Drudge and the Deniers

Environment • Views: 2,377

Hilarious. Yesterday the Drudge Report linked to Tim Lambert’s Deltoid blog at ScienceBlogs — because Drudge mistakenly thought that Lambert’s post debunking the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition’s dishonesty was actually supporting them.

As soon as Drudge realized Deltoid wasn’t a climate denial site, he removed the link. (Just in case you think the Drudge Report isn’t promoting an agenda.)

But not before Lambert’s blog was swamped with completely insane comments from climate deniers; he’s posted a selection here: Drudge and the denialists.

For example:

It’s not science, it’s the religion of the left… Science has never had one thing to do with it. It is simply about destroying the very concept of God and replacing it with MASSIVE government! All hail his royal F-CKTARD COWARD, Barack Obama!

Where would people ever get the idea that the right wing is anti-science?

Jump to bottom

274 comments
1 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 12:52:35pm

I am slowly coming to the realization that I am not right wing.

2 Racer X  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 12:54:09pm

Drill here, drill now.

Build one new nuke plant every month - here in America. Think of the job creation.

AGW is for real? Then get serious and stop dicking around.

3 Obdicut  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 12:54:54pm

re: #2 Racer X

Drill here, drill now.

Build one new nuke plant every month - here in America. Think of the job creation.

AGW is for real? Then get serious and stop dicking around.

I'm not sure how "Drill here, drill now" lines up with combating AGW; could you explain?

4 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 12:55:37pm

re: #2 Racer X

Would it be irony if the environmentalists started lobbying to get Nuke plants built?

5 jaunte  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 12:56:08pm

Interesting that people who want to deride scientists looking at AGW and scientists studying evolutionary biology choose the shortcut of calling both fields "religion."

6 MandyManners  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 12:57:09pm

"Drudge and the Denialists" would make a good name for a garage band.

7 Racer X  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 12:57:14pm

re: #3 Obdicut

I'm not sure how "Drill here, drill now" lines up with combating AGW; could you explain?

Yes - supertankers spew tons of exhaust into the atmosphere. They are very dirty. I know we get more of our oil from canada than from the middle east, but we need to cut back. Drill here.

8 Randall Gross  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 12:57:29pm

re: #4 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Would it be irony if the environmentalists started lobbying to get Nuke plants built?

Some of them already are: Patrick Moore, founder of Greenpeace, and Stewart Brand, creator of The Whole Earth Catalog, are.

9 albusteve  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 12:58:26pm

re: #3 Obdicut

I'm not sure how "Drill here, drill now" lines up with combating AGW; could you explain?

we still need oil and lots of it...we need a robust economy to deal with this problem...we need the security of using our own resource to allow that to happen...we have plenty of energy laying around and we need to figure out how to use it efficiently

10 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 12:59:15pm

re: #8 Thanos

Is that irony, then.

I always get screwed up on that. Though, I am not Alanis Morissette.

11 abolitionist  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 12:59:41pm

re: #4 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Would it be irony if the environmentalists started lobbying to get Nuke plants built?

They'd probably want them all built in China, and the electricity shipped here, via recyclable batteries.

12 albusteve  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 12:59:47pm

re: #6 MandyManners

"Drudge and the Denialists" would make a good name for a garage band.

in the same vein that 'Rush' is an annoying noisemaker

13 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 12:59:55pm

re: #9 albusteve

Stop gap measure. While we pull other stuff together.

I'm with you.

14 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:00:00pm

re: #5 jaunte

Interesting that people who want to deride scientists looking at AGW and scientists studying evolutionary biology choose the shortcut of calling both fields "religion."

It's especially interesting, given that the same people often insist that there are iron-clad reasons to consider their religious beliefs objectively true.

15 freetoken  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:00:04pm

Well, I just posted this downstairs, but I figure it is now on-topic:

Since the AGW-science-deniers are now so hot for George Monbiot, I figure it would be a good to enter his latest piece in the Links section.

He makes some interesting conjectures regarding the possible source of the public's vacillating beliefs:

One such is the critic Clive James. You could accuse him of purveying trite received wisdom, but not of being dumb. On BBC Radio 4 he delivered an essay about the importance of scepticism, during which he maintained that ''the number of scientists who voice scepticism [about climate change] has lately been increasing''. [...]

Had he bothered to take a look at the quality of the evidence on either side of this media debate, and the nature of the opposing armies - climate scientists on one side, right-wing bloggers on the other - he, too, might have realised that the science is in. In, at any rate, to the extent that science can ever be, which is to say that the evidence for man-made global warming is as strong as the evidence for Darwinian evolution, or for the link between smoking and lung cancer. [...]

Such beliefs seem to be strongly influenced by age. The Pew report found that people over 65 are much more likely than the rest of the population to deny that there is solid evidence that the planet is warming, that it's caused by humans, or that it's a serious problem. This chimes with my own experience. Almost all my fiercest arguments over climate change, both in print and in person, have been with people in their 60s or 70s. Why might this be? [...]

In 1973 the cultural anthropologist Ernest Becker proposed that the fear of death drives us to protect ourselves with ''vital lies'' or ''the armour of character''. We defend ourselves from the ultimate terror by engaging in immortality projects, which boost our self-esteem and grant us meaning that extends beyond death.

[...]


This goes along with my idea that what we are seeing in the AGW-denier camp is another reflection of the culture war.

That is, just as with evolution where the creationist fears the undercutting of their what-happens-to-me-after-I-die belief system, AGW threatens the what-happens-to-all-my-work-after-I'm-gone belief system that has empowered, especially in America, personal economics.

The acceptance of impermanence is a difficult thing.

16 Charles Johnson  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:00:53pm

re: #5 jaunte

Interesting that people who want to deride scientists looking at AGW and scientists studying evolutionary biology choose the shortcut of calling both fields "religion."

Strange, isn't it?

It's almost as if they believe that calling something a "religion" is an insult.

17 sharmuta  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:01:01pm
It’s not science, it’s the religion of the left… Science has never had one thing to do with it. It is simply about destroying the very concept of God and replacing it with MASSIVE government! All hail his royal F-CKTARD COWARD, Barack Obama!

That's just pure, unhinged ODS right there. There's no mention of Obama anywhere in that piece from NZ, but that doesn't stop this little kook from ranting away. Teh Stupid- it burns.

18 Obdicut  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:02:13pm

re: #7 Racer X

I'm sorry, but I don't think there are very significant untapped reserves of oil accessible in unchallenging ways in the US. I'd rather see more research into real alternative energies, then just the small stop-gap that more local drilling entails-- which is not without its problems.

In addition: would you be passing laws to make sure that those oil companies sold the oil locally?

re: #9 albusteve

we still need oil and lots of it...we need a robust economy to deal with this problem...we need the security of using our own resource to allow that to happen...we have plenty of energy laying around and we need to figure out how to use it efficiently

Everything I've read says that untapped oil reserves in the US are only a few years worth, at most, and their full exploitation wouldn't be possible for nearly a decade. If you have anything that corrects this I'd be happy to see it.

19 KronoGhazi  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:05:12pm

Where's LVQ?

20 albusteve  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:07:39pm

re: #18 Obdicut

I'm sorry, but I don't think there are very significant untapped reserves of oil accessible in unchallenging ways in the US. I'd rather see more research into real alternative energies, then just the small stop-gap that more local drilling entails-- which is not without its problems.

In addition: would you be passing laws to make sure that those oil companies sold the oil locally?

re: #9 albusteve

Everything I've read says that untapped oil reserves in the US are only a few years worth, at most, and their full exploitation wouldn't be possible for nearly a decade. If you have anything that corrects this I'd be happy to see it.

then deplete existing wells...go for the oil in North Dakota, the Gulf and the west coast...doing nothing is a disaster...there are oceans of natural gas everywhere...we will still need to put CO2 in the air if our economy is gonna survive till we go full auto nuke...DO IT!

21 Daniel Ballard  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:07:59pm

re: #19 BigPapa

Probably speechless with sheer frustration. I'm about there.

22 Bagua  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:10:27pm

re: #15 freetoken

In, at any rate, to the extent that science can ever be, which is to say that the evidence for man-made global warming is as strong as the evidence for Darwinian evolution, or for the link between smoking and lung cancer.

That sort of fraudulent exaggeration does more to harm the AGW camp than any email leak.

23 freetoken  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:12:33pm

re: #22 Bagua

It is not an "exaggeration".

1. Species evolve.
2. Smoking is one direct cause of lung cancer.
3. Humans are a source of global warming.

All three statements have the same truth-i-ness to them.

24 Sharmuta  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:13:36pm
Is this computer scientist on the AGW dole, modeling grants say, or just a true believer? Because what kind of scientist hears "ADJUSTMENTS" and their BS detectors do not flutter. Enjoy your carbon trading scam, Zealanders.

Umm... One of the first things I recall from basic freshman science class was making an adjustment. The entire class was to report their results of the test we were performing. The teacher then plotted everyone's results. Then we immediately tossed out the highest and lowest results, and focused on the middle. That was our big, bad adjustment, and it's quite normal.

25 Obdicut  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:14:04pm

re: #22 Bagua

That sort of fraudulent exaggeration does more to harm the AGW camp than any email leak.

Can you explain how that's a 'fraudulent exaggeration'?

26 armylaw  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:16:04pm

re: #16 Charles

Strange, isn't it?

It's almost as if they believe that calling something a "religion" is an insult.

Or competition.

27 Bagua  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:16:51pm

re: #18 Obdicut

[...]

Everything I've read says that untapped oil reserves in the US are only a few years worth, at most, and their full exploitation wouldn't be possible for nearly a decade. If you have anything that corrects this I'd be happy to see it.

With the vast majority of the US coastal areas off limits to exploration and off limits to drilling, all we can do is guess at how much undiscovered Oil and Gas is there.

The whole "nearly a decade" till production is another canard. Some could be online in less than a year, with other discoveries following thereafter. The limiting factor is more the availability of drilling rigs and the construction of infrastructure. Regardless, opening the US to drilling would cause the price of oil to plunge and be online well ahead of alternatives which are still just yet to be made economically viable.

28 albusteve  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:17:25pm

hung up on defining the problem...no solutions on the immediate horizon altho this is a planet killing crisis...so they say

29 Obdicut  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:18:01pm

re: #27 Bagua

Do you have anything I could read on the subject that you consider trustworthy?

30 Bagua  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:19:08pm

re: #23 freetoken

It is not an "exaggeration".

1. Species evolve.
2. Smoking is one direct cause of lung cancer.
3. Humans are a source of global warming.

All three statements have the same truth-i-ness to them.

Putting number #3 on the same level scientifically with #1 and #2 is a fraudulent exaggeration at this point in time.

31 albusteve  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:19:14pm

re: #29 Obdicut

Do you have anything I could read on the subject that you consider trustworthy?

start with the Bakken oil fields...lots of oil there

32 Randall Gross  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:19:35pm

I'm not worried, after all the Sarapocalypse is coming...

///

Youtube Video
33 Darth Vader Gargoyle  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:20:42pm

re: #31 albusteve

start with the Bakken oil fields...lots of oil there

I think ANWR has a little oil too.
//

34 Bob Dillon  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:20:48pm

re: #29 Obdicut

Do you have anything I could read on the subject that you consider trustworthy?

[Link: www.ogj.com...]

35 SixDegrees  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:23:01pm

re: #4 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Would it be irony if the environmentalists started lobbying to get Nuke plants built?

A few are starting to come around to that point of view. NPR had someone labeled as an environmentalist on just last week, saying we ought to be pushing nuclear plant construction not just in the US, but worldwide. Sounds like a plan to me. We can do nuclear right now, out of the box, without any new discoveries. If some workable alternative comes along later, that's great. But it isn't here yet, while demand for energy continues to rise.

Unfortunately, there is a significant fraction of the environmental movement who are extreme Luddites at their core, who believe, for instance, that North America can and should only support about 200,000 people living off uncooked twigs and berries. To them, nuclear power is a powerful symbol of modern technology, and something to be disparaged and opposed as a result.

I figure it's time to give this latter group a few thousand acres in North Dakota, where they can hunker down with the coyotes and occasional bison for warmth during the long, cold winters and live the idyllic life without fire, sanitation and rational thought they so fervently dream of.

36 Charles Johnson  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:23:17pm

re: #30 Bagua

Putting number #3 on the same level scientifically with #1 and #2 is a fraudulent exaggeration at this point in time.

No it isn't. There is an overwhelming amount of scientific evidence that human beings are responsible for the rise in CO2 levels.

37 albusteve  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:23:28pm

re: #33 rwdflynavy

I think ANWR has a little oil too.
//

to claim we have oil, but it's not worth taking is ludicrous...and it's hardly just the oil...we need to step up with nuclear power, and fast...the stonewalling is pure political thuggery by a very few people

38 Bagua  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:23:35pm

re: #31 albusteve

start with the Bakken oil fields...lots of oil there

We can only guess at what remains to be discovered and the most promising areas are off limits to exploration.

39 HAL2010  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:24:07pm

Did Drudge just accidentally pwn himself?

40 freetoken  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:24:10pm

re: #38 Bagua

We can only guess at what remains to be discovered and the most promising areas are off limits to exploration.

Another false statement.

41 enigma3535  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:24:14pm

I typically do not pay much attention to the global warming debate for a number of reasons*, but this “controversy” is rather compelling.

The email hacking of appears to imply that scientists have both modified data to support their conclusions AND obfuscated opinions that differed from the consensus meme.

All this is bad … but …

* - The why not …

- Carbon dioxide [CO2] in the atmosphere has a specific affect on atmospheric temperatures. Arguing against this is like arguing against a magnifying glass making stuff hotter when focusing rays of sunlight onto something … it physics folks … no getting around it; or debating it.

- Owing to the fact that one can take ice core samples in places where the ice has formed over the course of 100s of thousands of years; and that those ice core samples contain samples of what the atmosphere was composed of at the time the ice was formed leads to a pretty compelling set of graphs. CO2 levels have changed rather dramatically in the past … on the order of hundreds or thousands of yrs. Since the early 1800s, CO2 levels have spiked precipitately.

- In the end, IMHO, there is no consensus amongst industrialized nations to change their CO2 emissions so our descendants will probably be FUBAR'd ... oh well.

42 Obdicut  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:24:18pm

re: #31 albusteve

start with the Bakken oil fields...lots of oil there

I believe there is abbout half a year's supply of oil (as in, half of the US's consumption) in the Bakken oil fields.

Also, those fields are producing, aren't they?

re: #34 Bobibutu

[Link: www.ogj.com...]

Any particular article you thought would be helpful?

43 SixDegrees  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:24:33pm

re: #23 freetoken

It is not an "exaggeration".

1. Species evolve.
2. Smoking is one direct cause of lung cancer.
3. Humans are a source of global warming.

All three statements have the same truth-i-ness to them.

Yes, but that's not what you said originally.

44 freetoken  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:26:48pm

re: #42 Obdicut

Also, those fields are producing, aren't they?

Yes, and you can follow the rig count by looking at industry rags.


But don't tell the Rush Limbaugh (one of the biggest voices of the Bakkan canard) listeners that... you'll take away their reason to fume.

45 Bagua  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:27:15pm

re: #36 Charles

No it isn't. There is an overwhelming amount of scientific evidence that human beings are responsible for the rise in CO2 levels.

The question wasn't the rise in CO2 levels, it was the Anthropogenic Global Warming part.

To put AGW theory on the same level as Evolution or the causal link between nicotine and cancer is not correct.

46 Varek Raith  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:27:30pm

re: #41 enigma3535

The email hacking of appears to imply that scientists have both modified data to support their conclusions AND obfuscated opinions that differed from the consensus meme.

No. Short and simple. What it is, however, are deniers going to extreme and ludicrous lengths to lie about AGW. They can't attack it with evidence so they attack it with BS.

47 Bagua  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:28:00pm

re: #40 freetoken

Another false statement.

How can saying we don't know what may or may not be discovered in unexplored areas a false statement? You are losing me there.

48 Darth Vader Gargoyle  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:28:17pm

re: #38 Bagua

We can only guess at what remains to be discovered and the most promising areas are off limits to exploration.

Not to worry, the Chinese will drill for us and sell it to us cheap!!!

49 albusteve  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:28:18pm

re: #42 Obdicut

Any particular article you thought would be helpful?

from Wiki...
New estimates of the amount of hydrocarbons generated by the Bakken were presented by Meissner and Banks (2000) and by Flannery and Kraus (2006). The first of these papers tested a newly developed computer model with existing Bakken data to estimate generated oil of 32 BBbls. The second paper used a more sophisticated computer program with extensive data input supplied by the ND Geological Survey and Oil and Gas Division. Early numbers generated from this information placed the value at 200 BBbls later revised to 300 BBbls when the paper was presented in 2006."[10]. In April 2008, a report issued by the state of North Dakota Department of Mineral Resources estimated that the North Dakota portion of the Bakken contained 167 billion barrels (2.66×1010 m3) of oil[5].

50 Obdicut  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:29:13pm

re: #45 Bagua

The question wasn't the rise in CO2 levels, it was the Anthropogenic Global Warming part.

Humans have been producing C02, correct?

How is the rise in CO2 levels not tantamount to AGW?

51 SixDegrees  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:29:49pm

re: #36 Charles

No it isn't. There is an overwhelming amount of scientific evidence that human beings are responsible for the rise in CO2 levels.

Actually, I agree with bagua here. The original post,

In, at any rate, to the extent that science can ever be, which is to say that the evidence for man-made global warming is as strong as the evidence for Darwinian evolution, or for the link between smoking and lung cancer.

offers a comparison which is meaningless. There is no objective metric for such a statement. It isn't so much that it's wrong; it's more that it's baseless and without fact. The best that can be said about it is that it is pure opinion, despite wrapping itself in absolutism.

52 Charles Johnson  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:30:03pm

re: #45 Bagua

The question wasn't the rise in CO2 levels, it was the Anthropogenic Global Warming part.

To put AGW theory on the same level as Evolution or the causal link between nicotine and cancer is not correct.

Yes, it is. There is a mountain of evidence that humans are responsible for global warming. I know you don't want to admit this, but it's true.

53 freetoken  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:30:05pm

re: #49 albusteve

Usually most laymen never follow up and study the difference between "Oil In Place" and what is "producible".

54 Obdicut  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:30:54pm

re: #49 albusteve

Okay. But what portion of that is feasibly recoverable? The very next sentence in Wiki is:

While these numbers would appear to indicate a massive reserve, the percentage of this oil which might be extracted using current technology is another matter. Estimates of the Bakken's technically recoverable oil have ranged from as low as 1% — because the Bakken shale has generally low porosity and low permeability, making the oil difficult to extract — to Leigh Price's estimate of 50% recoverable.[11] Reports issued by both the USGS and the state of North Dakota in April 2008 seem to indicate the lower range of recoverable estimates are more realistic with current technology.

55 freetoken  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:30:57pm

re: #51 SixDegrees

I'm not the one who said what you quoted. I was linking to Monbiot.

56 Bagua  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:32:53pm

re: #52 Charles

Yes, it is. There is a mountain of evidence that humans are responsible for global warming. I know you don't want to admit this, but it's true.

I am as aware of the evidence as anyone else here. My point is simply that the theory of AGW is not on the same level as the Theory of Evolution or the well established link between nicotine and cancer. It may well get there, but it is not even close now.

57 Gus  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:33:09pm

Whenever Drudge links to certain sites reflecting an "opposition" view or anything similar insane comments always follow. Typically I've seen the regulars at the site say comments like "what's with the..." followed by "Drudge must have linked to us."

58 albusteve  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:33:16pm

re: #53 freetoken

Usually most laymen never follow up and study the difference between "Oil In Place" and what is "producible".

nobody said it would be easy...it's there and when the price is right it's economical...what alternative is there?...what about ANWAR or the Florida coast?...there is oil there

59 HAL2010  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:33:27pm

This is what bothers me about the right in the US.

It's a fact for heavens sake - move on. Let's discuss solutions.
Let's talk about how instead of crippling business with new taxes, we're going to provide incentives for those businesses that are greener and more environmentally friendly.

Get away from the issue of global warming and start talking constructive market based solutions.

Is that REALLY that much to ask for?

60 SixDegrees  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:33:53pm

re: #55 freetoken

I'm not the one who said what you quoted. I was linking to Monbiot.

So...?

61 enigma3535  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:34:20pm

re: #46 Varek Raith

I do not think it is so "short and simple". Regarding the remainder of my post, any thoughts?

62 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:34:23pm

re: #59 HAL2010

Seems to be.

63 Bagua  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:34:33pm

re: #55 freetoken

I'm not the one who said what you quoted. I was linking to Monbiot.

So do you concede it is an exaggeration or you still insist it is accurate?

64 Varek Raith  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:35:13pm

re: #59 HAL2010

This is what bothers me about the right in the US.

It's a fact for heavens sake - move on. Let's discuss solutions.
Let's talk about how instead of crippling business with new taxes, we're going to provide incentives for those businesses that are greener and more environmentally friendly.

Get away from the issue of global warming and start talking constructive market based solutions.

Is that REALLY that much to ask for?

For some, yes. See, to some, it's better to deny its existence than to do the hard work of figuring out what is to be done to minimize GW effects/adapt to it.

65 b_snark  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:36:29pm

re: #24 Sharmuta

Umm... One of the first things I recall from basic freshman science class was making an adjustment. The entire class was to report their results of the test we were performing. The teacher then plotted everyone's results. Then we immediately tossed out the highest and lowest results, and focused on the middle. That was our big, bad adjustment, and it's quite normal.

It appears some hold science in such regard that they believe it proves(tm) truth(tm) the first time out, and never makes mistakes. Any time science shows it has to rely on the current quality of data gathering and analysis and is prone to correcting itself when it develops more accurate methods and expresses conclusions shrouded in confidence levels, they start whining about science not knowing what it is doing* or they play the false-bagpipes. No true scientist would ever dare adjust or calibrate data.

Anti-intellectualism is quite in fashion this year, and any mistake, correction or failed prophecy unconditional prediction by experts just proves that 'anyman' knows as much as those damnable elitists.

66 Obdicut  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:36:48pm

re: #63 Bagua

So do you concede it is an exaggeration or you still insist it is accurate?

It's as accurate as any statement like that could be.

There is overwhelming evidence of AGW, based on solid science-- including the very simply physics of CO2 action in atmosphere.

There is overwhelming evidence for Darwinian evolution-- including the very precise molecular action of DNA and RNA, which wasn't actually connected to evolution until the modern synthesis.

There is overwhelming statistical, data-driven evidence linking lung cancer and smoking, even though we lack a full understanding of how cancer operates in cells.

67 HAL2010  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:37:19pm

re: #62 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

I know, and it's a bloody nuisance, and it's silly.

I must admit, 18 months ago I was in the "we don't know what effect man has" camp, but through research, including many articles here on LGF, I came around to the facts.

Applying practical solutions to reality used to be a conservative disposition.
Oh well.

68 HAL2010  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:38:46pm

re: #64 Varek Raith

For some, yes. See, to some, it's better to deny its existence than to do the hard work of figuring out what is to be done to minimize GW effects/adapt to it.

The RNC and affiliates bring you the "La-la-la-la-la it's not happening" school of political platforms.

69 albusteve  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:38:55pm

with all this increase in CO2 levels, why is the Earth cooling?

70 jaunte  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:39:41pm

Some companies currently active in drilling/producing the Bakken formation:
[Link: oilshalegas.com...]

71 albusteve  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:40:24pm

re: #67 HAL2010

I know, and it's a bloody nuisance, and it's silly.

I must admit, 18 months ago I was in the "we don't know what effect man has" camp, but through research, including many articles here on LGF, I came around to the facts.

Applying practical solutions to reality used to be a conservative disposition.
Oh well.

is nuclear energy impractical?...who's behind the wall?...it isn't 'conservatives'

72 Achilles Tang  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:40:53pm

re: #1 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

I am slowly coming to the realization that I am not right wing.

Moderate sometimes, Liberal sometimes, Conservative sometimes (usually all for different times). Is there a word for that?

73 Bob Dillon  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:41:14pm

re: #42 Obdicut

Any particular article you thought would be helpful?

No - a good resource and easy to navigate.

74 HAL2010  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:41:38pm

re: #69 albusteve

with all this increase in CO2 levels, why is the Earth cooling?

It is predicted in the models.

75 Gus  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:41:56pm

re: #69 albusteve

with all this increase in CO2 levels, why is the Earth cooling?

NOAA: Combined Global Surface Temperature Was Sixth Warmest for October
Global ocean surface temperature fifth warmest

November 17, 2009

76 abolitionist  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:42:15pm

re: #15 freetoken

From your link: ... Almost all my fiercest arguments over climate change, both in print and in person, have been with people in their 60s or 70s. Why might this be? ...

I think it may be because that demographic is old enough to remember the doomsday mongering of Paul R. Ehrlich (Population Bomb, 1968), and witnessed the Global Cooling panic morphing into the Global Warming panic, and subsequently morphing into the Climate Change imperative newspeak.

I recall seeing many of the same faces and speakers at the first Earth Day that I attended (May 1970), people who a few weeks earlier had been damning the government, military, and the evil corporations over the war in Nam --SDS members, for the most part.

Jeff Jones, one of the signatories of Prairie Fire (1974) is now a leader of the Green Movement. I've seen no evidence that his political goals (or Ayers' or Dohrn's) have changed much -- just their strategies.

77 enigma3535  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:42:19pm

re: #69 albusteve

Because Fox news, the GOP, the Energy lobby and Christianists say so ... regardless of any empirical data.

78 SixDegrees  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:43:13pm

re: #53 freetoken

Usually most laymen never follow up and study the difference between "Oil In Place" and what is "producible".

That's because "producible" is an entirely relative term. Most of the wells supplying the world's oil today would have been considered horrendously unproductive just a few decades ago. Advances in technology, and increases in price, make formerly marginal sources a lot more attractive than they might have been originally. Oil at $75 per barrel makes a lot of sites attractive that made no sense at all to exploit at $25 per barrel.

Personally, I'm more in favor of switching as much of our energy consumption to electricity as possible, in tandem with construction of scores of nuclear power plants, while hoarding our oil supplies for a rainy day. If they're attractive to exploit today, at $75 per barrel, they'll be even more attractive in the not too distant future when oil tops $500 per barrel and beyond. With the rest of the planet's supplies nearly depleted, the US will have the world by the short hairs.

79 Bagua  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:43:24pm

re: #66 Obdicut

It's as accurate as any statement like that could be.

There is overwhelming evidence of AGW, based on solid science-- including the very simply physics of CO2 action in atmosphere.

There is overwhelming evidence for Darwinian evolution-- including the very precise molecular action of DNA and RNA, which wasn't actually connected to evolution until the modern synthesis.

There is overwhelming statistical, data-driven evidence linking lung cancer and smoking, even though we lack a full understanding of how cancer operates in cells.

Nonsense. To equate your first paragraph with the later two is to debase them. AGW is simply not there yet, to say otherwise is propaganda.

That does not mean that the theory of AGW is false or that it will not eventually gain the same status as the other two, simply that it is not there yet.

The theory of Evolution and the causal link between nicotine and cancer are rock solid and unassailable at this point. AGW is about 90%.

To say otherwise in to talk in terms of advocacy, not science.

80 Cineaste  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:43:41pm

re: #69 albusteve

with all this increase in CO2 levels, why is the Earth cooling?

data or chart please?

81 Varek Raith  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:43:44pm

re: #69 albusteve

with all this increase in CO2 levels, why is the Earth cooling?

Right here on LGF;
Global Warming Hasn't Stopped.

82 HAL2010  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:44:14pm

re: #71 albusteve

is nuclear energy impractical?...who's behind the wall?...it isn't 'conservatives'

Interestingly enough, Nuclear Power is not sustainable without heavy subsidizes from the government.
I am for it, but I believe it would struggle without support or some description from the state.

83 reine.de.tout  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:44:33pm

re: #72 Naso Tang

Moderate sometimes, Liberal sometimes, Conservative sometimes (usually all for different times). Is there a word for that?

Rational Human Being.

84 Sharmuta  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:45:53pm

OT: Stinky Bastard Kitteh is getting treatment for a respiratory infection, and they're looking for a rescue program for him. I left my phone number, and they'll call me with more info on him later.

85 albusteve  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:46:51pm

re: #82 HAL2010

Interestingly enough, Nuclear Power is not sustainable without heavy subsidizes from the government.
I am for it, but I believe it would struggle without support or some description from the state.

haha!...we are truly fucked eh?

86 Cineaste  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:47:09pm

Once again we see the intellectual whack-a-mole arguments of the anti-AGW crowd. You show them the data is not fake and they start arguing that some of the left don't support nuclear power or more oil drilling. Just because someone is right about one thing doesn't mean they will be right about everything.

87 b_snark  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:47:12pm

re: #30 Bagua

Putting number #3 on the same level scientifically with #1 and #2 is a fraudulent exaggeration at this point in time.

That's exactly what the IDists and Creation Scientists say about evolution.

If you trust evolutionary science, which involves not just biology but astronomy, geology, geochronology, dendrochronology, anthropology, paleontology, statistics and a pile more, what problems do you have with climate science which uses the same basic processes and includes many disciplines outside of 'environmentalism' and 'tree hugging'?

Are climatologists more greedy and less trustworthy than any others? Do the procedural protections against wide spread fraud in the evolutionary sciences work but the same ones in climate research not work? Why would that be?

What problems do you have with climate science? Do you doubt the existence of GHGs?. Do you doubt their ability to slow cooling? Is there something about the physics that bothers you?

Or is it just that you don't like it on political grounds?

88 Achilles Tang  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:47:38pm

When we discuss this topic here, we generally only refer to the USA and Liberals (or secular progressives) as being guilty of lying for nefarious reasons about AGW (scientists are of course always liberals, since they understand evolution).

However it is interesting that essentially every government on the planet has been suckered into believing this stuff, and even the biggest polluter, which is not known for its high ethical standards, China, has been fooled into agreeing it should clean up its act. Those Chinese are not known to be really dumb however, so this is puzzling. Perhaps it means that they are in on it? They want to destroy the USA by playing along?

We are lost.//

89 HAL2010  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:47:40pm

Very OT, but such a brilliant, almost haunting cover of Sweet Child of Mine:

Youtube Video
90 Charles Johnson  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:47:57pm

re: #79 Bagua

Nonsense. To equate your first paragraph with the later two is to debase them. AGW is simply not there yet, to say otherwise is propaganda.

Sorry, you are just wrong. The science behind AGW is absolutely solid, and overwhelmingly documented from multiple sources of data. AGW absolutely IS "there."

91 HAL2010  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:48:53pm

re: #85 albusteve

Not really. But I think there is middle ground in which most of us can meet and discuss constructive ways in which to sort of Energy Independence without hot air from either side of the lobby.

92 Obdicut  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:49:35pm

re: #79 Bagua

You are not actually making a counterargument, though. You're just making an assertion.

I submit that, given that the principle action of AGW is well-known-- increasing the CO2 concentration in atmosphere will lead to warming-- and that the history of mankind's production of CO2 is likewise well-known, there is an absolutely basic assumption of AGW. This assumption is confirmed by data and evidence, available from a panoply of sources.

By the way, nicotine isn't directly linked to cancer. Cigarettes cause cancer, tobacco causes cancer, but nicotine on its own-- while nasty, addictive shit you don't want in your body and helps to weaken your body's fight against cancer-- hasn't been directly implicated in causing cancer.

93 Charles Johnson  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:50:08pm

re: #88 Naso Tang

When we discuss this topic here, we generally only refer to the USA and Liberals (or secular progressives) as being guilty of lying for nefarious reasons about AGW (scientists are of course always liberals, since they understand evolution).

However it is interesting that essentially every government on the planet has been suckered into believing this stuff, and even the biggest polluter, which is not known for its high ethical standards, China, has been fooled into agreeing it should clean up its act. Those Chinese are not known to be really dumb however, so this is puzzling. Perhaps it means that they are in on it? They want to destroy the USA by playing along?

We are lost.//

The conspiracy goes very very deep. Thank goodness we have Christopher Monckton and Exxon-Mobil to show us the Troof.

94 albusteve  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:50:16pm

re: #86 Cineaste

Once again we see the intellectual whack-a-mole arguments of the anti-AGW crowd. You show them the data is not fake and they start arguing that some of the left don't support nuclear power or more oil drilling. Just because someone is right about one thing doesn't mean they will be right about everything.

where is our future energy going to come from...the data and the models are meaningless to me...we are polluting the atmosphere, so what's next?

95 SixDegrees  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:50:59pm

re: #24 Sharmuta

Umm... One of the first things I recall from basic freshman science class was making an adjustment. The entire class was to report their results of the test we were performing. The teacher then plotted everyone's results. Then we immediately tossed out the highest and lowest results, and focused on the middle. That was our big, bad adjustment, and it's quite normal.

It's true that nearly all data collected for scientific analysis undergoes filtering for a variety of reasons. How to do such filtering is not quite so simple, though, as simply tossing away a couple of outliers. Often, the signal being sought lies close to the background noise, and is difficult to separate; statistical measures are applied to tease out the bits of data which are legitimate while leaving the worthless chaff behind.

And these measures are often the topic of acrimonious debate. This is to be expected when trying to tease out a signal so difficult to detect in the first place. Should all of those data points have been excluded? Should all of those other data points have been included? It's a tough call, and different methodologies can sometimes produce very different results.

Surprisingly, the simplest thing is often to briefly abandon the quest for absolute quantification and simply plot the raw data on a linear graph. The eye is quite good at picking out trends and patterns, even if it can't provide a quantifiable metric to go along with it. Sometimes - as in this case - too much data massaging raises as many questions as it is attempting to answer.

96 Varek Raith  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:51:02pm

re: #93 Charles

The conspiracy goes very very deep. Thank goodness we have Christopher Monckton and Exxon-Mobil to show us the Troof.

That's 'Lord' Monckton to you!11!
///

97 Bagua  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:51:16pm

re: #90 Charles

Sorry, you are just wrong. The science behind AGW is absolutely solid, and overwhelmingly documented from multiple sources of data. AGW absolutely IS "there."

Then would you agree that we are only 90% sure that evolution is real, or 90% sure that nicotine causes cancer?

With respect, I disagree.

98 HAL2010  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:52:06pm

re: #93 Charles

The conspiracy goes very very deep. Thank goodness we have Christopher Monckton and Exxon-Mobil to show us the Troof.

They are showing adverts here in the UK where Exxon let a sensible scientist talk about how they are trying to find energy by harvesting algae.
I hold the completely baseless notion that they have spent more money on the ad than actual algae research.

99 albusteve  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:53:35pm

re: #91 HAL2010

Not really. But I think there is middle ground in which most of us can meet and discuss constructive ways in which to sort of Energy Independence without hot air from either side of the lobby.

I speak for myself...where is our energy going to come from five or ten or twenty years from now?...where?

100 jaunte  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:54:01pm

re: #98 HAL2010
That would be an expensive ad.

But in recent weeks, Exxon has tossed about $500,000 into an electric car-sharing program in Baltimore and participated in development of unconventional natural gas plays in Canada. On Tuesday, it announced a $600 million partnership to develop next-generation biofuels from algae.


[Link: www.nytimes.com...]

101 Darth Vader Gargoyle  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:54:10pm

re: #98 HAL2010

They are showing adverts here in the UK where Exxon let a sensible scientist talk about how they are trying to find energy by harvesting algae.
I hold the completely baseless notion that they have spent more money on the ad than actual algae research.

I agree, I also think they are driven to these silly things by folks who have a senseless hate for "big oil".

102 wrenchwench  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:54:43pm

re: #32 Thanos

"Unemployed Alaskan blogger Sarah Palin..."

Heh.

103 b_snark  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:55:14pm

re: #27 Bagua

With the vast majority of the US coastal areas off limits to exploration and off limits to drilling, all we can do is guess at how much undiscovered Oil and Gas is there.

The whole "nearly a decade" till production is another canard. Some could be online in less than a year, with other discoveries following thereafter. The limiting factor is more the availability of drilling rigs and the construction of infrastructure. Regardless, opening the US to drilling would cause the price of oil to plunge and be online well ahead of alternatives which are still just yet to be made economically viable.

The price of oil can only drop as low as the total cost of extraction. With most of the cheaply acquired oil either depleted or well on its way, the remaining oil is going to be expensive to extract.

It would be cheaper in the long run to save as much oil as possible for uses other than direct energy, such as the synthetics that are used in the manufacturing of technology capable of supplying us with additional energy.

104 HAL2010  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:55:43pm

re: #99 albusteve

I speak for myself...where is our energy going to come from five or ten or twenty years from now?...where?

I don't know, but in the immediate short term: roughly the same as now.

I would hope from a mixture of hybrid energy, wind, solar, nuclear and new forms of energy collection that we have not even imagined within the next 20 - 30 years.

105 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:56:48pm

re: #84 Sharmuta

May the Ceiling Kitteh have mercy upon him...

106 Bob Dillon  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:56:52pm

re: #99 albusteve

I speak for myself...where is our energy going to come from five or ten or twenty years from now?...where?

Oil & Gas. If we elect the appropriate people to congress maybe even some nuclear - but I don't hold out much hope for that.

107 SixDegrees  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:57:10pm

re: #82 HAL2010

Interestingly enough, Nuclear Power is not sustainable without heavy subsidizes from the government.
I am for it, but I believe it would struggle without support or some description from the state.

A good deal of the cost associated with new construction arises from the Byzantine labyrinth of regulations, lawsuits, challenges and counter-challenges that are encountered along the way. Approval was reaching decades of length when the last nuclear plants were finally built, and this bodges pretty much any attempt at business planning, since financial models simply don't work over such time spans.

A streamlined regulatory process would greatly reduce the costs associated with getting nuclear plants up and running.

There are similar problems with waste processing. A national repository has been utterly deadlocked for several decades, with no resolution in sight.

108 Charles Johnson  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:57:17pm

re: #95 SixDegrees

In the New Zealand case, the temperature data was adjusted for a very simple and very obvious reason -- the station was moved to a higher altitude, where temperature readings are naturally lower. There's nothing unusual or strange about that kind of adjustment -- in fact, if you don't do the adjustment the data will not be accurate.

109 HAL2010  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:57:40pm

re: #100 jaunte

That would be an expensive ad.


[Link: www.nytimes.com...]

It's a very fancy ad!

110 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:58:45pm

re: #64 Varek Raith

For some, yes. See, to some, it's better to deny its existence than to do the hard work of figuring out what is to be done to minimize GW effects/adapt to it.

Also, for some, if you can blame the left for being hypocritical or irrational about such things as nuclear power, it's almost the same as actually doing something.

111 recusancy  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:59:16pm

re: #98 HAL2010

They are showing adverts here in the UK where Exxon let a sensible scientist talk about how they are trying to find energy by harvesting algae.
I hold the completely baseless notion that they have spent more money on the ad than actual algae research.

It's not a baseless notion. BP spends millions more in advertising that they research alternative technologies then they actually spend researching the technologies. It's green-washing.

112 jaunte  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 1:59:44pm

re: #109 HAL2010

I thought this was an interesting bit from that article:

To be clear, Exxon Mobil is not turning into an alternative-energy company. Its algae biofuels investment, for example, represents a little more than 1 percent of its 2008 net income and a little more than 2 percent of its 2008 capital expenditures. But experts say the investment is significant nonetheless.

UT's Webber said Exxon's $600 million investment is an order of magnitude larger than the amount spent by the federal government on algae biofuels in the past decade.[Link: www.nytimes.com...]


I like the idea of being able to grow our own oil.

113 albusteve  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:00:07pm

re: #104 HAL2010

I don't know, but in the immediate short term: roughly the same as now.

I would hope from a mixture of hybrid energy, wind, solar, nuclear and new forms of energy collection that we have not even imagined within the next 20 - 30 years.

so you just 'hope' we are not fucked?...there are 300 million people in this country, wind and solar are over the horizon...out national power grid is aging fast...nukes take a long time to build if they can be at all..I see little reason for optimism while science and politics cannot even define the problem are formulate solutions...sorry amigo, we are fucked

114 b_snark  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:00:09pm

re: #35 SixDegrees

[snip]

Unfortunately, there is a significant fraction of the environmental movement who are extreme Luddites at their core, who believe, for instance, that North America can and should only support about 200,000 people living off uncooked twigs and berries.

[bolding mine]

Oh for crying out loud, we never said you couldn't cook them.

115 SixDegrees  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:01:31pm

re: #108 Charles

In the New Zealand case, the temperature data was adjusted for a very simple and very obvious reason -- the station was moved to a higher altitude, where temperature readings are naturally lower. There's nothing unusual or strange about that kind of adjustment -- in fact, if you don't do the adjustment the data will not be accurate.

I'm not arguing, either for or against, any particular circumstance. Just pointing out that data filtering is common, and is also not always as straightforward as tossing out the outliers.

Even when tossing outliers, statistical analysis is required to determine what, exactly, constitutes an outliers, and why.

116 HAL2010  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:02:52pm

re: #111 recusancy

Like the term "clean coal" then.

re: #112 jaunte

It would be pretty cool. Soon we can grow our own oil and organs. But not in the same vat. Just yet.

re: #113 albusteve

so you just 'hope' we are not fucked?...there are 300 million people in this country, wind and solar are over the horizon...out national power grid is aging fast...nukes take a long time to build if they can be at all..I see little reason for optimism while science and politics cannot even define the problem are formulate solutions...sorry amigo, we are fucked

So, what do you suggest?

117 SixDegrees  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:03:06pm

re: #114 b_sharp

[bolding mine]

Oh for crying out loud, we never said you couldn't cook them.

I just can't get used to burying food in a heap of composting dung and calling it "cooking."

:-)

118 Daniel Ballard  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:03:22pm

re: #84 Sharmuta

When he is healthy again and ready for adoption I would gladly post that on my cat blog-"Looking for a home..."

119 Cheechako  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:04:10pm

Bumper sticker I'd like to see:

Put CO2 To Good Use
PLANT MORE TREES

(Message from your local Forester)

120 recusancy  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:04:24pm

re: #113 albusteve

so you just 'hope' we are not fucked?...there are 300 million people in this country, wind and solar are over the horizon...out national power grid is aging fast...nukes take a long time to build if they can be at all..I see little reason for optimism while science and politics cannot even define the problem are formulate solutions...sorry amigo, we are fucked

Science can define the problem just fine. Politics is where the problem is because of the knuckle draggers claiming the jury is still out and the science isn't there and the blatant disinformation campaigns. If there's no public will, there's no political will.

121 ryannon  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:05:50pm

re: #98 HAL2010

They are showing adverts here in the UK where Exxon let a sensible scientist talk about how they are trying to find energy by harvesting algae.
I hold the completely baseless notion that they have spent more money on the ad than actual algae research.

I don't have precise figures, but I'd wager that they're putting everything they have into finding a proprietary system - before the competition does. And it's not just Big Oil: there are a handful of SoCal companies that have made great strides since the info in the following link appeared:

[Link: www.america.gov...]

122 Charles Johnson  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:06:20pm

re: #115 SixDegrees

I'm not arguing, either for or against, any particular circumstance. Just pointing out that data filtering is common, and is also not always as straightforward as tossing out the outliers.

Even when tossing outliers, statistical analysis is required to determine what, exactly, constitutes an outliers, and why.

Absolutely -- data filtering and adjusting is very common, and there are always good reasons for it. On those rare occasions in which scientists have dishonestly cooked their data, they've been discovered and discredited -- by other scientists. There's a very strong incentive NOT to cook data, because it will ruin your career.

Which is why the people screaming about "altered data" in the CRU case are so completely off base.

123 Achilles Tang  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:06:31pm

re: #99 albusteve

I speak for myself...where is our energy going to come from five or ten or twenty years from now?...where?

This might give you some ideas
Powering a Green Planet: Sustainable Energy, Made Interactive

124 Bob Dillon  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:06:32pm

re: #115 SixDegrees

And then there is the issue of "calibration" and "re-calibration". Without proper and verifiable calibration to start with the resultant data is ka-ka poo-poo.

125 b_snark  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:07:58pm

re: #69 albusteve

with all this increase in CO2 levels, why is the Earth cooling?

Where do you get the idea that the Earth is cooling?

126 Gus  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:08:20pm

Regarding the ideological-energy meme.

Everybody want nuclear power until it's time to dispose of the waste. NIMBYism crosses party affiliation. Case in point, see Yucca Mountain and Republican Governor Kenny Guinn of Nevada which fought against the site and the Bush administration.

Republican Governor Jeb Bush was also against offshore oil drilling in Florida until he saw that the politically expedient thing was to support it. In many cases they were against it before they were for it.

A small example from 2002:

Bush prevents oil, gas drilling off Florida coast Government to buy back leasing rights

WASHINGTON -- With his brother, Gov. Jeb Bush, looking on, President Bush sealed a deal Wednesday to prevent further oil and gas drilling off the white sand beaches of the Florida Gulf Coast and in the cypress swamps near the Everglades.

The unexpected announcement would require the federal government to repurchase $235 million worth of oil and gas leasing rights in the Destin Dome area, about 25 miles south of Pensacola, and in three wildlife areas including Big Cypress National Preserve.

Jeb Bush acknowledged that the Oval Office announcement would boost his re-election campaign in Florida, the swing state in the 2000 presidential election and a tourism mecca where polls show 75 percent oppose offshore drilling.

127 albusteve  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:08:48pm

re: #116 HAL2010

Like the term "clean coal" then.

re: #112 jaunte

It would be pretty cool. Soon we can grow our own oil and organs. But not in the same vat. Just yet.

re: #113 albusteve

So, what do you suggest?

taking the technology we are sure of and maximizing it...nuclear power, electric cars, desalination...on a massive scale...re think our use of corn/beef/protein intake and the enormous and destructive use of petro fertilizers...a full blown investment into science education

128 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:09:03pm

re: #125 b_sharp

Where do you get the idea that the Earth is cooling?

He had to put on a sweater.

//OK, I'm going back to making Black Friday Borscht now.

129 HAL2010  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:09:13pm

re: #121 ryannon

I don't have precise figures, but I'd wager that they're putting everything they have into finding a proprietary system - before the competition does. And it's not just Big Oil: there are a handful of SoCal companies that have made great strides since the info in the following link appeared:

[Link: www.america.gov...]

In a technical terms, some of the new technologies being researched are very, very cool.

130 b_snark  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:09:18pm

re: #72 Naso Tang

Moderate sometimes, Liberal sometimes, Conservative sometimes (usually all for different times). Is there a word for that?

Pragmatism.

I'm a pragmatic centrist.

131 abolitionist  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:09:35pm

re: #103 b_sharp

[snip]
It would be cheaper in the long run to save as much oil as possible for uses other than direct energy, such as the synthetics that are used in the manufacturing of technology capable of supplying us with additional energy.

I quite agree. The production of glass fibers for insulation and for communications, for example, depends on natural gas. It provides clean high temp heating and a strong reducing environment required for the manufacturing process. The cleanliness is particularly important for communications fibers, and there's not likely to be any 2nd best substitute that's good enough.

California has lead the way in using natural gas for such things as powering vehicles and generating electricity (much of which goes for heating water a few degrees). I think that's very shortsighted.

132 ryannon  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:09:44pm

re: #99 albusteve

I speak for myself...where is our energy going to come from five or ten or twenty years from now?...where?

Energy-autonomous private homes, apartment and even office buildings are been built right now - today. The technologies used will become even more cost-and-energy efficient in the near future.

133 Bob Dillon  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:09:44pm

re: #120 recusancy

Science can define the problem just fine. Politics is where the problem is because of the knuckle draggers claiming the jury is still out and the science isn't there and the blatant disinformation campaigns. If there's no public will, there's no political will.

Put man on the moon within a decade with less portable computer power than in todays hand held calculator. And we did it.

134 recusancy  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:11:07pm

re: #133 Bobibutu

Put man on the moon within a decade with less portable computer power than in todays hand held calculator. And we did it.

But there was political will for it. There wasn't an anti NASA Republican party like there's an anti AGW Republican party today.

135 albusteve  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:11:07pm

re: #120 recusancy

Science can define the problem just fine. Politics is where the problem is because of the knuckle draggers claiming the jury is still out and the science isn't there and the blatant disinformation campaigns. If there's no public will, there's no political will.

they have made a poor case so far for AGW...maybe Al Gores lucrative zealotry has something to do with that...science has been overly politicized

136 Bagua  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:11:18pm

re: #103 b_sharp

The price of oil can only drop as low as the total cost of extraction. With most of the cheaply acquired oil either depleted or well on its way, the remaining oil is going to be expensive to extract.

I would be quite happy with $45 a barrel at present, with oil at $76 today. As we are likely headed towards an oil price in excess of $100, domestic production at less than half that is very economically attractive.

It would be cheaper in the long run to save as much oil as possible for uses other than direct energy, such as the synthetics that are used in the manufacturing of technology capable of supplying us with additional energy

.

That is hypothetical and depends on your definition of "long run". It is also likely that alternative sources of energy will become more economic that Oil, Gas and Coal well before there is any shortage.

137 HAL2010  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:11:31pm

re: #127 albusteve

taking the technology we are sure of and maximizing it...nuclear power, electric cars, desalination...on a massive scale...re think our use of corn/beef/protein intake and the enormous and destructive use of petro fertilizers...a full blown investment into science education

Should be our "put a man on the Moon" projet for the next 20 years.

138 albusteve  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:12:12pm

re: #125 b_sharp

Where do you get the idea that the Earth is cooling?

oh, I just made it up I guess

139 Bob Dillon  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:13:46pm

re: #134 recusancy

But there was political will for it. There wasn't an anti NASA Republican party like there's an anti AGW Republican party today.

True.

140 karmic_inquisitor  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:14:33pm

FWIW, there is a HUGE problem in talking about AGW about language.

There is not simple, single theory about AGW. If we are talking "do humans produce CO2" that is a fact. If we are talking "is CO2 a greenhouse gas" that is a fact too.

Now if we are talking "what percentage of warming is human caused" then you get to discussions about sensitivity and other human activities that contribute to climate changes (local, regional and global). Things like land use changes (such as clearing forests to make way for agriculture) results in climate changes.

How to mitigate human climate impacts is also up for discussion. There are those advocating geo-engineering approaches, others trying to devise ways to pull carbon from the air and others advocating emissions caps. Those are just three approaches - there are more.

What has happened is that most members of the public have been drawn into a false binary opposition where they are told they have to choose between being a "warmer" or a "denier". There are those like me who accept that humans are warming the planet and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that still get labeled "skeptic" because we take issue with the certainties given the state of the data, and how some parties have presented and enforced moral certainty where they lacked statistical certainty. And having pored over the CRU code, I feel a bit vindicated considering that they can't reproduce their own previously reported results and have had to resort to coding in "fudge factors" .

141 Cineaste  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:15:29pm

re: #94 albusteve

where is our future energy going to come from...the data and the models are meaningless to me...we are polluting the atmosphere, so what's next?

I'm all in favor of a rigorous discussion of where future energy will come from. But having that discussion doesn't negate or make meaningless the separate issue of what we're doing to the environment now.

That all being said, I like nuclear for electricity and natural gas for non-electric vehicles. I'm borrowing a friend's Tesla tomorrow for a couple hours and can't wait to tear it up!

142 Gus  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:15:48pm

re: #134 recusancy

But there was political will for it. There wasn't an anti NASA Republican party like there's an anti AGW Republican party today.

Space race. Cold war. Soviet Union.

143 recusancy  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:16:19pm

re: #135 albusteve

they have made a poor case so far for AGW...maybe Al Gores lucrative zealotry has something to do with that...science has been overly politicized

Darn Al Gore!

144 SixDegrees  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:17:09pm

re: #122 Charles

Absolutely -- data filtering and adjusting is very common, and there are always good reasons for it. On those rare occasions in which scientists have dishonestly cooked their data, they've been discovered and discredited -- by other scientists. There's a very strong incentive NOT to cook data, because it will ruin your career.

Which is why the people screaming about "altered data" in the CRU case are so completely off base.

I haven't seen any evidence yet to indicate that the CRU data has been cooked. In the end, I suspect their raw data will be released, and it can then be subjected to independent analysis. Part of the current problem stems from delays in obtaining the raw data; from what I gather, portions of it belong to other researchers, and permission to release it has been slow in coming. Perhaps this will provide the impetus to speed things up.

145 karmic_inquisitor  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:17:53pm

re: #122 Charles

Absolutely -- data filtering and adjusting is very common, and there are always good reasons for it. On those rare occasions in which scientists have dishonestly cooked their data, they've been discovered and discredited -- by other scientists. There's a very strong incentive NOT to cook data, because it will ruin your career.

Which is why the people screaming about "altered data" in the CRU case are so completely off base.

I think the issue with the CRU data was and has been that the raw data and the methods for adjusting it were not transparent. The code shows why they didn't want to do that - they are lousy software engineers with no source control and publishing their code would have been an embarrassing, even if the adjustments were all necessary and proper.

146 Claire  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:18:37pm

re: #107 SixDegrees

Yes, and if you decentralize the plants, let cities or entrepeneurs install their own little plants then more could be running in a shorter time. It's always harder to come up with $500 million in funding privately, or even publicly, to build one big plant than it would be to come up with $20 million for a Hyperion reactor or $3.5 million for a Toshiba personal reactor.

147 Bob Dillon  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:18:57pm

re: #142 Gus 802

Space race. Cold war. Soviet Union.

That was the political gun to the head of congress. In Spades.

148 Cineaste  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:20:00pm

re: #120 recusancy

Science can define the problem just fine. Politics is where the problem is because of the knuckle draggers claiming the jury is still out and the science isn't there and the blatant disinformation campaigns. If there's no public will, there's no political will.

Exactly right. If we could stop wasting time over lies relating to AGW we could start spending time coming up with solutions, instead of defending facts.

149 albusteve  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:20:05pm

re: #146 Claire

Yes, and if you decentralize the plants, let cities or entrepeneurs install their own little plants then more could be running in a shorter time. It's always harder to come up with $500 million in funding privately, or even publicly, to build one big plant than it would be to come up with $20 million for a Hyperion reactor or $3.5 million for a Toshiba personal reactor.

presto!...there should be mini nukes dotting the countryside humming away

150 Cheechako  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:22:10pm

re: #149 albusteve

presto!...there should be mini nukes dotting the countryside humming away


And we already have the technology to build mini nukes. Think of the all the mini nukes that power our aircraft carriers and submarines.

151 SixDegrees  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:22:41pm

re: #137 HAL2010

Should be our "put a man on the Moon" projet for the next 20 years.

A worthwhile national goal, akin to the Apollo Project, would be to make the United States energy independent over the next 25 years, with the realization that a healthy, growing economy is directly tied to a growing energy supply. This has a number of beneficial effects for the nation. Freedom from foreign interference. Keeping a large share of our money and resources invested domestically. Depriving some of the world's worst despots of their only source of income. Control over our own economic destiny.

I believe this is an achievable goal, and it's troubling that no one in the political realm is promoting it.

152 Gus  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:23:20pm

re: #147 Bobibutu

That was the political gun to the head of congress. In Spades.

Yes. I would say it was the primary motivating factor. Of course it was born as NACA (more or less) under Eisenhower and eventually was taken to the moon under the influence of Kennedy. Nixon brought it back down to near Earth orbit around 1972.

Regardless of the motivations there was a certain can-do attitude back then that we'll never see again. Maybe it will return.

153 Bagua  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:23:28pm

re: #92 Obdicut

You are not actually making a counterargument, though. You're just making an assertion.

I submit that, given that the principle action of AGW is well-known-- increasing the CO2 concentration in atmosphere will lead to warming-- and that the history of mankind's production of CO2 is likewise well-known, there is an absolutely basic assumption of AGW. This assumption is confirmed by data and evidence, available from a panoply of sources.

Submit what you wish, the IPCC gives that assertion a 90% confidence level. If you are suggesting that the level of confidence in the Theory of Evolution is 90 - 95% then I submit you are mistaken.

If you submit that the causal link between smoking tobacco and lung cancer is 90% - 95%, then I submit you are mistaken.

By the way, nicotine isn't directly linked to cancer. Cigarettes cause cancer, tobacco causes cancer, but nicotine on its own-- while nasty, addictive shit you don't want in your body and helps to weaken your body's fight against cancer-- hasn't been directly implicated in causing cancer.

Researchers find 'smoking gun link between nicotine and cancer


However, let's leave it at the link between smoking tobacco and lung cancer as that was the wording from Monbiot which I was challenging and save the nicotine discussion for another day.

154 albusteve  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:23:41pm

re: #150 Cheechako

And we already have the technology to build mini nukes. Think of the all the mini nukes that power our aircraft carriers and submarines.

and provide fresh water as a bonus...there is no excuse, it's right there in front of us

155 recusancy  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:24:52pm

re: #151 SixDegrees

A worthwhile national goal, akin to the Apollo Project, would be to make the United States energy independent over the next 25 years, with the realization that a healthy, growing economy is directly tied to a growing energy supply. This has a number of beneficial effects for the nation. Freedom from foreign interference. Keeping a large share of our money and resources invested domestically. Depriving some of the world's worst despots of their only source of income. Control over our own economic destiny.

I believe this is an achievable goal, and it's troubling that no one in the political realm is promoting it.

The left is promoting it. But there needs to be bipartisan support for such a large undertaking to get momentum.

156 b_snark  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:25:01pm

re: #76 abolitionist

From your link: ... Almost all my fiercest arguments over climate change, both in print and in person, have been with people in their 60s or 70s. Why might this be? ...

I think it may be because that demographic is old enough to remember the doomsday mongering of Paul R. Ehrlich (Population Bomb, 1968),

His prediction (not prophecy) was based on agricultural practices and population trends of the time.

...and witnessed the Global Cooling panic morphing

The panic was made by the media, not the science.

...into the Global Warming panic,

Even at the time of your 'Global Cooling' most scientists thought the globe was warming. The second greatest number simply didn't know.

and subsequently morphing into the Climate Change imperative newspeak.

See a 2002 memo by Luntz Research Inc. to the Bush administration about the best PR language to use in regard to climate. Apparently the administration and the Republican party took the memo to heart.

The lefties have been using both climate change and global warming since the late '70s.

157 HAL2010  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:25:40pm

re: #151 SixDegrees

A worthwhile national goal, akin to the Apollo Project, would be to make the United States energy independent over the next 25 years, with the realization that a healthy, growing economy is directly tied to a growing energy supply. This has a number of beneficial effects for the nation. Freedom from foreign interference. Keeping a large share of our money and resources invested domestically. Depriving some of the world's worst despots of their only source of income. Control over our own economic destiny.

I believe this is an achievable goal, and it's troubling that no one in the political realm is promoting it.

Absolutely agree.

158 SixDegrees  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:25:44pm

re: #150 Cheechako

And we already have the technology to build mini nukes. Think of the all the mini nukes that power our aircraft carriers and submarines.

I think I've heard of the mini-reactor Claire is referring to. If I recall, it's roughly the size of a refrigerator, and generates enough electricity to meet the needs of a large skyscraper. Or something on that order.

159 albusteve  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:25:56pm

re: #152 Gus 802

Yes. I would say it was the primary motivating factor. Of course it was born as NACA (more or less) under Eisenhower and eventually was taken to the moon under the influence of Kennedy. Nixon brought it back down to near Earth orbit around 1972.

Regardless of the motivations there was a certain can-do attitude back then that we'll never see again. Maybe it will return.

if the Packers can beat the Cowboys, anything is possible eh?

160 Charles Johnson  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:26:13pm

re: #145 karmic_inquisitor

I think the issue with the CRU data was and has been that the raw data and the methods for adjusting it were not transparent. The code shows why they didn't want to do that - they are lousy software engineers with no source control and publishing their code would have been an embarrassing, even if the adjustments were all necessary and proper.

Actually, you can't tell that they weren't using some kind of version control from the stolen files. Those files were assembled deliberately by the thief, to cherry-pick the most damaging stuff.

161 ryannon  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:26:17pm

Goggle Image's zero-energy building page(s)

[Link: images.google.com...]

162 Gus  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:27:58pm

re: #159 albusteve

if the Packers can beat the Cowboys, anything is possible eh?

Yep. It would be nice to see that can-do attitude trend return.

163 SixDegrees  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:28:14pm

re: #155 recusancy

The left is promoting it. But there needs to be bipartisan support for such a large undertaking to get momentum.

A key component here is nuclear power, which we already know how to do and which can be easily deployed immediately. But there are many Luddites opposed to even the mention of nuclear power plants. It's probably the largest of many stumbling blocks.

164 albusteve  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:28:36pm

re: #158 SixDegrees

I think I've heard of the mini-reactor Claire is referring to. If I recall, it's roughly the size of a refrigerator, and generates enough electricity to meet the needs of a large skyscraper. Or something on that order.

I've posted the Hyperion many times...

[Link: www.hyperionpowergeneration.com...]

165 Bagua  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:28:37pm

re: #160 Charles

Actually, you can't tell that they weren't using some kind of version control from the stolen files. Those files were assembled deliberately by the thief, to cherry-pick the most damaging stuff.

I agree. Until we have the original data sets and original codes released and verified we are only speculating.

Any conclusions or "smoking gun" from the CRU hack is very premature and unreliable at this point. It will all need to be verified.

166 Cineaste  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:30:33pm

re: #165 Bagua

But the CRU is not the only place on the planet collecting, analyzing and publishing data. There are reams and reams of public data from NASA, NOAA, and dozens of other groups.

167 Gus  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:30:52pm

Headline news!

The Alex Jones Show – LIVE – November 27th With Lord Monckton
Prison Planet.com - ‎37 minutes ago‎

Seriously. That's some venue they're taking up.

168 Bob Dillon  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:31:11pm

re: #152 Gus 802

Regardless of the motivations there was a certain can-do attitude back then that we'll never see again. Maybe it will return.

I was fortunate enough to ride that wave back in the 60 & 70s (USN & IBM) we accomplished amazing shit with what we had on hand and no whining.

PC and quotas must die - we need to get back to a foundation of reality and accountability.

169 albusteve  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:32:06pm

re: #168 Bobibutu

I was fortunate enough to ride that wave back in the 60 & 70s (USN & IBM) we accomplished amazing shit with what we had on hand and no whining.

PC and quotas must die - we need to get back to a foundation of reality and accountability.

I have a negative carbon footprint...does that help?

170 Cheechako  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:32:09pm

re: #164 albusteve

I've posted the Hyperion many times...

[Link: www.hyperionpowergeneration.com...]


This is exactly what the remote villages in Alaska need. Right now they spend a lot of money (and fuel) to barge or fly in enough fuel to heat their homes and run their power plants.

171 albusteve  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:33:07pm

re: #170 Cheechako

This is exactly what the remote villages in Alaska need. Right now they spend a lot of money (and fuel) to barge or fly in enough fuel to heat their homes and run their power plants.

in five years they'd be a third smaller and half the cost...it can be done

172 Sharmuta  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:33:08pm

re: #112 jaunte

I had read another article about algae- it's in the spinoffs somewhere... One of the interesting aspects of this development is how it would utilize previous unusable areas for a new cash crop.

173 SixDegrees  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:33:57pm

re: #164 albusteve

I've posted the Hyperion many times...

[Link: www.hyperionpowergeneration.com...]

Sweet.

174 Charles Johnson  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:34:21pm

re: #167 Gus 802

Headline news!

The Alex Jones Show – LIVE – November 27th With Lord Monckton
Prison Planet.com - ‎37 minutes ago‎

Seriously. That's some venue they're taking up.

Wow. That's the current climate denial hero of the right wing -- now hanging out with the most batshit crazy conspiracy theorist in the US.

175 Bob Dillon  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:35:08pm

I think it's safe to sneak out for a while and run some errands. I won't be going anywhere near a mall.

176 albusteve  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:35:13pm

re: #172 Sharmuta

I had read another article about algae- it's in the spinoffs somewhere... One of the interesting aspects of this development is how it would utilize previous unusable areas for a new cash crop.

you grow it out in the middle of nowhere in the dirt and sand, wherever the sun shines...they do it here in NM

177 Summer Seale  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:35:45pm

re: #16 Charles

Strange, isn't it?

It's almost as if they believe that calling something a "religion" is an insult.

Actually, it's more akin to if you don't believe in their "religion", you're personally insulting them or something.

BTW, the quote you used to show off the moron deniers in this post really goes to the point. I was reading some Hot Air comments the other day and they were the most vile and disgustingly offensive bullshit comments I've read in a very long time.

They're just ranting with spittle flying out of their mouths, insulting you, Sharmuta, and anyone else here who doesn't "believe" in their particular point of view. It's absolutely horrid and repulsive to see. I hadn't been there in many months and that place (and Ace as well - I checked that out the other day) were just decrepit with oozing bile.

I am just stunned that people who run those sites simply sit back and tolerate that kind of insulting insanity. It's horrific.

178 Gus  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:36:01pm

re: #174 Charles

Wow. That's the current climate denial hero of the right wing -- now hanging out with the most batshit crazy conspiracy theorist in the US.

He sure is! Just came across it while searching for CRU news in Google. Prison Planet and Alex Jones are big on AGW because as you know they see it another "new world order" conspiracy. In fact I think so does Monckton.

179 Obdicut  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:36:04pm

re: #153 Bagua


Submit what you wish, the IPCC gives that assertion a 90% confidence level.

No, the assertion that CO2 causes warming in atmosphere and that the human race has produced a lot of it is, in fact, 100% confidence level.

The 90% confidence level is about the warming continuing in a feedback loop with things like outgassing tundras, winding up with cumulative greater effects.

180 albusteve  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:37:11pm

algae...
[Link: www.cnn.com...]

181 Killgore Trout  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:38:17pm

re: #174 Charles

Wow. That's the current climate denial hero of the right wing -- now hanging out with the most batshit crazy conspiracy theorist in the US.

Lord Mockton and Glenn Beck have been claiming that Global Warming hoaxes are plan to establish a New World Order and global government. No surprise that Alex Jones is involved. Last week Rush was linking to Prison Planet for global warming information. Alex is with the "in" crowd now.

182 Gus  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:38:18pm

re: #168 Bobibutu

I was fortunate enough to ride that wave back in the 60 & 70s (USN & IBM) we accomplished amazing shit with what we had on hand and no whining.

PC and quotas must die - we need to get back to a foundation of reality and accountability.

There are other issues. Safety being one. Frankly the safety factor has risen exponentially. The old test pilot mentality meant you had a lot astronauts and pilots that were very willing to die doing their work. It was already a part of their reality during the test pilot days. As it became more civilian oriented that threshold was raised over a period of time.

Then there's our tendency to build watches as the Russians would say. Whenever we build a rocket it's far more complicated then the old school variety and still far more intricate then what we see from Russia. Comparison being an SU-30 vs. an F-22. Sometimes volume can overcome quality.

183 Bob Dillon  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:38:49pm

re: #164 albusteve

I've posted the Hyperion many times...

[Link: www.hyperionpowergeneration.com...]

Now that really gives me a tingle up my leg.

Aren't there a couple of versions? Toshiba?

These things need to be everywhere.

184 Charles Johnson  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:38:56pm

re: #177 Summer

Actually, it's more akin to if you don't believe in their "religion", you're personally insulting them or something.

BTW, the quote you used to show off the moron deniers in this post really goes to the point. I was reading some Hot Air comments the other day and they were the most vile and disgustingly offensive bullshit comments I've read in a very long time.

They're just ranting with spittle flying out of their mouths, insulting you, Sharmuta, and anyone else here who doesn't "believe" in their particular point of view. It's absolutely horrid and repulsive to see. I hadn't been there in many months and that place (and Ace as well - I checked that out the other day) were just decrepit with oozing bile.

I am just stunned that people who run those sites simply sit back and tolerate that kind of insulting insanity. It's horrific.

It's flat-out repulsive. Even at the beginning of LGF, when I wasn't moderating comments because I (mistakenly) believed that the community would police itself, our comments never even approached the level of deranged raging insanity you see at right wing blogs nowadays.

185 avanti  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:39:19pm

re: #138 albusteve

oh, I just made it up I guess

Just like the Fox headline banner this afternoon:

"Global warming proved to be a hoax"

186 Gus  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:39:24pm

re: #181 Killgore Trout

Lord Mockton and Glenn Beck have been claiming that Global Warming hoaxes are plan to establish a New World Order and global government. No surprise that Alex Jones is involved. Last week Rush was linking to Prison Planet for global warming information. Alex is with the "in" crowd now.

"The Great Alex Jones." - Judge Napolitano

187 Bagua  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:39:42pm

re: #166 Cineaste

But the CRU is not the only place on the planet collecting, analyzing and publishing data. There are reams and reams of public data from NASA, NOAA, and dozens of other groups.

I am well aware of that, it is however the key source of global temperature charts and tree ring data for the historical temperature construct.

IF the CRU data turns out to have been falsified or exaggerated, it does not end the Theory of AGW. It would however be a major setback for certain key aspects of that theory and require the discarding of a great deal of work which relies on it.

188 Charles Johnson  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:40:19pm

re: #186 Gus 802

"The Great Alex Jones." - Judge Napolitano

The full quote from Napolitano is, "The one, the only, the great Alex Jones."

That's Glenn Beck's frequent guest host talking.

189 Charles Johnson  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:40:57pm

re: #187 Bagua

I am well aware of that, it is however the key source of global temperature charts and tree ring data for the historical temperature construct.

IF the CRU data turns out to have been falsified or exaggerated, it does not end the Theory of AGW. It would however be a major setback for certain key aspects of that theory and require the discarding of a great deal of work which relies on it.

Thank goodness that isn't going to happen.

190 albusteve  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:41:07pm

re: #183 Bobibutu

Now that really gives me a tingle up my leg.

Aren't there a couple of versions? Toshiba?

These things need to be everywhere.

yup...the Toshiba is even smaller...when you google these things there is all kinds of exciting advantages...all it does is piss me off tho...if you gave these people a market, the sky is the limit in size, shape and cost

191 b_snark  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:41:19pm

re: #134 recusancy

But there was political will for it. There wasn't an anti NASA Republican party like there's an anti AGW Republican party today.

I think it was more of a public scare than public support. Without the USSR would it have happened? That may be why many non-scientists push the fear aspect, they've seen what fear can do to move the public.

192 Gus  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:42:04pm

re: #188 Charles

The full quote from Napolitano is, "The one, the only, the great Alex Jones."

That's Glenn Beck's frequent guest host talking.

And a favorite of the Constitutionalists* and Liberty* crowds.

*Not to be confused with the real Constitution and liberty.

193 Bob Dillon  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:42:19pm

BBL

194 albusteve  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:42:20pm

re: #185 avanti

Just like the Fox headline banner this afternoon:

"Global warming proved to be a hoax"

and this one...
"Avanti Has No Brain"


jus kidding

195 avanti  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:42:47pm

re: #164 albusteve

I've posted the Hyperion many times...

[Link: www.hyperionpowergeneration.com...]

The technology shows the solution is available, just not yet accepted. Nuke plants for power, nuke powered ships, maybe even nuke locomotives. All of those could be put online in the next 50 years.

196 albusteve  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:43:59pm

re: #195 avanti

The technology shows the solution is available, just not yet accepted. Nuke plants for power, nuke powered ships, maybe even nuke locomotives. All of those could be put online in the next 50 years.

try 10 years...you underestimate the power of profit

197 Sharmuta  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:44:15pm

re: #118 Rightwingconspirator

When he is healthy again and ready for adoption I would gladly post that on my cat blog-"Looking for a home..."

Thanks! The animal hospital called back and said Stinky has a viral infection, but he's otherwise eating well and having normal, er... functions.

198 b_snark  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:44:24pm

re: #138 albusteve

oh, I just made it up I guess

That's what I thought.

Just a quick question, what has happened over the last 100 years every time there has been a dip in average temps?

199 Killgore Trout  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:45:15pm

re: #177 Summer

Ed and Allahpundit hate that too. Every thread over there turn into a discussion of LGF. It's pretty much all their readers want to talk about.

200 Gus  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:45:17pm

re: #197 Sharmuta

Thanks! The animal hospital called back and said Stinky has a viral infection, but he's otherwise eating well and having normal, er... functions.

No worms or other parasites?

201 Sharmuta  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:45:29pm

re: #134 recusancy

But there was political will for it. There wasn't an anti NASA Republican party like there's an anti AGW Republican party today.

One of the biggest supporters of NASA and a reason they got some increases in their funding was because of Newt Gingrich.

202 recusancy  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:45:46pm

re: #191 b_sharp

I think it was more of a public scare than public support. Without the USSR would it have happened? That may be why many non-scientists push the fear aspect, they've seen what fear can do to move the public.

That's the problem. You need spokesmen who aren't afraid to get their hands dirty. Most scientists feel dirty trying to use political scare tactics to get their message across. They'd rather just present the evidence and you do with it what you may. That's where Al Gore comes in and has done a pretty good job, even though most of you probably can't stand the guy. At least he's made a dent public understanding of the issue and the seriousness of it.

203 Bagua  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:45:54pm

re: #179 Obdicut

No, the assertion that CO2 causes warming in atmosphere and that the human race has produced a lot of it is, in fact, 100% confidence level.

The 90% confidence level is about the warming continuing in a feedback loop with things like outgassing tundras, winding up with cumulative greater effects.

Nope.

Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations.

very likely means at least a 90% likelihood.

IPCC AR4

"At least 90% likelihood" does not equal 100%.

204 Daniel Ballard  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:45:56pm

re: #197 Sharmuta

Yaaay!

205 ryannon  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:46:15pm

re: #183 Bobibutu

Now that really gives me a tingle up my leg.

Aren't there a couple of versions? Toshiba?

These things need to be everywhere.

Personally, I get hung up on the fine print:

"Small enough to be transported on a ship, truck or train, Hyperion power modules are about the size of a "hot tub" — approximately 1.5 meters wide. Out of sight and safe from nefarious threats, Hyperion power modules are buried far underground and guarded by a security detail."

[Link: www.hyperionpowergeneration.com...]

206 Summer Seale  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:46:40pm

re: #184 Charles

It's flat-out repulsive. Even at the beginning of LGF, when I wasn't moderating comments because I (mistakenly) believed that the community would police itself, our comments never even approached the level of deranged raging insanity you see at right wing blogs nowadays.

I was pretty amazed that some of them could see through the flying spittle clinging to the screen enough to type even more deranged personal insults.

207 avanti  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:46:52pm

re: #194 albusteve

and this one...
"Avanti Has No Brain"

jus kidding

I have one, it's just wired differently then yours. We look at the same facts and reach different conclusions.
The facts are that AGW is real, no matter how the right objects, and nuclear power is the solution, no matter how the left objects.

208 albusteve  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:46:57pm

re: #198 b_sharp

That's what I thought.

Just a quick question, what has happened over the last 100 years every time there has been a dip in average temps?

the Cubs win the World Series?

209 Bagua  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:47:16pm

re: #189 Charles

Thank goodness that isn't going to happen.

I would agree that it is premature to suggest that that will happen.

210 b_snark  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:47:44pm

re: #140 karmic_inquisitor

There are those like me who accept that humans are warming the planet and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that still get labeled "skeptic" ...

Being called a skeptic is a good thing, they differ from deniers (denialists, whatever) in that they are willing to change their minds if the evidence is there.

211 SixDegrees  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:48:15pm

re: #196 albusteve

try 10 years...you underestimate the power of profit

GMTA. There's nothing new or untried about such designs - similar compact reactors are in use on subs, for example.

Not quite ready for the nuclear locomotive, though. Anybody ever seen the aftermath of a high-speed train wreck? Add in a ruptured reactor core, and it ain't pretty.

I do like the buried, single-site solution, though.

212 b_snark  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:50:22pm

re: #149 albusteve

presto!...there should be mini nukes dotting the countryside humming away

They could even be underground to keep the landscape pristine.

213 albusteve  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:50:42pm

re: #211 SixDegrees

GMTA. There's nothing new or untried about such designs - similar compact reactors are in use on subs, for example.

Not quite ready for the nuclear locomotive, though. Anybody ever seen the aftermath of a high-speed train wreck? Add in a ruptured reactor core, and it ain't pretty.

I do like the buried, single-site solution, though.

waste transport drums are invincible to high speed train wrecks of any kind...I've seen vids where they slam a freight train, full blast into those things and they just bounce around

214 wrenchwench  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:51:19pm

re: #211 SixDegrees

Not quite ready for the nuclear locomotive, though. Anybody ever seen the aftermath of a high-speed train wreck? Add in a ruptured reactor core, and it ain't pretty.

I have a customer who says he worked on a nuclear locomotive project in California. I don't know where or when. This guy is about 80 years old, and tells me lots of great stories.

215 Sharmuta  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:52:04pm

re: #200 Gus 802

No worms or other parasites?

Nope! They said if there were additional developments, they would give me a call, but I think he's going to be okay.

216 ryannon  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:52:10pm

re: #207 avanti

I have one, it's just wired differently then yours. We look at the same facts and reach different conclusions.
The facts are that AGW is real, no matter how the right objects, and nuclear power is the solution, no matter how the left objects.

There's not just a left/right cleavage, but given the level of enthusiasm displayed on the board for this technology, it's a can of worms I don't want to open. As well as not wanting to be tagged as LGF's house-Luddite.

217 albusteve  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:52:44pm

re: #213 albusteve

I meant to say it's not exactly the same thing...but we are moving closer to solutions

218 b_snark  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:53:06pm

re: #160 Charles

Actually, you can't tell that they weren't using some kind of version control from the stolen files. Those files were assembled deliberately by the thief, to cherry-pick the most damaging stuff.

Whether the code was a mess or not doesn't matter. What does matter is how accurate the output was. (This is code from an older version)

219 Gus  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:53:17pm

re: #215 Sharmuta

Nope! They said if there were additional developments, they would give me a call, but I think he's going to be okay.

Cool. We used to take on some strays back when I was a kid. That would always be a problem.

220 albusteve  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:53:53pm

re: #216 ryannon

There's not just a left/right cleavage, but given the level of enthusiasm displayed on the board for this technology, it's a can of worms I don't want to open. As well as not wanting to be tagged as LGF's house-Luddite.

no guts, no glory

221 Daniel Ballard  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:56:54pm

re: #197 Sharmuta

Hows this?

Sharm, if you have another image I'll drop it in.

222 ryannon  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:57:14pm

re: #220 albusteve

no guts, no glory

No, just a cost-benefit analysis.

223 albusteve  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:57:51pm

re: #222 ryannon

No, just a cost-benefit analysis.

CAPITALIST!

224 ryannon  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:58:22pm

re: #223 albusteve

CAPITALIST!

In for a penny...

225 Sharmuta  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:59:34pm

re: #221 Rightwingconspirator

That's very sweet. There's a picture of him here.

226 recusancy  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 2:59:47pm

re: #216 ryannon

There's not just a left/right cleavage, but given the level of enthusiasm displayed on the board for this technology, it's a can of worms I don't want to open. As well as not wanting to be tagged as LGF's house-Luddite.

I've opened that can of worms here before.

227 b_snark  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 3:00:27pm

re: #203 Bagua

Nope.

Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations.

very likely means at least a 90% likelihood.

IPCC AR4

"At least 90% likelihood" does not equal 100%.

Where have you seen the confidence level of evolution pegged at 100%?

228 ryannon  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 3:00:37pm

re: #226 recusancy

I've opened that can of worms here before.

Catch any fish?

229 recusancy  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 3:02:50pm

re: #228 ryannon

Catch any fish?

Too many. To suggest that nuclear is more nuanced is not what many want to hear. But hey, if all it takes is the left to whole heartedly embrace nuclear for the right to jump into this problem gung ho with us I'm on board.

230 Bagua  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 3:04:44pm

re: #227 b_sharp

Where have you seen the confidence level of evolution pegged at 100%?

Obdicut was referring to AGW not evolution.

231 recusancy  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 3:06:41pm

re: #230 Bagua

Obdicut was referring to AGW not evolution.

But he/she asks because you seem to equate only scientific theories that have 100% confidence as being true and credible.

232 Achilles Tang  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 3:16:22pm

re: #137 HAL2010

Should be our "put a man on the Moon" projet for the next 20 years.

These people think it could be done in 20 years, theoretically that is.


[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

(That's my #123 above)

233 Achilles Tang  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 3:17:01pm

re: #228 ryannon

Catch any fish?

probably just flounders

234 ryannon  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 3:19:41pm

re: #229 recusancy

Too many. To suggest that nuclear is more nuanced is not what many want to hear. But hey, if all it takes is the left to whole heartedly embrace nuclear for the right to jump into this problem gung ho with us I'm on board.

There's already too much on the collective LGF plate to add another raging controversy to the table. May the best technology(ies) win. And in all sincerity, I hope to God I'm mistaken about what I've learned about the nuances of nuclear power generation.

235 recusancy  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 3:22:55pm

re: #123 Naso Tang

This might give you some ideas
Powering a Green Planet: Sustainable Energy, Made Interactive

They shun nuclear so that probably doesn't float on this board.

236 Obdicut  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 3:25:19pm

re: #230 Bagua

Obdicut was referring to AGW not evolution.

Although I do not subscribe to his views, Steven J. Gould, the eminent biologist, believed strongly in non-Darwinian pathways to evolution. I'm much more of a subscriber to Dennett and Dawkin's view, but Dennett does a good job of exploring the 'non-Darwinian' attempts at explanation by Lewontin and Gould.

Moreover, the Neutral Theory of evolution holds that random genetic drift is the main force in changing allele histories; while I think he's overstated his case and overlooked Darwinian aspects of genetic drift itself, there definitely is large amounts of change from genetic drift, a non-Darwinian process.

237 Bagua  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 3:29:38pm

re: #231 recusancy

But he/she asks because you seem to equate only scientific theories that have 100% confidence as being true and credible.

No, I think you are misreading. He/She is making a declarative statement that No, the assertion that CO2 causes warming in atmosphere and that the human race has produced a lot of it is, in fact, 100% confidence level.

As far as "true and credible" that is also inaccurate, you are putting words in my mouth. I do believe the AGW theory is credible, I've not said otherwise.

My point is that it is not equivalent to the Theory of Evolution or the clinical evidence that smoking tobacco is the major cause of lung cancer. That is an exaggeration, something which the moonbat Monbiat is well known for.

238 ryannon  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 3:31:31pm

re: #235 recusancy

[Link: www.scientificamerican.com...]

They shun nuclear so that probably doesn't float on this board.


Ha! Scientific American! Notorious crypto-Commie mouthpiece for Pravda and other post-Soviet bloc tree-huggers.

Is that the best you can do?

/

239 Bagua  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 3:31:46pm

re: #236 Obdicut


What is your point?

240 Obdicut  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 3:34:23pm

re: #237 Bagua

Bagua, when you're attempting to cut something so fine as to debate whether two theories that are both accepted by the vast majority of scientists working the field are 'equally' accepted, it would help if you didn't do things like change between talking about 'nicotine' and 'tobacco' and 'the largest cause of lung cancer'. The largest cause of any cancer is genetic, first and foremost. Second of all, talking about tobacco and talking about nicotine are very, very different.

You're attempting to make an argument that someone was sloppy in their presentation of a scientific claim, but you're doing so in a manner that is, yourself, markedly sloppy.

re: #239 Bagua

What is your point?

Given that Lewontin, Gould, and Kimura, three of the most important biologists of the past half-century, all strongly believe in non-Darwinian evolutionary forces stronger than Darwinian forces, I'm wondering why you think Darwinian evolution is 100% certain. Even Darwin didn't think that Darwinian evolution was 100% certain, especially since he hadn't fully fleshed out the mechanism-- he didn't know about genetics.

When you say "Darwinian evolution" do you actually mean the Modern Synthesis?

241 Achilles Tang  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 3:44:27pm

re: #235 recusancy

They shun nuclear so that probably doesn't float on this board.

I don't know that they shun it, but the point of this exercise was whether it was conceivable to have a solution with essentially zero emissions (including nuclear waste). However if you read it in detail there are devils in there, such as potential shortages of key elements required for massive amounts of highly efficient electric generators, and motors, for example.

242 Dr. Shalit  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 3:46:46pm

OK Everyone -

There are "Warming" AND "Anti-Warming" Politics - LIKE DUH! The real question is who HAS the BETTER SCIENCE, as in Scientific Method, Hypotheisis, Experimentation (Repeatable), Theorem, with "No Axe to Grind" etc. Discussion?

-S-

243 Achilles Tang  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 3:47:42pm

re: #233 Naso Tang

probably just flounders

What? That bad a pun?

244 recusancy  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 3:47:56pm

re: #241 Naso Tang

I don't know that they shun it, but the point of this exercise was whether it was conceivable to have a solution with essentially zero emissions (including nuclear waste). However if you read it in detail there are devils in there, such as potential shortages of key elements required for massive amounts of highly efficient electric generators, and motors, for example.

Watch the video on the last page. He says that the coal industry along with gas and nuclear are the impediments to getting full scale political momentum going on this issue. I don't disagree with that. I was just saying many on this board would probably have a beef with it since nuclear is their holy grail.

245 Achilles Tang  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 3:48:54pm

re: #244 recusancy

For what it is worth, I'm all in favor of nuclear.

246 recusancy  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 3:52:31pm

re: #245 Naso Tang

For what it is worth, I'm all in favor of nuclear.

Uranium is a finite and scarce resource as well. If we were to supply all the worlds power with it we'd run out in about 20 years tops. That link you had was all unlimited resources, sun/wind/wave/hydro. I'm not really making an argument here, just throwing that out there.

247 ryannon  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 3:58:02pm

re: #243 Naso Tang

What? That bad a pun?

Maybe not, but don't carp on it.

248 karmic_inquisitor  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 3:59:31pm

re: #160 Charles

Actually, you can't tell that they weren't using some kind of version control from the stolen files. Those files were assembled deliberately by the thief, to cherry-pick the most damaging stuff.

Which, IMO, argues for transparency. This would all be a non-issue if places like CRU put up their numbers along with the data and methods used for processing them. It would also make the results something that others could replicate. There'd be nothing to steal. There'd be nothing to give any plausibility to cherry picked data if all of the data are available.

With all that is at stake I don't see a justification for keeping sources and methods in this field secret. As for the potential that detractors would then use the information to make exaggerated claims about what was done and why, that has been an ongoing aspect of science for a very long time and scientists should have nothing to fear in the bargain.

249 Charles Johnson  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 4:06:00pm

re: #248 karmic_inquisitor

Which, IMO, argues for transparency. This would all be a non-issue if places like CRU put up their numbers along with the data and methods used for processing them. It would also make the results something that others could replicate. There'd be nothing to steal. There'd be nothing to give any plausibility to cherry picked data if all of the data are available.

With all that is at stake I don't see a justification for keeping sources and methods in this field secret. As for the potential that detractors would then use the information to make exaggerated claims about what was done and why, that has been an ongoing aspect of science for a very long time and scientists should have nothing to fear in the bargain.

There's more to it than that. The data is not all from one place or even from one country, and many of the countries involved have laws about what can and can't be shared. Also, many of the agencies that collected the data have their own rules about it.

I've said several times in these discussions that I understand WHY the scientists at CRU were resistant to sharing data with people like Steven McIntyre, whose only reason for asking for the data was so that they could cherry-pick through it for new out-of-context denialist talking points.

It's understandable, but for political reasons it would be better to just go ahead, share the data, and deal with the inevitable deniers' distortions, rather than create the impression that they're trying to hide something.

250 goddamnedfrank  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 4:12:48pm

re: #248 karmic_inquisitor

Which, IMO, argues for transparency. This would all be a non-issue if places like CRU put up their numbers along with the data and methods used for processing them.

Places like CRU? You mean like NASA?

So, can we call this a non-issue yet?

251 goddamnedfrank  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 4:21:42pm

re: #227 b_sharp

Where have you seen the confidence level of evolution pegged at 100%?

You can observe it, happening right in front of your eyes, under a microscope and in your local hospital's waiting room.

252 Bagua  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 4:49:33pm

re: #250 goddamnedfrank

Places like CRU? You mean like NASA?

So, can we call this a non-issue yet?

Right, if CRU did the same as NASA there would be no issue with CRU. But they don't, for whatever excuse, and the CRU data is key.

253 Achilles Tang  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 4:55:06pm

re: #246 recusancy

Uranium is a finite and scarce resource as well. If we were to supply all the worlds power with it we'd run out in about 20 years tops. That link you had was all unlimited resources, sun/wind/wave/hydro. I'm not really making an argument here, just throwing that out there.

I believe that breeder reactors would extend that significantly, and of course we were supposed to run out of oil years ago...

but it would be silly to think all power would or could be provided that way.

254 SixDegrees  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 4:58:12pm

re: #238 ryannon

[Link: www.scientificamerican.com...]


Ha! Scientific American! Notorious crypto-Commie mouthpiece for Pravda and other post-Soviet bloc tree-huggers.

Is that the best you can do?

/

For what it's worth, SciAm was bought several years ago by a German publishing firm with close ties to the German Green Party. It isn't particularly surprising that they leave nuclear power out of their discussions.

The magazine went into a quality tailspin at about the same time, but that had little to do with politics and everything to do with an attempt to appeal to a wider - and apparently stupider - audience.

255 karmic_inquisitor  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 5:09:22pm

re: #249 Charles

There's more to it than that. The data is not all from one place or even from one country, and many of the countries involved have laws about what can and can't be shared. Also, many of the agencies that collected the data have their own rules about it.

I've said several times in these discussions that I understand WHY the scientists at CRU were resistant to sharing data with people like Steven McIntyre, whose only reason for asking for the data was so that they could cherry-pick through it for new out-of-context denialist talking points.

It's understandable, but for political reasons it would be better to just go ahead, share the data, and deal with the inevitable deniers' distortions, rather than create the impression that they're trying to hide something.

That was basically my conclusion that I posted on the Real Climate hack thread at #61.

IMO, It would also do a great deal of good to have an open source climate modeling project out there. Part of the compromise in using FORTRAN is that there are compilers out there that optimize for multi-processor calculation sets. But from the standpoint of managing code complexity that will always increase as more relationships are modelled it is not the best choice in terms of a language. I've been screwing around with writing some JNI wrappers for some Linux straight C that could set about doing the same thing which would allow someone to create a model in Java but have the brute force processing be low level and take advantage of parallel processors. Looks like it could be done but I am not a parallel processing guy - I let the OS take care of that for me.

256 ryannon  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 5:09:49pm

re: #254 SixDegrees

For what it's worth, SciAm was bought several years ago by a German publishing firm with close ties to the German Green Party. It isn't particularly surprising that they leave nuclear power out of their discussions.

The magazine went into a quality tailspin at about the same time, but that had little to do with politics and everything to do with an attempt to appeal to a wider - and apparently stupider - audience.


Well, that certainly settles that.

257 SixDegrees  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 5:13:17pm

re: #256 ryannon

Well, that certainly settles that.

Note that this wasn't directed at anyone here - I haven't followed through the SciAm discussion, and was only responding to the single post I addressed regarding what I know about the magazine, not the poster.

258 Bagua  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 5:14:44pm

re: #240 Obdicut

Wrong, you are twisting my words and putting words in my mouth.

The largest cause of any cancer is genetic, first and foremost.

Nope, smoking tobacco causes the majority of Lung Cancer in the US, about 90%. The two primary carcinogens in tobacco smoke are nitrosamines and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. The nitrosamines are made from nicotine and related compounds by nitrosation, with 4-(mehylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone and n'-nitrosonornicotine being demonstrated as the most carcinogenic.

So to be pedantic, it is the substances formed from the nicotine that are the primary cause of the majority of lung cancers. For the purpose of a blog post it is sufficient to mention nicotine or more generally tobacco use.

The influence of genetics is in terms of susceptibility, not causation. Thus those with good tumour suppressing genes my well avoid lung cancer despite exposure to the primary cause, tobacco, and likewise those with poor tumour suppressing genes will have a higher instance of lung cancer. But the causative factor is the tobacco, not genetic.

I'm wondering why you think Darwinian evolution is 100% certain.

Again, I never said any such thing. Do not put words in my mouth and ask me to defend them.

259 Obdicut  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 5:21:33pm

re: #258 Bagua

The post you originally replied to clearly said "Darwinian Evolution". If you decided to ignore that to make your case, again, you're being very sloppy in your accusations of sloppiness and exaggeration.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/showc/293/7902754


I'm sorry, but you seem to be implying that cancers only arise from carcinogens-- is that what you mean to be saying?

Do you think that it's a good idea to use the defense that your writing is good enough for a blog post when you were criticizing someone for what you saw as a flaw in their writing on a blog?

260 ryannon  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 5:38:19pm

re: #257 SixDegrees

Note that this wasn't directed at anyone here - I haven't followed through the SciAm discussion, and was only responding to the single post I addressed regarding what I know about the magazine, not the poster.

I've looked for information that corroborates what you've said and have discovered a murky plot by the Tree-Huggers to infiltrate and take over the American and UK publishing industries. The American operations of the German owners, the tentacular Georg von Holtzbrinck Publishing Group in Stuttgart

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

are overseen by none other than the CEO of Macmillan, one John Turner Sargent, who by all appearances has a mightily suspicious background of profligate, unabated moonbattery:

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

The whole operation is so nefarious that other than the very superficial information, I was unable to find the slightest link (literal or figurative) between this multi-billion-dollar conglomerate and the smelly sans culottes of the Green Party.

I have no doubts that the information you have concerning this issue is accurate, but my frustrated inner investigative journalist would be most grateful if you could further elaborate on the evidence you're either privy to or have uncovered.

261 b_snark  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 5:48:06pm

re: #251 goddamnedfrank

You can observe it, happening right in front of your eyes, under a microscope and in your local hospital's waiting room.

I'm not talking about opinions. Most people, including myself are 100% convinced that evolution is the best explanation for the biosphere we see. I am talking about the confidence level scientists assign to the various sub theories that make up the ToE, (which is comprised of a good many of them) and to the aggregate.

You'll not find in a published paper a confidence level of 100% for any science. My question was aimed at the idea that a science has to be a truth for us to accept it, which is nonsense. Science isn't about truth, it isn't about proof, it isn't about 100% sure opinion, it's about incrementally correcting errors and becoming more accurate. All we can ever do is build, test and verify/falsify models of reality.

If you want to check this out, visit the talk origins newsgroup and ask the question. There are quite a few scientists and highly knowledgeable laypeople willing to answer questions like this.

262 karmic_inquisitor  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 5:51:34pm

re: #210 b_sharp

Being called a skeptic is a good thing, they differ from deniers (denialists, whatever) in that they are willing to change their minds if the evidence is there.

I don't like being called a "skeptic". The fundamental question is "Does industrial human activity affect the climate?" It does. In many ways. Many more than just CO2. That said, CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Not only should we be looking at CO2 emissions but why not look at land use? Dense Urban environments are ultimately more green than rural ones - a point that Stewart Brand makes clear in Whole Earth Discipline.

I have been critical (and will likely continue to be) of cause / effect claims that are largely the result of modeling as opposed to observed phenomena. Especially given the sparse data (especially historical data) that we have available to us. Embedded in those models are assumptions (there have to be given the lack of data) that end up reinforcing claims that the modeler makes. That can lead to conclusions that can overstate some effects and understate others. You can't squeeze more certainty out of data without having more data.

Perhaps all of that makes me a skeptic but I prefer "luke warmer" but even that assumes something that I don't - that we can be certain things won't warm as fast as others claim. Uncertainty is uncertainty and has to be quantified and accepted and the presentation of resulting data need to caveat the uncertainty.

263 Bagua  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 6:11:16pm

re: #259 Obdicut

The post you originally replied to clearly said "Darwinian Evolution". If you decided to ignore that to make your case, again, you're being very sloppy in your accusations of sloppiness and exaggeration.

You twist and turn and repeat yourself


I'm sorry, but you seem to be implying that cancers only arise from carcinogens-- is that what you mean to be saying?

Again, you seem prone to answering what you claim I am implying, rather than what I actually wrote. I did not say "that cancers only arise from carcinogens" you said that. I said that Tobacco/Nicotine is the primary cause of Lung Cancer.


Do you think that it's a good idea to use the defense that your writing is good enough for a blog post when you were criticizing someone for what you saw as a flaw in their writing on a blog?

I was criticizing something written in a newspaper, not a blog, and I am not criticising "a flaw in their writing" rather I am criticising a major flaw in their argument.

You twist and turn so much Obcicut, it is difficult to debate with you.

264 Obdicut  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 6:23:00pm

re: #263 Bagua

You twist and turn and repeat yourself

I do, because you're apparently not accepting what I'm saying. You responded to a quote about Darwinian evolution being as proven as AGW. If you didn't notice it was about Darwinian evolution, then fine, but it was.

I was criticizing something written in a newspaper, not a blog, and I am not criticising "a flaw in their writing" rather I am criticising a major flaw in their argument.

At most, you're picking at a nit in the argument. The theory of AGW is solid, based on the most elementary of physics, and has been shown to be true through empirical data. It is actually a theory older than the field of genetics, discounting Mendel.

Basically, given that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect, which has been known for more than a hundred years, and given the rate which the human race has been increasing CO2 in atmosphere, there should be a default assumption of global warming. There are mechanisms, biological and physical, that moderate how CO2 acts in atmosphere, but they do not nullify it.

Again, you seem prone to answering what you claim I am implying, rather than what I actually wrote. I did not say "that cancers only arise from carcinogens" you said that. I said that Tobacco/Nicotine is the primary cause of Lung Cancer.

Okay. I am not in any way debating that smoking causes lung cancer. It is absolutely responsible for it. But I do not think you're in the least correct to conflate nicotine and tobacco as you're doing; there are more than fifty carcinogens in cigarette smoke. That was my point-- you're using terms interchangeably when they really aren't interchangeable.


You twist and turn so much Obcicut, it is difficult to debate with you.

I honestly think that since you approach my posts with a view of suspicion, you interpret twists and turns where there are none intended and none existing. You seem to take everything I say in the worst possible light.

265 nmdesertrat  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 6:31:26pm

re: #235 recusancy

That article on SciAm has been thoroughly ripped apart by [Link: bravenewclimate.com...] .

266 Bagua  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 6:52:52pm

re: #264 Obdicut

I honestly think that since you approach my posts with a view of suspicion, you interpret twists and turns where there are none intended and none existing. You seem to take everything I say in the worst possible light.

That is possible, to me you come across as snarky, perhaps you don't intend this. I try to ignore that and respond to you directly.

But I do not think you're in the least correct to conflate nicotine and tobacco as you're doing; there are more than fifty carcinogens in cigarette smoke.

Here you should do a bit more study, the "fifty carcinogens" argument is misleading as they are secondary to the primary carcinogens which are specific to Tobacco. Many people misuse this information to allege that Tobacco is similar to Cannabis, or barbecues and such. It is not. They are minor whereas Tobacco is uniquely potent as a source carcinogen.

267 nmdesertrat  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 6:54:18pm

re: #249 Charles

Which is what this climate scientist is saying, including posting her statement on ClimateAudit: [Link: dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com...]

You cannot massage the data to meet your desired outcome, no more than you can refuse to believe your indications because they don't fit the casuality. (TMI: rising pressurizer level can mean that reactor fill is working, but it can also mean that there is a steam bubble in the core.)

268 goddamnedfrank  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:05:22pm

re: #252 Bagua

Right, if CRU did the same as NASA there would be no issue with CRU. But they don't, for whatever excuse, and the CRU data is key.

Why, because it is the one most often cited by the IPCC?

The two data sets track each other to an incredibly tight degree, and support identical conclusions. I agree that at this point the CRU should just release the data, even if they need some kind of legislative immunity from the consequences of breaking the necessary contracts in doing so. However, since we have a GISTEMP record that is open-source and audit-able, tracks incredibly close to the CRU and supports the same conclusions, what is "key" about CRU except that they can be attacked on the basis of being a closed-source shop?

269 nmdesertrat  Fri, Nov 27, 2009 9:29:01pm

re: #268 goddamnedfrank

Why, because it is the one most often cited by the IPCC?

The two data sets track each other to an incredibly tight degree, and support identical conclusions. I agree that at this point the CRU should just release the data, even if they need some kind of legislative immunity from the consequences of breaking the necessary contracts in doing so. However, since we have a GISTEMP record that is open-source and audit-able, tracks incredibly close to the CRU and supports the same conclusions, what is "key" about CRU except that they can be attacked on the basis of being a closed-source shop?

According to this geek (who sounds like he's forgotten more FORTRAN than I ever knew), GISTEMP has been corrupted by removing cold, high-altitude stations. Warning: this will take more than a cup of coffee to get through: [Link: chiefio.wordpress.com...]

He also comments favorably on the programming style of one "Tim Mitchell": [Link: chiefio.wordpress.com...]

270 Obdicut  Sat, Nov 28, 2009 4:27:27am

re: #266 Bagua

The fifty carcinogens I'm talking about are mostly derived from the tobacco, not from the rest of the portion of the cigarette. I was objecting only to saying that nicotine, and not tobacco as a whole, is the cause of cancer in cigarettes.

271 The Mongoose  Sat, Nov 28, 2009 7:25:13am

re: #267 nmdesertrat

Which is what this climate scientist is saying, including posting her statement on ClimateAudit: [Link: dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com...]

You cannot massage the data to meet your desired outcome, no more than you can refuse to believe your indications because they don't fit the casuality. (TMI: rising pressurizer level can mean that reactor fill is working, but it can also mean that there is a steam bubble in the core.)

This is exactly the attitude that scientist on the majority side of this issue need to be taking. "I don't have to listen or respond to your arguments because I am right" is not exactly a principled scientific stance, yet it oozes from the hacked emails and too many people on both sides of the issue who would rather sneer at you than answer any questions about data or interpretation methods.

I started out as a extreme skeptic on AGW. I'm much closer to the middle now. And the people that moved me there are the ones like this scientist, not the people who immediately dismiss you as a troglodyte or imbecile for daring to question any aspect of their beliefs.

272 Jerusalemyte  Sat, Nov 28, 2009 8:51:27am

Drudge aint perfect but what else do we have. Yahhhooo???

273 Charles Johnson  Sat, Nov 28, 2009 10:40:37am

re: #267 nmdesertrat

Which is what this climate scientist is saying, including posting her statement on ClimateAudit: [Link: dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com...]

You cannot massage the data to meet your desired outcome, no more than you can refuse to believe your indications because they don't fit the casuality. (TMI: rising pressurizer level can mean that reactor fill is working, but it can also mean that there is a steam bubble in the core.)

No data was "massaged" to make it meet a desired outcome. Applying corrections to data to account for external factors and anomalies is absolutely standard, scientifically valid practice. The people who are screaming about data corrections are only showing their ignorance of what it takes to handle very large datasets.

Actually, some of these people are ignorant -- and others are deliberately distorting the meaning of data corrections to promote a denialist agenda.

274 nmdesertrat  Sat, Nov 28, 2009 3:34:09pm

Charles, read [Link: www.haloscan.com...] .

I do have experience with very large datasets, analyizing data for anomolies (including transposition / typographical errors), taking data measurements, understanding the accuracy of both your instruments and the display, and trying to determine if you are seeing a trend in "noisy" data.

E.M. Smith, in replying to someone who took offense at an alleged personal attack, sums up the problems in this comment on his blog:
[Link: chiefio.wordpress.com...] and he finishes up the comment with "...under no condition would I accept that the bugs in the program ought to be left in it and the data ought to be run with no checking."

I learned GIGO as a 7th grader learning BASIC at the Lawrence Hall of Science in 1970, and it still holds true.


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
Once Praised, the Settlement to Help Sickened BP Oil Spill Workers Leaves Most With Nearly Nothing When a deadly explosion destroyed BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico, 134 million gallons of crude erupted into the sea over the next three months — and tens of thousands of ordinary people were hired ...
Cheechako
Yesterday
Views: 69 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
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
4 days ago
Views: 169 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1