:lol: 100 points for candor.

As you might remember from my last post, I said you haven’t made a single argument in this entire thread. Thanks for making my point for me, I appreciate it.

Every single accusation you made about James Hansen was false, obviously. I think I see what you mean about your mind being closed.

What can you possibly offer of value on the scientific issues, when you just admitted you can’t support your opinion with an argument? There are a billion unfounded opinions in the world, why do you think yours is any better a number drawn out of a hat? What do you think a discussion is, a game of pin-the-tail on the donkey?

Another sweet example. Here's something to consider: if you want to score a debate point, you need to fire a neuron or two and make at least a rudimentary attempt to cobble together an argument. That will help you find the donkey. With this link, you just pinned the tail on your knee again, I'm afraid.

Depends. If you just want to reinforce what you already “know” like any run of the mill global warming denialist, then you’re doing gangbusters right now. Keep it up and you'll "learn" a lot.

ace, you are a fucking saint. Your patience is astounding.

yes that's all i have to offer.

By the way, the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report is out now and can be downloaded here:

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm

They did an amazing job, as usual.

Actually, I have a pit bullish side to my personality. It has often been a terrible weakness, but I am working on it.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. - Attributed to Albert Einstein, or even Benjamin Franklin.

Still love you though Ace :thumbsup:

There comes a time when it seems fitting to weigh doubt against consequence. I can think of few situations where this is more clear than in this issue. While I also get confused , and frustrated by the many conflicting studies out there, I have come to rely on the people who study our climate and its influences to clarify some of the clouded Data. Sundays report is a case in point, as it takes quite a bit of information gathered by thousands of our leading scientists, and compiles what I consider to be a relatively accurate synopsis of what may be happening.

My personal stance is one of cautionary reaction, as I do not think it wise to ignore what is said and hope its all made up, there is far too much at stake to hide from this.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe...ate/index.html

edit

What is your position on the "survey" you just quoted, ottopilot?

Have you looked at the methods/analysis and come to the conclusion that it is a valid scientific poll with the result quoted?

Are you prepared to defend your position with an argument?

edit

Its always been evident, which is perhaps the most infuriating thing about this. Nice tie in with the oil for food, with the UN you need to follow the money.

edit

[posting from my hotel room at a climate science conference]


Wow, that’s a lot of bile in response to the question of whether Steve Milloy is credible, which, by the way, wasn’t answered. Why should anybody waste a millisecond of their time reading your link if you can’t vouch for it yourself?

And it does seem rather contradictory, in a funny sort of way, that the fountain of skepticism is blasting like Old Faithful whenever the most scientifically peer-reviewed document in the history of the planet is brought up, but somehow the fountain dries up like a Death Valley arroyo every time lawyer and Exxon spokesman Steve Milloy opens his mouth.

I can't wait for the next link, I always like to spend my evenings learning about science from well-connected lawyers.

..

edit

Now it is all coming together, I am beginning to understand.

http://www.nasdaq.com/aspxcontent/Ne...laysymbol=9999


The UN seems to want to control and distribute about $100 billion dollars. Given my feelings about the UN, I personally would never support this, and I now believe that the case for global warming is being exaggerated to promote the UN's political agenda.

P.S. - I already know I am a cynic. And the above is simply my opinion formed from what I have read and nothing more. But as they say, just follow the money.

Nice catch. Now the pieces fall into place.

Funny, I wouldn’t say the latest research in atmospheric physics is cyanide-laced Kool Aid. I doubt anybody would, except maybe people who are really threatened by it. It’s just data, you know? How can it possibly hurt you?

I guess we can call this the “I couldn’t care less about atmospheric physics, I have all the science I need right here inside my own head” brand of skepticism.

Or, “Data, I don't need no steenking data” style of skepticism.

I know it can be a drag to have to think critically about what you find on the web, but the alternative is being as gullible as any seven-year-old. For example, you wouldn’t want to make the mistake of believing that Steve Milloy’s ULTIMATE GLOBAL WARMING CONTEST is actually real, would you? That would be rather embarrassing, wouldn’t it?

Let’s see if we can unpack your “argument” here. You’re saying that you don’t like the U.N., therefore global warming is a massive, worldwide scientific hoax perpetrated by 100 countries, a dozen scientific academies, all scientific funding agencies, hundreds of scientific journals, and every independent published scientific review, with the necessary implication being that thousands of dastardly scientists have been secretly colluding in a massive conspiracy to fake their data for the last 30 years.

I hate to be an “annoying” skeptic, but, are there any logical steps between the premise and conclusion here?

Uh, no, there never was a “consensus of scientists” that we’re headed into an ice age. You’ve been snookered by Steve Milloy again. You really need to try to be a bit more skeptical of random stuff you drink off the intertubes, even if it has a tangy grape flavor.





In other news, NASA been making a heck of a lot of money the last 50 years promoting their political agenda that the earth is round. I can’t believe they got away with it. Those sneaky bastards!

Have you followed the money to Exxon yet, or did your clever sleuthing trail just plumb peter out?

I did not make an argument, I simply stated my opinion. I believe there is a difference between an expression of an opinion and an argument. We have been through this before, and I even tried to make note that what I wrote was simply my opinion. What I wrote was not a premise for an argument relative to global warming nor did I offer any support for my opinion. Your exercise below has no value.
Just for the record are you suggesting that the exaggeration of real scientific data has never been used to promote political agenda? Because that is all that I suggested in my opinion about the UN.

I stated that my opinion was formed based on my feelings about the UN and the thing I have read. The formation of an opinion does not always require logic.

In my opinion Maryann is hotter than Ginger. That is based on the way they look and their personalities, but they are fictitious characters played by actresses 30 years ago. There is no logic, there is no argument, it is just my opinion.


Can you be more specific. If not "consensus", what was it? The view of one, many, none? Was there no scientific basis for the claim? What? Try to do more than just say how wrong I am, add value - I am still learning, are you?


The shape of the earth is known and the issue has been settled. The earth is not a perfect sphere or round as you wrote, it is slightly oblong.

If NASA has a political agenda to promote the earth as a perfect sphere, I would not support that. Would you?


Yes. I own some stock in the company. I figure if you can not beat them join them.

My lifestyle and standard of living is based on a big "carbon footprint". I have an interest in the status quo. I am biased, that is why I spend so much time trying to poke holes in the global warming theories that humans are responsible. It may be true, but I don't want it to be. But if it is true, I am willing to change, but all of my questions have to answered and my concerns addressed. And if an organization other than the UN is behind the cause. The UN has zero credibility in my book.

The risk that humans are responsible for global warming is why I ask questions and share my concerns. But you take the position of making fun of me, rather than working with me on the issue. Believe - there are millions of people just like me. If you want to help change the world, participate in the dialog and understand people like me. Making fun of my comments just ticks me off. :mad:

edit

I see, the popular press and movies like Planet of the Apes are your official, authoritative, definitive sources of scientific information. I guess we have to conclude then there’s a “consensus of scientists” that apes can talk too, ottopilot? And there’s a “consensus of scientists” that in a couple of years an asteroid will destroy the earth? And there was a “consensus of scientists” back in 1938 that Martians were going to take over the planet?

I’m sure it was really fun to wrangle up all those cute jpegs, but in the time it took you to find them you could have looked up what real scientists were saying in the first World Climate Conference in 1979. That would have told you what real scientists were saying rather than, uh, actors in movies.

There you have it.

So, again, where is that elusive “consensus of scientists” who thought we were plunging into an ice age? Were they the ones vaporized by those Martians on a Frank Capra move set? Or were they the ones eaten by the velociraptor on Dinosaurs' Picnic In Central Park?

It seems more likely to me that there was a “consensus of editors” of Time and Newsweek who thought that they could make some money with a little disaster hype from distorted comments from a couple people.

And the usual “skeptics” took the bait -- hook, line, sinker, rod, all the way up to the Wal Mart spinning reel.

Maybe we should amend this outlook to “I don’t need any science, I have all the science I need in the movie theater, see I even have JPEGS to prove it” style of Skeptical Scientific Inquiry. The world must be really, really simple to you folks.

edit

ottopilot - very entertaining post. All hail the hypnotoad.

edit

I really enjoy IBD editorials. Here is a portion of one on the issue of global warming:

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArti...81664532453337

:lol::lol:

climate scientist Leonardo DiCaprio

I liked that one the best.

edit

The courage to do nothing.....
 

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...3-68f67ebd151c

The courage to do nothing....

You know, now that I hear this slogan of sorts, I think that is what is the core of the matter with global warming alarm and alarmists.

As humans we are wired to see cause and effect. If a rock rolls off cliff and narrowly misses you, your first reaction is to see what pushed it. Its a survival instinct, its far better to assume some sort of direct, dangerous cause and be wrong, than not be on your guard.

Global warming fits that nicely. We are so assured that something we are doing must be to blame that we feel its better to act on it than ignore it, even when ignoring it is really the best course of action.

Ustwo....you're old enough to remember the environmental movement of the 60s and 70s.

Many attribute the explosive growth in concern for the environment in part to the publication in the early 60s of Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" that described the indiscriminate use of pesticides. Skeptics (mostly the chemical industry) accused her of shallow, unsupportable science....after all, she was just a bird-watcher.

"If man were to faithfully follow the teachings of Miss Carson," complained an executive of the American Cyanamid Company, "we would return to the Dark Ages, and the insects and diseases and vermin would once again inherit the earth." Monsanto published and distributed 5,000 copies of a brochure parodying "Silent Spring" entitled "The Desolate Year," relating the devastation and inconvenience of a world where famine, disease, and insects ran amuck because chemical pesticides had been banned.

The environmental movement grew so quickly that by 1969, Congress (and even Nixon) recognized a need for governmental action and enacted the National Environmental Policy Act, with the stated purposes:

* To declare a national policy which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment.

*To promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man.

*To enrich our understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the Nation."

There were skeptics in Congress at the time, including current Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska who complained: "Suddenly out of the woodwork come thousands of people talking about ecology."

Several months later, the first Earth Date celebration brought 20 million people into the streets across the country speaking out for environmental action.

And the next five years saw the passage of the first Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Solid Waste Disposal Act, etc. all of which had their skeptics,(mostly the affected industries, much like the role Exxon plays in today's skeptic community) questioning the science behind the environmental standards contained in those laws and complaining that these burdensome regulatory standards would seriously harm the country's long-term economic health.

Thankfully, Congress and the President at the time and every Congress and President since (at least until Bush, who has gutted many environmental laws) did not have "the courage to do nothing"

And you know the rest of the story.....the economy did not tank, new industries developed around the emerging technologies to assist in meeting the regulations, and best of all, the air, water, land was slowly restored.

If you were to take as much time to look at the mitigation proposals of the IPCC as you seem to do to find and post Mark Morano, junkscience.com and other extremist views and solutions, you might be surprised to see that they are moderate and sensible proposals, with concern for both economic and environmental sustainability.

But I suspect rather than discuss the IPCC mitigation proposals (or any proposals to lower greenhouse gas emissions), what we'll see follow here are more mindless videos, quizes, editorials, cartoons......

Thanks to Nixon, a true conservative.

Whether or not global warming is real, what's wrong with being conservative and conserving our resources and implementing better resource and environmental management? I would err on the side of caution. I don't know anything about the science everyone keep citing. Heck, I'm no Leonardo Di Caprio but I do have common sense and know not to shit in the drinking water and foul the air I breathe. Is that really so offensive? Is wanting to pollute less and have a nice clean place to live so offensive? This should be a classic conservative cause: to protect the environment.

Smart, sound, environmental policy need not be diametrically opposed to business. All the good that Nixon did to make air in California breathable again has been reversed.

We should be at the forefront of better environmental policy. End water subsidies to wasteful farmers. Let the free market decide water prices and then maybe people will stop wasting it and watering their driveways at high noon in the California desert (hey I'm looking at you neighbor!). Stop fucking up the soil with fertilizers. Agri-business is fucking up our economy. If we got off of oil, we could just give the finger to the Middle East and not be a hostage to their extremist governments. Our foreign policy need not be hostage to oil. Conservation makes sense. Not polluting makes sense. I don't care if it's soccer mom, jet-setting Bono, or hot air politicians and energy-hog homeowners like Al Gore who want to pollute - just stop it. It's not hard.

jorgelito..... count me as a fellow conservative on this issue :thumbsup:

In regard to California, Schwarzenegger signed the Global Warming Solutions Act last year "that establishes a first-in-the-world comprehensive program of regulatory and market mechanisms to achieve real, quantifiable, cost-effective reductions of greenhouse gases....to reduce California's greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent by 2020."

IMO, worthy of discussion as a viable model for federal legislation and similar in several respects to the IPCC recommendations.

And so it begins in ernest
 

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...48a6&Issue_id=

And we get to the meat of the issue, and what all the hot air is really about. Extorting money from 'wealthy' nations, under UN control.

Does anyone really trust the UN with say 40 billion US dollars to 'distribute'?

Well fellow conservative, let's just hope that Ahnold's act is effective and can produce results. Funny coming from a guy who drives a Hummer but I am willing to give him a chance. Thanks for the link DC.

Positive spin: The air pollution in Southern California produces some of the most spectacular sunsets in the world.

Instead of taxing, how about developing viable, profitable and sustainable alternatives? Taxing is such a cop out. With all the "brilliant" minds gathered the best they could come up with is taxing?

Ustwo, I think we all know that the UN is not the most fiscally competent entity.

UStwo......why am I not surprised you highlight Marc Morano and one radical proposed solution from one "global tax advocate" rather than look at all of the suggested mitigation strategies.

BTW, Morano is doing a great job as the mouthpiece for Senator Inhofe and his energy industry contributors.

JAMES M. INHOFE (R-OK) - Contributions by Sector (2006 senate campaign)

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicia...582&cycle=2006

Have you bothered to read the IPCC mitigation summary report (pdf), which identifies a wide range of economically sustainable mitigation strategies? Yes, it includes taxes, as well as subsidies and tax incentives among many other suggestions, to lower emissions, provide for greater energy efficiencies of existing energy applications and technologies, and develop alternative energy sources.

I wouldnt support a global tax as proposed in the article; I dont support Kyoto. I think there should be broad international goals and standards, with each country determining its own policies and practices to meet those goals. I do believe the greatest emission contributors (US, China....) should bear a greater burden.

Ustwo, tell me, what is wrong with the US committing to a goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to below 1990 levels by 2020, particularly if it can be achieved with little or no negative economic impact?

Were you one of those naysayers in the 70s (bah humbug...who needs clean air and clean water if its gonna cost me a few bucks)?

Koyto? Words on paper.

The Kyoto treaty was agreed upon in late 1997 and countries started signing and ratifying it in 1998. A list of countries and their carbon dioxide emissions due to consumption of fossil fuels is available from the U.S. government. If we look at that data and compare 2004 (latest year for which data is available) to 1997 (last year before the Kyoto treaty was signed), we find the following.

* Emissions worldwide increased 18.0%.
* Emissions from countries that signed the treaty increased 21.1%.
* Emissions from non-signers increased 10.0%.
* Emissions from the U.S. increased 6.6%.

In fact, emissions from the U.S. grew slower than those of over 75% of the countries that signed Kyoto. Below are the growth rates of carbon dioxide emissions, from 1997 to 2004, for a few selected countries, all Kyoto signers. (Remember, the comparative number for the U.S. is 6.6%.)

* Maldives, 252%.
* Sudan, 142%.
* China, 55%.
* Luxembourg, 43%
* Iran, 39%.
* Iceland, 29%.
* Norway, 24%.
* Russia, 16%.
* Italy, 16%.
* Finland, 15%.
* Mexico, 11%.
* Japan, 11%.
* Canada, 8.8%.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/..._schmyoto.html

Knowing that this is a conservative website, they include a link to the absolute numbers.

So exactly what are we suppose to be doing again, and how much money do we 'owe' the world again?

Ustwo...if you would read the IPCC mitigation report, rather than just conservative, global-warming denial websites, you might have a better understanding of the numerous moderate proposals.

The irony is that this morning, Bush signed an energy bill that has its core provisions:

- an increase fuel efficiency by 40 percent to an industry average 35 miles per gallon by 2020 for passengers cars, SUVs and small trucks. The standard for cars today is 27.5 mpg and for trucks and SUVs 22.2 mpg.

- improved energy efficiency in construction of commercial buildings, improved energy efficiency of appliances such as refrigerators, freezers and dishwashers, and a 70 percent increase in the efficiency of light bulbs.

While the bill is being characterized by the WH as an "energy independence bill" rather than a "global warming solutions bills", the fact remains that the two provisions above are among the key "common sense" mitigation proposals put forth by the IPCC.

I should add that Bush was against a`specific mileage standard increase before he was for it, perhaps because this latest bill was veto-proof.

Dare I say that Bush is now showing more "common sense" than the global warming naysayers here?

"We make a major step ... toward reducing our dependence on oil, fighting global climate change, expanding the production of renewable fuels and giving future generations ... a nation that is stronger cleaner and more secure," said the president.

White House fact sheet Energy Independence and Security Act

I would call it a small step rather than a major step...but better than standing still as some might prefer.

Ustwo....are you opposed to such reasonable steps (small or major) to energy independence while at the same time, reducing greenhouse gas emissions?

BTW, you still havent answered my previous question:
Ustwo, tell me, what is wrong with the US committing to a goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to below 1990 levels by 2020, particularly if it can be achieved with little or no negative economic impact?

UStwo....its been more than a week since I replied to your latest post.

Care to respond to the questions I posed?

If it would be helpful, in response to the CO2 numbers you posted, I would add the fact that the US is first in the world in total CO2 emissions and 5th in the world in CO2 emissions on a per capita basis.

So what's wrong with taking some of the reasonable steps proposed by the IPPC to lower those emissions?

Ah finally a Frenchman I like, a lot.
 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...Gr8&refer=muse

Not much to add, its quite late and I've been virtually shooting people in the face all night, I think I'll have to revisit this thread to speak about this 'consensus'.

Ustwo...great post to continue to avoid a reasonable discussion!

The fact that Allegre is not a climate scientist or has never published a peer reviewed study on global warming or climate change is less meaningful than the fact that you had to resort to highlighting the words of a French socialist. :thumbsup:

Why dont you want to discuss the fact that the US is responsible for 25% of the world's CO2 emissions?

Looks like another global warming defector:

Perhaps global warming models failed to give the earth enough credit for self-temperature regulation in the context of newly introduced sources of heat compared to greenhouse gases.

http://www.dailytech.com/Researcher%...ticle10973.htm

I recall being taken to task for having the nerve of even questioning the models used to support global warming, nice to have scientific support.

Here is a link to Miskolczi's research for those mathematically inclined.

http://www.met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf

I am beginning to wonder if "global warming" will end up being the biggest attempted hoax in the history of the human race.

Congress may probe leaked global warming e-mails | Politics and Law - CNET News

How this issue resolves should be interesting.