Avatar

[mu-rara]

I agree, but part of that problem is that the solutions are different.  Almost everyone wants cleaner air and water, that is something we should all strive for.  But when we've gone down the insane path of saying CO2 is a pollutant (it's what we EXHALE as living creatures...it is FOOD for plants), then you know the insanity is alive and well.

Plus, you can't tax the Sun and this is as much about money and power as anything else.  You can tax wealthy countries and citizens, so it's a lot easier to blame it on people breathing and driving SUVs so as to extract money than it is to look at the natural cycles that have been going on for billions of years...because no revenue can be grabbed from that perspective.

Pay the man.

[Hards Alumni]

I agree, but part of that problem is that the solutions are different.  Almost everyone wants cleaner air and water, that is something we should all strive for.  But when we've gone down the insane path of saying CO2 is a pollutant (it's what we EXHALE as living creatures...it is FOOD for plants), then you know the insanity is alive and well.

Plus, you can't tax the Sun and this is as much about money and power as anything else.  You can tax wealthy countries and citizens, so it's a lot easier to blame it on people breathing and driving SUVs so as to extract money than it is to look at the natural cycles that have been going on for billions of years...because no revenue can be grabbed from that perspective.

I see you have your conservative radio talking points down.  Congrats.

I dropped it, but you can't seem to.

No one cares if you think you're right Chicos.

[ATWizJr]

I see you have your conservative radio talking points down.  Congrats.

I dropped it, but you can't seem to.

No one cares if you think you're right Chicos.

Chicos makes a lot of good points.  I'd say a lot more people agree with Chicos than you think. You wanna' do something good for the environment, please stop that volcano in the Phillipines when it starts erupting.  Or give up your plasma TV.  Or your pets. Or exhale somehting besides CO2.

[RawdogDX]

Chicos it is but it isn't.
The best thing you can read on warming is super freakenomics.  It examines the problems with our current projection models. States that doing things to reduce the carbon already in the air is cheaper and faster than trying to reduce output. Those are the solutions we should be looking at, things like stimulating plankton growth by droping iron in the ocean.  Too much focus on reduction which is expensive and won't pay dividens for another 30 years.

Seeing the movie in Imax 3d tonight.

[Hards Alumni]

Chicos it is but it isn't.
The best thing you can read on warming is super freakenomics.  It examines the problems with our current projection models. States that doing things to reduce the carbon already in the air is cheaper and faster than trying to reduce output. Those are the solutions we should be looking at, things like stimulating plankton growth by droping iron in the ocean.  Too much focus on reduction which is expensive and won't pay dividens for another 30 years.

Seeing the movie in Imax 3d tonight.

I completely agree.

[ATWizJr]

Actually, the best thing one can read on "global warming" is Climate Confusion. 

It makes the point that no models can absolutely predict what will happen and that cooling is just as likely. 

It also examines the effect of the never ending chase for funding and grants by the so-called climate experts and the motives they have for reaching conclusions that they have to reach to continue receiving funding.

Also, the work of fiction by the late Michael Crichton, "State of Fear" is entertaining and, granted that it tells a story, it does contain historical data the casts significant doubts on the conclusions of the environmental leftists.

[Hards Alumni]

Actually, the best thing one can read on "global warming" is Climate Confusion. 

It makes the point that no models can absolutely predict what will happen and that cooling is just as likely. 

It also examines the effect of the never ending chase for funding and grants by the so-called climate experts and the motives they have for reaching conclusions that they have to reach to continue receiving funding.

Also, the work of fiction by the late Michael Crichton, "State of Fear" is entertaining and, granted that it tells a story, it does contain historical data the casts significant doubts on the conclusions of the environmental leftists.

fine, screw it, I'll play this little game... Note: the first is an abstract, you can read the full text of ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC REPORTS

Chicos:  http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/abs/nature05072.html

oops.

ATWizJr :  As commenter Houston so elegantly put it in a response on one of my posts, evidence leads to consensus. Scientists like nothing more than to disprove established theories and upset the status quo. The idea that scientists may be in possession of knowledge that would bring about the biggest scientific upset of recent history, and yet would simply sit on their hands because of peer pressure or grant funding is, quite frankly, ludicrous beyond belief to anyone who knows anything about the scientific establishment.

taken from http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/12/consensus-matters-climate-skeptics.php

I realize that this won't shut either of you up, but perhaps the others who read the kind of crap that you two spew will be taken with a grain of salt.  As it should be.

[IAmMarquette]

fine, screw it, I'll play this little game... Note: the first is an abstract, you can read the full text of ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC REPORTS

Chicos:  http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/abs/nature05072.html

oops.

ATWizJr :  As commenter Houston so elegantly put it in a response on one of my posts, evidence leads to consensus. Scientists like nothing more than to disprove established theories and upset the status quo. The idea that scientists may be in possession of knowledge that would bring about the biggest scientific upset of recent history, and yet would simply sit on their hands because of peer pressure or grant funding is, quite frankly, ludicrous beyond belief to anyone who knows anything about the scientific establishment.

taken from http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/12/consensus-matters-climate-skeptics.php

I realize that this won't shut either of you up, but perhaps the others who read the kind of crap that you two spew will be taken with a grain of salt.  As it should be.

As should every scientific study. Even the ones that lead to a consensus.

[ATWizJr]

Relax Hards, before you get this thread locked.  

The world wide climate is a complex system.  Too complex to be reliably predicted by our current computer models. As to the effect of 6 billion bodies on the climate, there can be no doubt that 6 billion organisms of any kind would be expected to have some type of effect.  

But, the effect is dwarfed by the natural output of many other forces in nature, including volcanos and sunspots.  And until it can be proven beyond any doubt that warming is being caused by man I'm not willing to endorse any unilateral action by our government that would compromise our national interest or redistribute our national wealth.  Especially when all the other countries will not agree to be bound by the same rules.  

The strategy of changing  the name of  the movement from Global Warming to Climate Change should tell one something.

And, scientists have to eat, too.  

[ChicosBailBonds]

I see you have your conservative radio talking points down.  Congrats.

I dropped it, but you can't seem to.

No one cares if you think you're right Chicos.

I don't listen to the radio, sorry Hards.  I just follow common sense.  Or I listen to people like Dr. Richard Lindzen from MIT.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS-cLp1PEGQ

Or I may listen to someone like Reid Bryson, the father of Climatology (RIP). Or any number of other highly educated men and women who have a different point of view.

I can drop it too....but it seems you really can't since you needed to get in the talk radio comment...or are you dropping it "after the talk radio" comment.  LOL

[ChicosBailBonds]

Good thing Hards dropped it....I read that post of his and then see a bunch of other responses from him "dropping it".  LOL

It's pretty simple for me, why are other planets warming at the same time?  Why has data been hidden, models not shared, data manipulated?  Why are there a number of very prominent scientists from academic institutions like MIT, Harvard, Oxford, UCLA, NASA that say this is all cyclical?  Seems if it was PROVEN science and a slam dunk, then these guys would be on board.

Perhaps if the data wasn't hidden, wasn't manipulated, the models actually SHARED with other scientists rather than hidden, a lot of the doubts could be eliminated.

Besides, in what schools are we teaching that the pursuit of science and truth is to HIDE THE DATA?  Wow.  What progress, what a pursuit for truth.  Amazing.

Reid Bryson, the father of Climatology continues to roll in his grave.

[Hards Alumni]

Good thing Hards dropped it....I read that post of his and then see a bunch of other responses from him "dropping it".  LOL

It's pretty simple for me, why are other planets warming at the same time?  Why has data been hidden, models not shared, data manipulated?  Why are there a number of very prominent academic institutions like MIT, Harvard, Oxford, UCLA, NASA that say this is all cyclical?  Seems if it was PROVEN science and a slam dunk, then these guys would be on board.

Perhaps if the data wasn't hidden, wasn't manipulated, the models actually SHARED with other scientists rather than hidden, a lot of the doubts could be eliminated.

Besides, in what schools are we teaching that the pursuit of science and truth is to HIDE THE DATA?  Wow.  What progress, what a pursuit for truth.  Amazing.

Reid Bryson, the father of Climatology continues to roll in his grave.

nevermind that more than 95% of scientists dont agree with a DEAD guy who isn't privy to any new information.

Chicos, you wonder why people call you a douche.

[ChicosBailBonds]

nevermind that more than 95% of scientists dont agree with a DEAD guy who isn't privy to any new information.

Chicos, you wonder why people call you a douche.

LOL...still haven't dropped it yet....


You're so classy to pick on the dead like that.  Lindzen, by the way, isn't dead.  Neither are the 50,000 or so scientists that have signed petitions saying this is not a slam dunk case.

And no, the number isn't close to 95%.....and you wonder why so many people question your logic when you throw really stupid numbers out like that.   Try again, make sure you double up the douche comments next time, it definitely makes your argument stronger....and it will get you nominated into the Dodds Board Hall of Fame which is really a crowning achievement.  LOL

[Hards Alumni]

LOL...still haven't dropped it yet....


You're so classy to pick on the dead like that.  Lindzen, by the way, isn't dead.  Neither are the 50,000 or so scientists that have signed petitions saying this is not a slam dunk case.

And no, the number isn't close to 95%.....and you wonder why so many people question your logic when you throw really stupid numbers out like that.   Try again, make sure you double up the douche comments next time, it definitely makes your argument stronger....and it will get you nominated into the Dodds Board Hall of Fame which is really a crowning achievement.  LOL

arent you banned there?

my dead reference was to this:

Or I may listen to someone like Reid Bryson, the father of Climatology (RIP). Or any number of other highly educated men and women who have a different point of view.

or maybe RIP means something different to you?

prove that the number isn't closer to 95%.  FIND something, rather than your much tauted 'common sense' that you seem to think is far and away better than everyone else's.

And you can drop your kiddie LOL garbage at me.  I've dealt with forum trolls before and I know exactly how they operate.

[ATWizJr]

Hards can't give it up.  He has to have the last word even if  it is enviro-babble.  Prove that the number isn't 95%?  The case hinges on this?  First class d-baggery.

Very simple proposition here.   Data is unclear, has been hidden, manipulated, "lost".  There should be plenty of room for doubt about what part man plays in any global warming, er, change er, cooling?...er?  The most compelling evidence we have is that the enviro-left has fudged the data.  I wonder why?

PS is this spewing?  LOL.

[Hards Alumni]

Hards can't give it up.  He has to have the last word even if  it is enviro-babble.  Prove that the number isn't 95%?  The case hinges on this?  First class d-baggery.

Very simple proposition here.   Data is unclear, has been hidden, manipulated, "lost".  There should be plenty of room for doubt about what part man plays in any global warming, er, change er, cooling?...er?  The most compelling evidence we have is that the enviro-left has fudged the data.  I wonder why?

PS is this spewing?  LOL.

I'm entitled to defend my position as much as the two of you are.

I am the only one who has posted concrete valid data regarding the conversation.

[StillAWarrior]

One more voice to this will probably get the thread locked, so perhaps this could be viewed as a public service.


Damn it, Chicos, let it drop.  Don't you know that the science is settled on global warming...errr...climate change.  And those 5% "fringe" scientists* (which happens to include one of the most respected scientists at that fringe school in Boston) who Hards so elequently explained "like nothing more than to disprove established theories and upset the status quo" should just shut the hell up and fall in line.  After all, they're on the fringe.  They should quit requesting key data that the "majority" scientists used to support their positions (which has, unfortunately, been discarded).  They should not question the methods or biases of the "majority" scientists.

Hards, I agree with you to a point.  Scientists do love to test theories and upset the status quo.  That being the case, why are the 95% (as you say) so adamant to call the 5% "fringe" (your word) and to try to stifle debate?

*I think this was Hards' number, but I'm not going to re-read the entire thread.

[Henry Sugar]

I'd like to see some evidence that all planets are warming, and that this can be considered cyclical.  Actually, I'm interested in more evidence on both sides. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

I'd like to see some evidence that all planets are warming, and that this can be considered cyclical.  Actually, I'm interested in more evidence on both sides. 

Here you go

Mars warming....  http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

Pluto warming....  http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html

Triton warming .... http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1998/triton.html

Jupiter warming....  http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-jupiter.htm

And at the same time, we've had solar activity changing outside the norms of it's cycle.  Right now, we're in a minimus cycle which is why global temperatures are DOWN the last decade and that cycle has now gone on longer than expected.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Too funny....prove the 95% Hards.


This should be good.  You made the 95% claim, let's see your proof.

And no, you're not the only one to post data.  I've given you Richard Lindzen from MIT and a wonderful video that he recently put on.  I could give you thousands more and you could do the same.  Which begs the question, with all these smart fellows on both sides saying different things, with climate change going on earth for billions of years (ice ages and warming and ice ages and warming), with warming on other planets at the same time, with solar activity \ sun spots working overtime in the 1990's but now at a minimus level, with East Anglia caught with their hands in the cookie jar manipulating data \hiding data \ not sharing models.....yeah, it's settled and a slam dunk.   

[Henry Sugar]

And at the same time, we've had solar activity changing outside the norms of it's cycle.  Right now, we're in a minimus cycle which is why global temperatures are DOWN the last decade and that cycle has now gone on longer than expected.

link?

[ChicosBailBonds]

link?

Let me be clear...do I think human activity affects some termperatures?  Yes, I do.  What I don't buy is that it's an all or nothing proposition or even one that affects things by more than 1 or 2%.  That's the difference.

Here you go....we're in a 50 year low for solar flares.  This affects my industry considerably because satellites are affected by solar flares in certain months, but we've had none of it the last few years.

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2009/04/the_solar_cycle_and_global_war.php

Sun oddly quiet...hints at new little Ice Age   http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/05/090504-sun-global-cooling.html

NASA....Deep Solar Minimum going on currently   http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm


Many other articles on the recent solar activity (it was off the charts not long ago but has gone down considerably recently....and temperatures have fallen at the same time....amazing)

Just a few below


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6762640/Copenhagen-climate-summit-global-warming-caused-by-suns-radiation.html


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/09/03/global_warming_and_the_sun_98154.html

[ChicosBailBonds]

Let's also be clear, the UN and others need a boogey man and the boogey man is the west (Europe and the USA).  The last thing the UN or scientists who want grants ($$$$) is to say the Sun is causing the vast vast majority of this.  Because you can't tax the sun.  You can't get fat grants from the Sun.  But if you blame it all on man, especially those rich guys from the west, well then you can extract big dollars to flow out of those entities and into others.

[Henry Sugar]

Let's also be clear, the UN and others need a boogey man and the boogey man is the west (Europe and the USA).  The last thing the UN or scientists who want grants ($$$$) is to say the Sun is causing the vast vast majority of this.  Because you can't tax the sun.  You can't get fat grants from the Sun.  But if you blame it all on man, especially those rich guys from the west, well then you can extract big dollars to flow out of those entities and into others.

That is an opinion.  It's not evidence. 

Thanks for the other links.  Plenty to chew on.

[ChicosBailBonds]

That is an opinion.  It's not evidence. 

Thanks for the other links.  Plenty to chew on.

Absolutely an opinion.  But I think it has a lot of merit as well.  Lindzen from MIT certainly shares it, as does Michaels from UVA and many other scientists.  If you're looking for grant money, it's best to scare things up as much as possible because the dollars will flow.  And as said before, you can't tax the sun....even if it's the primary heating engine for earth and the entire solar system (and the entire solar system is seeing these changes at the same time...amazing coincidence).  LOL