are if this guy gets believed.

So suppose somehow, it really did matter that people got the correct facts about bagua. Now suppose in the course of trying to explain to this "expert" about it, he began to argue that bagua was not an internal style. Suppose he got progressively more sneering at you while he did this, and it became apparent he did not even know what an internal style was.

Again, in this analogy, people will die if they don't get the facts straight.

When do you eventually point out that this is a complete moron who is claiming knowledge he does not possess?

605 Bagua  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 10:20:41am

re: #603 LudwigVanQuixote

I appreciate the information you do provide and it is indeed valuable and educational, for my part, I have a much better understanding of the depth and breadth of the research as a result What I am criticizing is the additional content which I find weakens your arguments. If it were directed at only one poster I would not comment, but it is almost always the case.

My point is simply that it is possible, and indeed far more effective, to prove your points and effectively call into question your opponents expertise using only fact and reason without the use of insults and profanity.

606 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 10:25:38am

re: #605 Bagua

I appreciate the information you do provide and it is indeed valuable and educational, for my part, I have a much better understanding of the depth and breadth of the research as a result What I am criticizing is the additional content which I find weakens your arguments. If it were directed at only one poster I would not comment, but it is almost always the case.

My point is simply that it is possible, and indeed far more effective, to prove your points and effectively call into question your opponents expertise using only fact and reason without the use of insults and profanity.

And if that is the sole point you are making, then I would have to agree. I should get better doing a Dawkins on them - show my complete contempt but not be so blunt. However, I am still a human being. I have limits on how much stupid I can tolerate.

What angers me about your posts. Is that you have more than nce tried to paint the science I bring and the conclusions I draw from it as falsely or overly alarmist.

They are not. When I am saying those things I am speaking the plain truth as far as every bit of science I know says, and if you did read more of the papers, you would find that my tone is actually mild compared to some others in the field.

Right now, if things do not change, we are headed for a global catastrophe. That is the truth.

607 Bagua  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 10:30:17am

re: #604 LudwigVanQuixote

re: #604 LudwigVanQuixote

In fact, it just occurred to me, the best way to communicate the principle to you.

Suppose some fellow got on here and claimed that since he had studied boxing, he was an expert in martial arts - all of them - and that he continued by claiming that bagua was a Japanese style based on high spinning kicks.

Now honestly, lives are not endangered by some fellow fronting false knowledge about martial arts. But with AGW they are if this guy gets believed.

So suppose somehow, it really did matter that people got the correct facts about bagua. Now suppose in the course of trying to explain to this "expert" about it, he began to argue that bagua was not an internal style. Suppose he got progressively more sneering at you while he did this, and it became apparent he did not even know what an internal style was.

Again, in this analogy, people will die if they don't get the facts straight.

When do you eventually point out that this is a complete moron who is claiming knowledge he does not possess?

I would use logic, reason, facts, experience, examples, cite literature and so on. I would thus establish that the individual was incorrect and let the observer make his own judgement based upon the material and who made the more effective arguments. I would not resort to insults, profanity or other similar which I consider to be poor behaviour and would undermine my authority.


(BTW: I do not use the Nom De Guerre Bagua in the context of the martial arts.)

608 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 10:45:04am

re: #607 Bagua

Is there another context for bagua other than martial arts?

But you do practice some internal style yes?

609 Bagua  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 10:49:54am

re: #606 LudwigVanQuixote

And if that is the sole point you are making, then I would have to agree. I should get better doing a Dawkins on them - show my complete contempt but not be so blunt. However, I am still a human being. I have limits on how much stupid I can tolerate.

That is indeed one of my key points. The scientific arguments and details you bring to the discussion alternatively, I quite enjoy and appreciate. I even complained on another thread when you logged off that you were observing "bankers hours" because you had not yet given a disputation to Lolohead."

I suggest you work to control your human limits as it will make you far more effective in arguing your side. My pushing this matter is obviously an own goal if I'm to be regarded as a "sceptic." You would truly disarm your opponents if you removed this target.

What angers me about your posts. Is that you have more than nce tried to paint the science I bring and the conclusions I draw from it as falsely or overly alarmist.
[...]

If you were not angered by my posts, I believe you would understand my points better and we would in fact be in agreement on many matters. I have good standing that if a paper determines that "it is highly probable" that an event will occur that it is incorrect to state that the event "will" occur.

I believe most of my points have similar standing and am prepared to defend them and be proven wrong. Yet what normally occurs is that you shift the discussion and allege I am making a point I am not, such as 'questioning the basic mechanism involved', or 'that there is any cause for concern', and then you focus on this instead. This is indeed straw man and I am making an effort to raise the level of the debate both in tone and reason.

610 Bagua  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 11:10:27am

re: #608 LudwigVanQuixote

Is there another context for bagua other than martial arts?
[...]

Most certainly, it is a fundamental theory that is at the heart of Chinese philosophy, religion, mysticism, medicine and martial arts. It involves the original concept and symbol of “yin” and “yang” (1 and 0, or light and dark) as the base duality of the natural world.

From this “bit” which would be one Yin (0) or one Yang (1) we get the equivalent of bytes, which are a grouping of three such bits. There are eight base combinations of bits possible, from three Yin to Three Yang at either extreme. These symbolize the basic building blocks of everything.

From these base eight Gua, (Gua means trigrams, Ba means the number eight) we build the 64 hexagrams of the I-Ching, which represent the full complexity of the world.

Another way this is often put is that the basis of the world is the Yin Yang duality, from this we get the Eight Basic patterns, and from these eight the Ten Thousand things, which refers to the entire universe. This binary theory is, fascinatingly, almost identical to the opening paragraph of Genesis and is indeed the Chinese version of the creation “myth.”

611 Alan the Brit  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 11:11:59am

re: #602 Charles

“My post isn't balanced, and it's not trying to be balanced, because I don't believe in being "balanced" about issues where one side is promoting fraud.”

I challenge you to cite a single instance of McIntyre perpetrating what could reasonably described as fraud.

“… I don't blame any climate scientist for mistrusting him, or resisting sharing data with him, when his only purpose -- demonstrated repeatedly -- is to issue misleading, cherry-picked propaganda.”

Real science demands peer review. Don’t accuse McIntyre of axe grinding when there is so clearly an axe that needs to be ground. Briffa was forced to publish his data when editors of Phil Trans B (Roy Soc) demanded that he archive supporting data. Briffa had ignored an earlier request and McIntyre had been trying to get hold of it since 2000 when the Yamal data was first used. He is a sceptical empiricist and his work is based on solid and falsifiable analysis with full disclosure of his methods. To describe it as cherry-picked propaganda leads me to believe you haven’t read it and have depended instead on commentary from Real Climate. McIntyre was the guy who falsified the original Mann Hockey Stick graph, which as a result, is no longer the poster-child of the IPCC. If you want to see evidence of cherry-picking then look at McIntyres initial findings on the Yamal data and the Briffa response. This is not propaganda; it’s science in action.

613 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 11:44:00am

re: #600 Alan the Brit

What you really seem to be missing - as is the rest of the climate denier side is that tree rings are not the point. The only people who really care about that any more are Mann and McIntyre.

If you would look at the Keeling curves, ice cores, and all sorts of other data you will see that there is more than enough evidence of Anthropogenic CO2 increase.

Read this paper for instance from Nature.
[Link: www.sciencedirect.com...]

Then please do go up thread and look at the other seven links in 569 and 574.

614 Bagua  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 11:58:26am

re: #613 ludwigvanquixote

What you really seem to be missing - as is the rest of the climate denier side is that tree rings are not the point. The only people who really care about that any more are Mann and McIntyre.

If you would look at the Keeling curves, ice cores, and all sorts of other data you will see that there is more than enough evidence of Anthropogenic CO2 increase.

[...]
.

Is the issue the Yamal evidence of Anthropogenic CO2 increase" or its use as an historic temperature reconstruction?

615 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 11:58:50am

re: #590 jackflash

Where do I say I don't believe in quantum mechanics? I just think it's laughable to suggest that it shows the causal connection between anthropogenic emissions and warming.

Well when you were mocking Heisenberg and then confabulating quantum mechanics with particle theory... That might be a place to start. Then there is the entire why believe it tone you took. And then there was teh whole hatred of science that oozed out of you.

As to a causal connection.. well, once again, because CO2 absorbs light it gets hot. Therefore the more CO2 in your atmosphere, the more light gets absorbed and the hotter the atmosphere gets. This really is quite simple. Why not read one of the numerous papers I've linked you.

Particularly try the ones at the undergraduate level.

Of course quantum mechanics is real and proved - I spent a couple of quarters in college just trying to absorb the math (and keeping my eigenvalues straight)(a joke) - it's just irrelevant for this particular discussion.

Actually it is relevant. You have a deep hatred of physics and advanced math. I will actually give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that you did try to take intro QM, rather than just wiki the word eigenvalue. I would imagine that when you failed out - and you did, you had too if you say the things you say - it made you quite bitter. You see, I've taught that class. If that math was too hard for you, then forget reading a "graduate text" on climate science.

But it is a good reminder of why your blathering about regressions does not apply.

You see, the mathematical backbone of QM is linear Algebra coupled with operator theory. It all comes together when one looks at Sturm Liouville theory - that how you get families of orthonormal functions as the eigen values of certain differential operators... IE. It's how linear algebra marries differential equations.

Why am I saying this to you?

I'm saying it because you are giving me a more clear picture of how you think - or rather, refuse to think. You see, it actually turns out that the real math that applies is much more difficult than that. In fact, it has a lot to do with the [problems that arise out of modeling Hamiltonian chaos.

Yet here you are, some gimp who failed QM. In a fit of bitterness, declaring to yourself that physics isn't real anyway, you went to the much simpler pursuit of economics - where your calculations never have to match reality anyway. Yet, the enormous chip on your shoulder never did quite leave you.

So yeah, I've seen your type come into my classes, and it is for people like you that the letters after A and B were invented.

616 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 12:01:51pm

re: #615 ludwigvanquixote

I'm saying it because you are giving me a more clear picture of how you think - or rather, refuse to think. You see, it actually turns out that the real math that applies is much more difficult than that. In fact, it has a lot to do with the [problems that arise out of modeling Hamiltonian chaos.

Clarification, the real math that applies to climate change. For non-relativistic QM, the only math you need is Lin alg and diff eqs.

617 Bagua  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 12:04:15pm

re: #615 ludwigvanquixote

[...] the much simpler pursuit of economics - where your calculations never have to match reality anyway.[...]

That has the ring of truth about it!

:)

618 Elle Plater  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 12:35:49pm

re: #579 freetoken

First off, AGW science and the need to address the consequences of AGW do not rest of Michael Mann's papers. As the Realclimate entry to which Charles linked makes clear, there are many different "hockey stick" graphs covering a variety of types of measurements. Furthermore, the theoretical underpinnings behind CO2's effects are well founded.


As Michael Mann is a major contributor to realclimate.orgre: #586 Alan the Brit

I haven’t checked into LGF for some time and I am sad to see that Charles is using language like “AGW deniers” an “shills” regarding Steve McIntyre’s work. I scanned the Real Climate link and note that they don’t address Steve McIntyre’s analysis of the Yamal data in a serious way and instead employ sarcasm, misdirection and smoke. Instead of examining McIntyre’s analysis Charles lampoons the media headlines based on his work and likens his analyses to the techniques of creationists. Charles also writes “National Review is a big promoter of the Discovery Institute’s creationist fables in addition to being a leading proponent of AGW denial” but I think you will find that Steve McIntyre’s analysis has nothing to do with the political affiliations of National Review or anyone else for that matter. As far as I can see from reading McIntyre’s work over the years his only other interest outside of mathematical and statistical analysis is playing squash. Read Steve McIntyre’s work at Climate Audit and decide for yourself if he has a case. Charles seems to have abandoned objectivity and has lost his perspective on this topic, it would seem.

AC


Steve McIntyre is a very bright mathematician, amongst other notable skills, he is also modest and not given to printing articles unless thoroughly and painstakingly investigated.
He does not shout about his statistical prowess but if you read and also test his figures (which he freely encourages, unlike some alarmists I might add) then the conclusions are conspicuous in their alacrity.
The world has cooled since 1998, the ice is reforming early 22/09 in the Arctic, the Antarctic ice sheet is growing, the AMO is significantly cooling, (winter might be a cold one) and the bogus hockey stick should finally, clinically and correctly be buried.

619 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 12:40:27pm

re: #618 Elle Plater

Repost:

What you really seem to be missing - as is the rest of the climate denier side is that tree rings are not the point. The only people who really care about that any more are Mann and McIntyre.

If you would look at the Keeling curves, ice cores, and all sorts of other data you will see that there is more than enough evidence of Anthropogenic CO2 increase.

Read this paper for instance from Nature.

[Link: www.sciencedirect.com...]

Then please do go up thread and look at the other seven links in 569 and 574.

Who needs tree rings when you have direct optically measured data of CO2 concentrations?

620 bagua  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 12:55:57pm

re: #614 Bagua

Ludwig, please see my question #614, isn't that the real issue?

Yes we have other more accurate ways to measure Anthropogenic CO2 increase, but what other studies are used to recreate historical temperatures, not CO2?

621 Alan the Brit  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:27:10pm

Re: #612 Charles

Your link to Deep Cimate is self-defeating. Did you read it? It quotes Briffa:

"My colleagues and I are working to develop methods that are capable of expressing robust evidence of climate changes using tree-ring data…”

Here Briffa acknowledges that they are aware that they are not yet capable of delivering robust evidence. This is precicely what McIntyre is trying to expose.
Briffa goes on to say:

“…I do not believe that McIntyre’s preliminary post provides sufficient evidence to doubt the reality of unusually high summer temperatures in the last decades of the 20th century.”

Briffa does not describe McIntyre as a “denier” or a “shill”. In fact, he doesn’t “believe” that McIntyres “preliminary post” provides “sufficent evidence”. This is hardly a slap down and it misses the point to boot - deliberately in my view. Briffa at least aknowleges a disenting peer, but he subtly sidesteps the issue of unrepresentative tree ring proxies by invoking the 'reality' of unusually high summer temperatures.

The rest of the article does not address the core issue of Yamal data at all and seems to be more concerned about McIntyre’s tone. In fact it acknowledges that McIntyre said

“…It is not my belief that Briffa crudely cherry picked…”

But the article seems to think it is important to prove that this is what McIntyre believes (he may well believe this for all I know). This is not a scientific critique, this is a polemic.

Charles, I think you are being a bit of a Mary Mapes on this subject. I do encourage you to visit Steve McIntyre's website and look at the actual evidence.

#613 say’s

“tree rings are not the point…”

Respected scientists are using tree rings as proxy data to prove a scientific point, which is then used by the IPCC. If these analyses can be falsified then this is good for science and ensures that the IPCC’s evidentiary base is robust.

I must also point out that when you mention “…Anthropogenic CO2 increase” As far as I am aware no serious scientist denies that man is responsible for increasing CO2. What is less clear is what effect this increase may have on the climate. I suspect you meant “Anthropogenic temperature increase”.

#619 Ludwig

“The only people who really care about that any more are Mann and McIntyre.”

Wrong again. This whole thread is about Briffa and related analyses, which are based on Yamal peninsula tree ring proxies. Talk about missing the point! I notice that you talk about anthropogenic CO2 increase as if McIntyre were denying that mankind is increasing the CO2 levels in the atmosphere. You should know that McIntyre takes anthropogenic CO2 increase as a given, in 2007 he wrote:

“It is not a topic (CO2 increase) that I've spent time, but I do not believe that there are any substantive issues as to the existence of increased CO2 levels.”

[Link: www.climateaudit.org...]

You seem to be tilting at straw men here.

622 Charles Johnson  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 3:44:21pm

re: #621 Alan the Brit

That's a complete distortion of the article I posted, which contains copious evidence that McIntyre misrepresented Briffa -- in the extreme.

This kind of absurd misreading is nothing less than what I expect from propagandists. Here's the article - I invite anyone following this thread to read it and see just how ridiculous Alan the Brit's claims are.

Climate 'auditor' Steve McIntyre: Yamal like 'crack cocaine' « Deep Climate

623 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 7:15:29pm

re: #620 bagua

Ludwig, please see my question #614, isn't that the real issue?

Yes we have other more accurate ways to measure Anthropogenic CO2 increase, but what other studies are used to recreate historical temperatures, not CO2?

Ice cores, fossil data and geological data are the big ones. Those final two topics cover hundreds of sub-topics. I ask that you go to google scholar and poke around a bit yourself for what ever papers might interest you.

624 Pythagoras  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 7:41:25pm

re: #619 LudwigVanQuixote

What you really seem to be missing - as is the rest of the climate denier side is that tree rings are not the point. The only people who really care about that any more are Mann and McIntyre.

If you would look at the Keeling curves, ice cores, and all sorts of other data you will see that there is more than enough evidence of Anthropogenic CO2 increase.

Read this paper for instance from Nature.

[Link: www.sciencedirect.com...]

Then please do go up thread and look at the other seven links in 569 and 574.

Who needs tree rings when you have direct optically measured data of CO2 concentrations?

What?!? Is someone actually claiming that CO2 isn't rising? I thought the issue was the hockey stick shape of TEMPERATURE. I was unaware of any significant debate over the history of CO2.

And it looks like China is pretty much guaranteeing the future of CO2 (for the near term, anyway).

625 Alan the Brit  Tue, Oct 6, 2009 1:54:11am

Re: #622 Charles


“That's a complete distortion of the article I posted, which contains copious evidence that McIntyre misrepresented Briffa -- in the extreme.”

Me thinks you protest too much Charles. Here is another Briffa quote from the article.

“I note that McIntyre qualifies the presentation of his version(s) of the chronology by reference to a number of valid points that require further investigation. Subsequent postings appear to pay no heed to these caveats. Whether the McIntyre version is any more robust a representation of regional tree growth in Yamal than my original, remains to be established.”

Briffa refers to McIntyre’s “Valid Points” and acknowledges that if “remains to be established” if his analysis is more robust than Briffa’s. Briffa is not complaining about being misrepresented in the extreme, as you are. Briffa is unhappy that “Subsequent postings appear to pay no heed to these caveats” but this is hardly a slapdown and rejection of McIntyres arguments.

“I invite anyone following this thread to read it and see just how ridiculous Alan the Brit's claims are.”

I still doubt that you have actually read Steve McIntyre’s material. I invite your readers to look at one of his Yamal postings and then decide if there is a case to be answered that the Briffa and related analysis are flawed:

[Link: www.climateaudit.org...]

You are relying on hyperbolic commentary by third parties. Cut out the middleman and read McIntyre. McIntyre was a reviewer for IPCC AR4. The scientific community takes him seriously even if you don’t.

626 freetoken  Tue, Oct 6, 2009 2:20:27am

re: #625 Alan the Brit

It's not exactly clear what you are trying to accomplish, other than get the last word on this thread...

First, you seem to be casting a blind eye towards McIntyre's long history of trying to discredit Mann, and McIntyre's failure up to till now to accomplish his goals. Indeed, the NAS was called in 2006 to look at some of Mann's work by the huffing and puffing of McIntyre (among others), and the NAS essentially endorsed Mann's findings.

Now McIntyre is at it again... but in the big picture it doesn't matter. Know why? Simply put, if it makes you happy, throw out all the Yamal stuff that has contention ... and what you will be left with are:

+ plenty of other reconstructions of past variables that show "hockey sticks";

+ plenty of other evidence for AGW;

+ all the theoretical reasons for AGW.

In other words, other than trying to accomplish your goal of getting in the last word on this thread, you've not accomplished anything wrt AGW.

McIntyre has a long history. That he is involved with Marc Morano's long running bs and other discredited deniers is about as damning of an association as one could get. He is on a ideological quest, which you are promoting, that has not been backed up when other parties look at what he has done.

So again, what is your bottom line?

627 freetoken  Tue, Oct 6, 2009 3:06:19am

re: #625 Alan the Brit

I knew there was something more I wanted to say...


Briffa refers to McIntyre’s “Valid Points” and acknowledges that if “remains to be established” if his analysis is more robust than Briffa’s.

You don't seem to be understanding what the academic-speak phrase "remains to be established" means, so let me put it in the vernacular for you:
McIntyre failed to prove his point.

The link to McIntyre's page you provided is just part of the mess to which Briffa has answered and which others are discussing. Namely, it is McIntyre who is cherry picking when he starts to only look at subsets of the data... those which help him (apparently, to the uneducated) defend his original thesis.

You really need to go re-read Briffa's reply:
[Link: www.cru.uea.ac.uk...]
and get a feel for the overall tone of the reply. Briffa is being polite (more so than McIntyre deserves).

628 freetoken  Tue, Oct 6, 2009 3:46:16am

re: #625 Alan the Brit

Since this seems to be a thread that still has life, let me post one more link...

A new post at DelayedOscillator takes on what McIntyre is attempting, by adding in a selection of other data in that region of Russia:

[Link: delayedoscillator.wordpress.com...]

... to demonstrate how bad is the approach that McIntyre took in the referenced McIntyre blog entry. Namely, that divergence of tree ring data from the recorded temperature date (of that region) makes doing piecemeal comparisons a very tricky proposition.

In other words, McIntyre doesn't know what he is doing.

629 MKELLY  Tue, Oct 6, 2009 9:37:23am

lolohead this might help. [Link: carbon-sense.com...]

630 freetoken  Tue, Oct 6, 2009 4:29:14pm

re: #629 MKELLY

Another Back-to-the-Cretaceous movement plug... ugh.

Seriously, Bob Carter?

You might as well be linking to Answers In Genesis.

631 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 6, 2009 5:07:57pm

re: #629 MKELLY

lolohead this might help. [Link: carbon-sense.com...]

So, the dozens of credible links from actual scientists posted here don't matter to you, you would rather listen to the BS of some wing nut on the blog.

This gets old.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
The Pandemic Cost 7 Million Lives, but Talks to Prevent a Repeat Stall In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met - some online, some in-person in Geneva - hoping to forestall a future worldwide ...
Cheechako
3 days ago
Views: 115 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
2 weeks ago
Views: 274 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1