Teh PW
Self Impossed Exile (This Space for rent)
Member # 1203
posted
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Your solution would be to do nothing and hope for the best?
it worked for The Challenger Disaster, the 2nd Gulf War, ENRON, Katrina-proof Levies in NO and other simularly preventable incidents in human history... hasn't it? o.O [end sarcasm]
So what if some crack pots 'scientists' fucked away the entire professional section of Climate Science. All that did was potentionally fuck away all other interests related to that (Oh say, meteorolgy, climate info on other planets in our system, geologists... am i missing anyone?).
Do i believe that humanity is a major cause of how our eviroment is being adjusted? Sure? Was there BMW's tooling around 5 centuries ago?
Nope.
but starting 150-200 years ago? yes. slowly and expansively. think people gave a fuck about emissions a hundred years ago?
Nope. (There's money to made!)
think people gave a fuck about emissions, 50-60 years ago?
Nope. (There's a war on! Fuck the fasists/Commies)
Think people care now?
yes & no. (Sure, but not at the expense of [insert excuse])
my point is, yes, the climate guys, the real ones who care, who really want to see teh big picture and make changes, not because they want $ or fame, but because they want to know 'will the world' as they understand it, 'be around in 2 centuries?', took a huge hit to their creditablity.
Having this bullshit come out and then have it humped vigorously by the politic fuck-twats (who are more than happy to have this spin, since it's something to shove into thier fellow political fuck-twat's faces, all for their own gain [certainly NOT for thier constituant's gain]) doesn't help the one's who are not full of bullshit.
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: you know, the first sign of a weak case is when the debater starts callling names and yuou're down to that- both with regards to the scientists and myself- sad really.
Man, we need a "LOL" emoticon!
Your entire argument strategy has been one big ad hominem campaign against those you disagree with and myself, personally, and now you're saying I'm name-calling?
Why, because in a post where I tried to draw you back to the science I said you delivered a retarded response and silly defense of your ad hominem campaign? Or because I noted that environmentalism was a religion?
That's just rich, dude. Especially when you're the one referring to "global warminng deniers", a classic association with "Holocaust denier".
quote:You're deciding that global warming is a hoax based on what? twelve (maybe) scientists that might have been fixing data?
Not a hoax. A hoax is a deliberate perpetration of a falsehood that the hoaxer knows to be false. While arguments could be made regarding some of the CRU and New Zealand guys, the evidence suggests that even when they were fudging data or turning cooling stations into warming stations they were doing so because they believed it was supposed to be warming.
I think that the majority of climate scientists think global warming is true, (though again I note that numbers of adherents are irrelevant in determining truth value). However, I also think many of them have been misled into that belief by false evidence and the well-fostered groupthink produced by CRU guys exerting control over the climate science establishment.
quote:Consider how badly the polluters of greenhouse gases want that to be rue
When are you going to admit that things like that don't matter?
By that reasoning you should be pro-Israel, because neo-Nazis want Israel to be viewed negatively, therefore we must reject as true whatever they want us to believe. Except what you're doing is actually worse, because whereas one's view of Israel is a question of moral and political judgement, one's view of objective reality is not (or at least shouldn't be).
quote:If you have some scientific data showing that the very real, accepted, measured warming of the planet is NOT happening, please present it-
I've already pointed you in those directions, but you were more interested in character attacks. You still are, too.
But nonetheless, here are a few things for you to ponder, just some quickies:
quote:The desperate need to equate enviromentalism with religion is an old ploy first used by the coal industry-
There you go again. Don't consider the statement on its own merit (e.g. "do environmentalism and environmentalist beliefs share traits with religion and religious beliefs?"). Just try to associate it with someone or some group that has or can be made a villain.
Also call it a desperate move, and imply that your opponent is mindlessly using it:
quote:I'm sorta suprised to see you parroting it here.
There is no logical basis to your argumentation strategy at all. It is pure emotionalism. I realize logical, rational argumentation can be quite a bore at times, but seriously, would you at least try?
quote:Your solution would be to do nothing and hope for the best? [/QB]
Better that than to blow trillions of real dollars and avoid making trillions of additional dollars due to an overreaction to largely natural phenomena. We would do just as well (and have as much effect) blowing trillions on a space mission to try to 'fix' the sun's current low output.
As for me, if I had trillions of planetary dollars to spend and global-government control of all nations to plan to exercise as is being discussed at Copenhagen, I'd sooner be working to install a monitoring system for potential space object impacts and such. That's a more realistic threat.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
posted
None of your amusing linked articles are written by, you know, scientists. People with science degrees. Qualified skeptics, in other words. But here's one for you to read: The Copenhagen Diagnosis It stipulates that: -Both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are losing mass and contributing to sea-level rise at an increasing rate. -The area of summer sea ice remaining during 2007-2009 was about 40% less than the average projection from the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. -Global sea-level rise may exceed 1 meter by 2100. Without significant mitigation, sea-level rise of several meters is to be expected over the next few centuries. -If long-term global warming is to be limited to a maximum of 2°Celsius above preindustrial values, average annual per-capita emissions in industrialized nations will have to be reduced by around 80-95% below 1990 levels by 2050.
But dont take my word for it- take these guy's word: -Professor Stefan Rahmstorf, Professor of Physics of the Oceans and a Department Head at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany. -Professor Richard Somerville, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, USA. -Professor Corinne Le Quéré, Professor of Environmental Science at the University of East Anglia, and researcher at the British Antarctic Survey, UK. These scientists wrote that report and have noting to do with any suspect e-mails. Maybe you could link in a counter-argument made by someone with credintials?
If nothing else should make you reconsider your position it's that sarah palin agrees with you:
quote: (CNN)– In a late night posting on her Twitter feed, Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin continued to blast climate change believers Friday, calling the talks in Copenhagen, Denmark a representation of man's "arrogance," for believing people have an impact on nature.
"Arrogant&Naive2say man overpwers nature," Palin tweeted.
"Earth saw clmate chnge4 ions;will cont 2 c chnges.R duty2responsbly devlop resorces4humankind/not pollute&destroy;but cant alter naturl chng," the former Republican vice presidential nominee wrote.
Palin's latest comments come after weeks of tangling over climate change with California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, former vice president Al Gore, and President Obama.
In an op-ed in the Washington Post, Palin urged the president to boycott the climate talks, calling his presence at the conference a "political move."
"The last thing America needs is misguided legislation that will raise taxes and cost jobs – particularly when the push for such legislation rests on agenda-driven science," Palin wrote. "Without trustworthy science and with so much at stake, Americans should be wary about what comes out of this politicized conference. The president should boycott Copenhagen."
When Schwarzenegger questioned Palin's stance on climate change, Palin quickly hit back saying the actor-turned-governor was acting "greener than thou."
And when former vice president Al Gore dubbed her a climate change "denier," Palin hit back at him too, accusing him of promoting "doomsday scenarios."
"Climate change is like gravity – a naturally occurring phenomenon that existed long before, and will exist long after, any governmental attempts to affect it," Palin wrote on her Facebook page.
During the vice presidential debate last year, Palin said she was for capping carbon emissions but did not elaborate on how she would do that.
She's a fucking idiot.
Huffington Post has a nice article on the dubious claims of "hoax" regarding climate change.
Not that I expect you to actually read it- your mind was made up for you already it seems.
Here is an excellent article debunking some of the climate-related deception that special intrest groups are useing.
Now compare that with the cherrypicked e-mails making up your so-called Climategate and you'll see who's really looking to decieve public opinion on the matter.
[ December 19, 2009, 11:19 PM: Message edited by: Jason Abbadon ]
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Saying that "the idea of man overpowering nature is arrogant" is to deify nature, thinking it absolute and larger-than-life, practically freeing you from responsibility. These people once again use God to rationalize their agenda, in this case inaction and maintained or increased carbon emissions, in favor of their "sponsors".
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: None of your amusing linked articles are written by, you know, scientists. People with science degrees.
So I give you a quickie-list and you once again attack people and ignore ideas. Is this your normal thinking process or are you being incessantly fallacious and illogical just to annoy me?
So you then quote a few ideas, but once again you focus on people, and then you just lie about them.
quote:These scientists wrote that report and have noting to do with any suspect e-mails.
WRONG. Let's just take your selected list first, and use your usual tactics:
Stefan Rahmstorf is part of RealClimate, the well-funded AGW mouthpiece. Richard Somerville is within the ClimateGate e-mails crying about contrary opinions being published and what to do about them. Corinne Le Quéré, along with the two above, is one of the recipients of an e-mail from the IPCC leadership demanding "a higher level of policy relevance in the work of IPCC, which could provide policymakers a robust scientific basis for action", and similar related pleas for better coordination so that the "billions and trillions" can fly. This is one of those smoking gun kind of things.
Also on the authorship list are people you conveniently forgot to mention, like "Mr. Hockey Stick" Michael Mann and Andrew Weaver, who with Tim Osborn refused to release basic data to other researchers who they felt were skeptical "moron"s.
So screw your people game.
The Copenhagen Diagnosis itself is an authored with policy-makers in mind, and thus is not an article about the science so much as a list of AGW claims, some of which are demonstrably false:
quote:Both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are losing mass and contributing to sea-level rise at an increasing rate
Antarctic snow melt indexes are nearly flat over the past decades of data, and "the ice melt across during the Antarctic summer (October-January) of 2008-2009 was the lowest ever recorded in the satellite history."
And so on.
quote:Maybe you could link in a counter-argument made by someone with credintials?
Maybe you could learn to spell? I mean, how can anyone listen to your claims when you can't even spell? The answer is they shouldn't, because you can't spell.
(Psst! That's the same kind of shit you've been pulling this whole thread. Obnoxious, isn't it?)
quote:If nothing else should make you reconsider your position it's that sarah palin agrees with you:
Adolf Hitler could agree with me and it would change nothing, you ignorant twit. Stop talking about people, stop attacking character, and stop attacking me personally.
You want to debate ideas, fine. You want to debate people, then kiss off.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
I have however read a number of very dull and dry scientific papers from a number of sources that have suggested to me that there is a measureable change in the climate both localy and globaly.
I have also seen papers showing an increase in "greenhouse" gas in the atmosphere, as well as a number of other ways human activity has left its mark on the ecosystem in a huge number of ways.
I have also seen evidence of human activity (and by this I DO NOT just mean driving, burning stuff, not switching off lights in empty rooms) has dramatically increased the level of these gases.
And I have seen a number of sources showing good evidence linking these three points.
The biggest problem is that last one - you can't do it in a lab. You can't even model it because you need to know not just all the peramiters and interactions in the system but you neeed to know how they work too.
So in order to model the climate you need to be able to aproximate every organic and inorganic reaction and all the energy changes and everything that happens on earth. You think that might be a challenge?
I don't know that climate change is man made. I do think that we contribute to it, and not in a small way, but thats just my interpretation.
I also think that it is naive to say that just because there is nothing to PROVE IT 100% that it is therefore 100% UNTRUE for anything.
I don't think I want to participate any further in this frankly petty assult on the other members posting in this tread. It's not a debate or even a heated discussion. It's simply mudslinging. So I don't care jwhat anyone else has to say on the matter here any more.
Also, just because you can't spell it does not follow that you are a dickhead with no brain or valid point.
On top of that, I'm quite tired right now so I don't care if that comes off as un readable or I contradict myself anywhere.
-------------------- I have plenty of experience in biology. I bought a Tamagotchi in 1998... And... it's still alive.
Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
Teh PW
Self Impossed Exile (This Space for rent)
Member # 1203
posted
*sings the Lock dah Thread song*
Please, oh Please?
Oh Please? (Lock dah tHread?)
Oh Pretty Please?
Oh Please (lock dah tHread?)
God, fucking Please?
Fucker, Please?
Becausethisthreadisfuckinghateful,fullofpeopleindahNile (the river)
and if it doesn't...
Guardian, Is your possition on this, that you support goverment's views in opposing taking acting to limit man's industrial actions upon the planet? i mean, from your passionate posts you're hell bent to prove the eco-freaks are wrong but does that mean that you agree with the premise that man is impacting the planet in a adverse way? (I know jason probably does because we both seem to share the same views of goverment [usually corrupt, either by evil or 'good intentions fucked away'])
i mean, are you angry because of this black eye that some of the climate community has taken [-have they?-]
Who do YOU support on the subject of Climate change? What do YOU believe in?
quote:Originally posted by The Ginger Beacon: You know what? I'm not a climatologist.
I have however read a number of very dull and dry scientific papers from a number of sources that have suggested to me that there is a measureable change in the climate both localy and globaly.
I have also seen papers showing an increase in "greenhouse" gas in the atmosphere, as well as a number of other ways human activity has left its mark on the ecosystem in a huge number of ways.
I have also seen evidence of human activity (and by this I DO NOT just mean driving, burning stuff, not switching off lights in empty rooms) has dramatically increased the level of these gases.
And I have seen a number of sources showing good evidence linking these three points.
And that's the crux of the issue, right there.
Let's note/recap some logic and science:
1. Correlation does not imply causation. Two things rising together doesn't mean that one caused the other.
2. CO2 invariably lags behind temperature increases. It is claimed to be an amplifier or reinforcer of increases, even when the temp increases stop (turning to declines) long before the CO2 maxes out. Rising CO2 and dropping temperature . . . funny, that.
2a. CO2 and temperature have varied tremendously over the history of the planet, sometimes together and sometimes seperately. CO2 is at a low point in the atmosphere right now compared to the past.
3. CO2 is 3.6% of the total supply of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Water vapor is 95%, but climate modelers are unable to deal with water vapor or water's cycle very well and so they commonly ignore it. Mankind is said to contribute about 3% extra CO2 over 'normal', whatever precisely that is, meaning that our CO2 output represents 0.1% (one tenth of one percent) in the atmosphere for any given year.
With all greenhouse gases taken together, mankind is said to contribute about 0.25% of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere over and above natural emissions yearly. That's one quarter of one percent.
4. The period 1940-1980 saw no significant warming trend according to the more reliable sources, with similar results for the past decade. However, AGW folks commonly point to the last century or the last 30-40 years as proof of warming.
5. Earth is currently in an interglacial stage, and those commonly feature temperature variations. The Medieval Warm Period was one, and the Little Ice Age that came after was another. Depending on where you look, the MWP was either warmer or as warm as today. The LIA (circa 1500-1750, though some date it from 1300-1850) was notably cooler, and even featured glacial advance. That, mind you, was a mere 250 years ago (or 150 depending on who you ask).
Now, consider the thesis of AGW, which is that mankind's increasing release of the *primary climate forcing agent* of CO2 is causing temperatures to rise, and that this unnatural forcing of the last century is a unique event in history that overwhelms natural cycles and natural atmospheric controls.
CO2 hasn't been a climate forcing agent the past, hasn't always correlated with temperature increase in the last century even, and only represents 3.6% of greenhouse gas . . . the AGW climate models don't even deal with *clouds*, the big puffy high-albedo ice/water/vapor objects that can cover the whole sky.
Meanwhile, Earth has enjoyed natural climate variations (many cyclical) over millions of years.
Given the two concepts, what conclusion would you draw?
Note that at no point in that did I bring up the anti-scientific behavior of the main proponents of AGW like Hansen, Jones, Mann, et cetera. I'm just telling you what it is.
And hey, you don't have to take it from me . . . I've linked to a whole lot of stuff in this thread. It's a good starting point for your own research, if for whatever reason Jason's attacks and my deigning to reply have poisoned the well of discourse for you.
(For instance, it looks like someone has reacted poorly to my intentional use of a ridiculous ad hominem attack against Jason's spelling to point out to him that ridiculous ad hominem attacks are ridiculous and obnoxious. I though I was being pretty clear in what I was doing, but oh well.)
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
I am a little unclear on your post. For one thing, government is not opposed to AGW legislation . . . if anything, the Western governments are stridently in favor of it, both within their borders (hence our coming light bulb ban already made law) and without (hence Copenhagen).
As for me, I wish to again point out that it isn't a question of who is supported. Facts are facts, and it doesn't matter who believes in them, argues for them, or ignores them. Even if the whole world said 2+2=6, it would be irrelevant because it wouldn't be true, and just because the Great Satan Sarah Palin says the sky is blue doesn't make it false.
As far as I'm concerned, climatology is far too young a science to base "billions and trillions" on, especially considering that thirty years ago they were claiming the very opposite thing as now. Add that the leading proponents are lying scoundrels trying to hide well-known facts like the MWP, and frankly I think we should just take a decade or two and see how things settle out, with the government staying the hell out of it for the time being. After all, publication in peer review journals is the beginning of science, not the end, no matter what the AGW guys think.
And in any case, environmentalists already have corporations, the media, and so on, so people would happily buy "green" crap now. I think most of it is more dangerous than helpful, but oh well.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
posted
If only those things were the only possible results, and were guaranteed, I wouldn't care.
I like the concept of LED light bulbs for energy efficiency and nuclear power enabling plug-in electrics and so on. I think that sort of thing is where we'll be headed next, and soon.
But the reality of what they're doing right now involves certain potential for real environmental harm, economic harm (to the first world in the form of siphon and the third in the form of future collapse of false markets), higher taxes, lost jobs, and so on and so forth. In short, it's waste, lost opportunities, and lost freedom.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
OnToMars
Now on to the making of films!
Member # 621
posted
I fail to see how making the transition to a clean economy - one that is inevitably necessary - could be a waste if undertaken now as opposed to later.
In fact, when you consider these moves as investments in future profitability, the earlier they're done the better, since - as with any good investment - the earlier you invest, the greater your eventual return will be.
In short, I don't see how reducing waste can be seen as wasteful.
-------------------- If God didn't want us to fly, he wouldn't have given us Bernoulli's Principle.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by OnToMars: I fail to see how making the transition to a clean economy - one that is inevitably necessary - could be a waste if undertaken now as opposed to later.
In fact, when you consider these moves as investments in future profitability, the earlier they're done the better, since - as with any good investment - the earlier you invest, the greater your eventual return will be.
In short, I don't see how reducing waste can be seen as wasteful.
By that logic, government should mandate the teardown all of our coal power plants right now and rebuild them as nuclear fission reactors, right? And immediately replace all incandescent, flourescent, and CFL bulbs with LED? And perhaps all automobiles and lawnmowers running off of internal combustion should be banned by, say, June 2011.
No, sir. Moving too fast in such directions can itself be wasteful, as countless examples throughout history make plain. Economics has inertia as much as physics does. This is why new technology is generally more expensive. It is not the role of government to force it or centrally plan the fight against it.
(For instance, there was the story recently of cities in the Northern US that converted their red lights to LED technology. But since LED doesn't put out heat, they're now having to have a truck drive around so they can remove the snow from the lights manually, and at least one car accident was noted in the story (centered in some town I forget the name of) as being blamed on that. So whatever the city invested hoping to save, they're now eating in manpower and other costs.
Or, imagine if we'd all been mandated to drive the General Motors EV1 from the 1990's. Then we'd have expended all that time and energy moving to nickel metal hydride batteries, when it seems now that far superior lithium ion batteries are going to be the rule of the day. That would've wasted an extraordinary amount of resources.)
So it's not always best to be the earliest-adopter and economic sense be damned. And sometimes waiting is the best policy. China, for instance, is in a nice spot since whereas the US telecomm market started out with copper and over the past century has brought copper wire to every home, the Chinese and other nations that didn't trouble themselves as much (if at all) with copper have gone straight to cell towers. This saves tremendously with that "last mile" problem that eats up so much of our time and copper and effort.
The market will take people to LED and such eventually as the price comes down and quality goes up and it becomes cost-effective to get them. I have two cheap LED bulbs from Wal-Mart right now. They are weak and bluish and not what most people would want, but I use them for specific spots where they accent nicely. There are better ones made, but even at Wal-Mart they are $40 a bulb.
Over time and as the technology and manufacturing cost develops, though, they might come down and be bright and white.
But not today.
And what of tomorrow? Organic LED screens for battery life, high-efficiency bulbs for lower power bills, fusion energy production not only becoming cost effective but eventually cheaper as fossil fuel plants and fission cleanup costs are too high . . .
We'll get to where we need to be eventually. But the market will get us there at about the right pace, provided the government stays the hell out of it.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
