BBC: What Happened to Global Warming? - Page 20 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-10-2009, 07:49 AM   #286
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,685
Local Time: 02:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Even if true, do we have to accept only the most catastrophic projections? Even if we lose land to higher sea levels and suffer droughts in Africa aren't we going to reclaim land (including minerals, coal and oil) previously covered by ice? Won't we have longer growing seasons and other benefits.
This is quite laughable coming from someone who fights so hard for status quo...
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 12-10-2009, 08:13 AM   #287
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 03:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Vega View Post
Hah! Isn't that the truth...
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
Old 12-10-2009, 09:14 AM   #288
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,294
Local Time: 03:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Even if true, is the prudent course to forfeit our sovereignty over to unelected international bodies to police and regulate energy usage around the globe?
No, it's much better to forfeit your sovereignty to corrupt Middle Eastern sheikhs.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 12-10-2009, 11:30 AM   #289
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 03:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by melon View Post
Hah! Isn't that the truth...
If that's the truth, then save it because it's apparently an "endangered species."
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 12-10-2009, 12:06 PM   #290
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 01:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
Your article comes straight from science and public policy instituteScience and Public Policy Institute - SourceWatch

It is a political lobby group, the "paper" that you produced isn't peer reviewed science, it's a cherry picked literature review promulgated by a climate sceptic think tank.

Here is a proper paper on the subject.

Orr, J.C. et al. "Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the twenty-first century and its impact on calcifying organisms", published in Nature in 2005https://www.up.ethz.ch/people/ngrube...orr_nat_05.pdf
We know that peer review is used for political purposes. The appeal to authority/lab coat effect is not going to work until skeptics are allowed to engage the debate.

Here's another video showing more "appeal to authority" and destroying the idea that only a few scientists are being affected.

CNN’s “Global Warming: Trick or Truth” | CEJournal

Your video even talking about the economist as "conservative" when they are liberal Keynesians shows the typical argument that Elizabeth May uses (in the Munk Debate) that Margaret Thatcher supported Climate Change years ago is another appeal to authority again (accept with conservatives) while ignoring skeptics. Your video is supposed to make us believe that the skeptics don't believe in warming and uses Beavis and Butthead to say that "some people are dumb" all the while this could be attributed to Micheal Mann who eliminated the Medieval Warming Period. The deniers are arguing against MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING not WARMING. Pointing out warming is not conclusive that man did it but that it's warm. How about studying natural factors in the climate in reality instead of trying to estimate natural factors in 'garbage in, garbage out' climate models?

Thank God there are auditors:

Here's what Mann's hockey stick graph looks like without the cherry picked data:



Voila! The Medieval warming period. Read more on Mann's methodology:

Steve McIntyre’s ICCC09 presentation with notes � Watts Up With That?

More manipulation by Al Gore that went unchecked:

Calibrating Dr. Thompson’s Z-Mometer � Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

McIntyre is still not satisfied:

YouTube - Chris Horner, Stephen McIntyre & Michael Oppenheimer on climategate.

Still manipulating tree data:

Still Hiding the Decline � Climate Audit – mirror site [OBSOLETE!]

On ocean acidification there are new studies casting more doubt:

Ocean Absorption Of CO2 Not Shrinking | The Resilient Earth

Marine calcifiers exhibit mixed responses to CO2-induced ocean acidification — Geology

Quote:
Whatever the specific mechanism(s) involved, our results suggest that the impact of elevated atmospheric pCO2 on marine calcification is more varied than previously thought.
Quote:
Barring any massive natural outgassing of greenhouse gas, CO2 levels will not rise as high as those in the fourth test environment, at least not in the foreseeable future. The atmosphere did experience similar CO2 levels during the middle of the Cretaceous period about 100 million years ago. “This is an interval in which many of these organisms lived and apparently did okay, despite the extremely elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 that existed at that time,” Ries said. “The take-home message is that the responses to ocean acidification are going to be a lot more nuanced and complex than we thought.” As usual when Earth's climate changes, there are winners and losers but life carries on.
The science is obviously not settled and more work needs to be done before we blow trillions of dollars.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline  
Old 12-10-2009, 08:00 PM   #291
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
the iron horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: in a glass of CheerWine
Posts: 3,251
Local Time: 03:26 AM
Climategate: Gore falsifies the record | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog
__________________
the iron horse is offline  
Old 12-10-2009, 08:01 PM   #292
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 06:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
We know that peer review is used for political purposes. The appeal to authority/lab coat effect is not going to work until skeptics are allowed to engage the debate.
Scepticism is a hallmark of science, in the competitive world of science peer review is a legitimate check and you have to justify your dismissal of it.

All of your arguments from the dismissal of the hockey stick graph to the argument that we don't have the understanding to justify the greenhouse effect have been kicking around the denialist movement for the past decade. You should be more honest about your motives and argue from economics rather than misrepresenting the state of climate science.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 12-10-2009, 10:59 PM   #293
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 01:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
Scepticism is a hallmark of science, in the competitive world of science peer review is a legitimate check and you have to justify your dismissal of it.

All of your arguments from the dismissal of the hockey stick graph to the argument that we don't have the understanding to justify the greenhouse effect have been kicking around the denialist movement for the past decade. You should be more honest about your motives and argue from economics rather than misrepresenting the state of climate science.
I did justify it with the emails and the studies (some peer reviewed and some not) that question the singling out of C02 as the main driver of climate change since industrialization. If something is banging around for decades and new research is coming to challenge the IPCC with ideas that were banging around for decades it probably means the science isn't settled. There is a serious lack of skepticism towards the IPCC and as Pat Michaels says the email hack or whistleblowing is all for the good because people are now going to ask for backup and to be able to audit the data. This basic due diligence is demanded in public company financial statements to protect shareholders just like we need to start protecting taxpayers from public policy based on science to make sure all stakeholders are represented. Since I'm an accountant and KNOW how those who are audited try whatever they can to get around showing the truth on financial statements I'm not surprised that the scientists aren't eager (to say the least) to release data for others to audit.

Auditors love this stuff:

The Death Blow to Climate Science

Quote:
Warwick Hughes asked for the data and method he used for his claim of a 0.6°C temperature rise since the end of the nineteenth century. Jones responded, “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”
BTW I've also responded on economic arguments and since the IPCC champions policies that affect economics I don't see how that discounts what goes on unless you don't really care about the economic consequences of higher food prices on the poor (due to biofuels) or consequences to poor countries that want to develop and enjoy your standard of living. Most people are getting a "not in my backyard" vibe from these AGW supporters. It's easy to say when you're not living in Sudan. It's also important to note whether we are actually going to meet any of these targets (which we haven't in the past). Economic arguments are necessary or else we will live in a "technocracy" where stakeholders don't matter.

Finally some reasoned discussion on realistic economic costs in the U.K.:

Climategate reaches the British House of Lords � Watts Up With That?
__________________
purpleoscar is offline  
Old 12-11-2009, 12:00 AM   #294
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 06:26 PM
What sort of settlement do you want for the science? You are taking a very hardline position akin to the Catholic Church on Copernicanism, as long as there are open questions or the slim potential for other explanations you don't think anything should be done. It is absurd to have such a high benchmark for action, anthropogenic climate change is an established scientific theory that explains observations of climate change both in the past and future, the only reason that you are posting denialist conspiracies is because you are an ideologue and you need to mask your bias with a slew of distractions.

You could take a Bayesian approach and weigh the prior probabilities of climate change, weigh the consensus of professional organisations against the arguments of sceptics. Rather than explain the difference with a conspiracy you ought to look at the evidence and interest of those involved, you ignore the clear interest between denialists and the mining industry (people like Plimer and McIntyre) while inventing unfounded conspiracies to explain the motives of actual climate scientists. Step back from your political position and approach the controversy with some objectivity, because at the moment you are clasping onto political talking points and ignoring all other evidence.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 12-11-2009, 12:07 PM   #295
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,494
Local Time: 03:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
What sort of settlement do you want for the science? You are taking a very hardline position akin to the Catholic Church on Copernicanism, as long as there are open questions or the slim potential for other explanations you don't think anything should be done. It is absurd to have such a high benchmark for action, anthropogenic climate change is an established scientific theory that explains observations of climate change both in the past and future, the only reason that you are posting denialist conspiracies is because you are an ideologue and you need to mask your bias with a slew of distractions.



this seems worthy of being quoted again.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 12-11-2009, 01:16 PM   #296
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 02:26 AM
Quote:
anthropogenic climate change is an established scientific theory that explains observations of climate change both in the past and future

Future??? Given that none of the models predicted a decade of cooling after a period of warming (causing great distress to leading climate scientists if you read the hacked emails). Given that, a good dose of skepticism about climate models 20, 30 and 40 years out isn't warranted?
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 12-11-2009, 11:01 PM   #297
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 01:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
We don't know everything about the climate system,
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Future??? Given that none of the models predicted a decade of cooling after a period of warming (causing great distress to leading climate scientists if you read the hacked emails). Given that, a good dose of skepticism about climate models 20, 30 and 40 years out isn't warranted?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
this seems worthy of being quoted again.


Your Catholic church argument is being used on both sides and both are based on believing the other side's premise as being faulty.

BTW Steve McIntyre is doing a good service and anyone who cares about stakeholders knows that. When people wipe out the medieval warming period (despite the historical evidence) what did you expect?
__________________
purpleoscar is offline  
Old 12-11-2009, 11:42 PM   #298
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 02:26 AM
Quote:
The New Socialism
A metamorphosis from red to green.

By Charles Krauthammer
Charles Krauthammer on National Review Online
Quote:
In the 1970s and early ’80s, having seized control of the U.N. apparatus (by power of numbers), Third World countries decided to cash in. OPEC was pulling off the greatest wealth transfer from rich to poor in history. Why not them? So in grand U.N. declarations and conferences, they began calling for a “New International Economic Order.” The NIEO’s essential demand was simple: to transfer fantastic chunks of wealth from the industrialized West to the Third World.

On what grounds? In the name of equality — wealth redistribution via global socialism — with a dose of post-colonial reparations thrown in.

The idea of essentially taxing hard-working citizens of the democracies in order to fill the treasuries of Third World kleptocracies went nowhere, thanks mainly to Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher (and the debt crisis of the early ’80s). They put a stake through the enterprise.

But such dreams never die. The raid on the Western treasuries is on again, but today with a new rationale to fit current ideological fashion. With socialism dead, the gigantic heist is now proposed as a sacred service of the newest religion: environmentalism.

One of the major goals of the Copenhagen climate summit is another NIEO shakedown: the transfer of hundreds of billions from the industrial West to the Third World to save the planet by, for example, planting green industries in the tristes tropiques.

Politically it’s an idea of genius, engaging at once every left-wing erogenous zone: rich man’s guilt, post-colonial guilt, environmental guilt.

But the idea of shaking down the industrial democracies in the name of the environment thrives not just in the refined internationalist precincts of Copenhagen. It thrives on the national scale, too.

On the day Copenhagen opened, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency claimed jurisdiction over the regulation of carbon emissions by declaring them an “endangerment” to human health.

Since we operate an overwhelmingly carbon-based economy, the EPA will be regulating practically everything. No institution that emits more than 250 tons of CO2 a year will fall outside EPA control. This means over a million building complexes, hospitals, plants, schools, businesses, and similar enterprises. (The EPA proposes regulating emissions only above 25,000 tons, but it has no such authority.) Not since the creation of the Internal Revenue Service has a federal agency been given more intrusive power over every aspect of economic life.

This naked assertion of vast executive power in the name of the environment is the perfect fulfillment of the prediction of Czech president (and economist) Vaclav Klaus that environmentalism is becoming the new socialism, i.e., the totemic ideal in the name of which government seizes the commanding heights of the economy and society.

Socialism having failed so spectacularly, the Left was adrift until it struck upon a brilliant gambit: metamorphosis from red to green. The cultural elites went straight from the memorial service for socialism to the altar of the environment. The objective is the same: highly centralized power given to the best and the brightest, the new class of experts, managers, and technocrats. This time, however, the alleged justification is not abolishing oppression and inequality, but saving the planet.

Not everyone is pleased with the coming New Carbon-Free International Order. When the Obama administration signaled (in a gesture to Copenhagen) a U.S. commitment to major cuts in carbon emissions, Democratic senator Jim Webb wrote the president protesting that he lacks the authority to do so unilaterally. That requires congressional concurrence by legislation or treaty.

With the Senate blocking President Obama’s cap-and-trade carbon legislation, the EPA coup d’etat served as the administration’s loud response to Webb: The hell we can’t. With this EPA “endangerment” finding, we can do as we wish with carbon. Either the Senate passes cap-and-trade, or the EPA will impose even more draconian measures: all cap, no trade.

Forget for a moment the economic effects of severe carbon chastity. There’s the matter of constitutional decency. If you want to revolutionize society — as will drastic carbon regulation and taxation in an energy economy that is 85 percent carbon-based — you do it through Congress reflecting popular will. Not by administrative fiat of EPA bureaucrats.

Congress should not just resist this executive overreaching, but trump it: Amend existing clean-air laws and restore their original intent by excluding CO2 from EPA control and reserving that power for Congress and future legislation.

Do it now. Do it soon. Because Big Brother isn’t lurking in CIA cloak. He’s knocking on your door, smiling under an EPA cap.
Yes, there's that word again, socialism. And the same people that object to it and call it a boogeyman argument will be the same people that argue in favor of a government run health care system in this forum. Bet ya.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 12-12-2009, 12:44 AM   #299
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,685
Local Time: 02:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Yes, there's that word again, socialism. And the same people that object to it and call it a boogeyman argument will be the same people that argue in favor of a government run health care system in this forum. Bet ya.
And the same people who will use the "socialism" tag are the same that believe quacks like Beck, can't recognize racism, talk smaller government while legislating morality, and wouldn't know science if it bit them in the ass.

And I don't even have to make a bet, that's just fact.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 12-12-2009, 05:44 AM   #300
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 09:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Charles Krauthammer on National Review Online


Yes, there's that word again, socialism. And the same people that object to it and call it a boogeyman argument will be the same people that argue in favor of a government run health care system in this forum. Bet ya.
Are you for real here?
__________________

__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
2008 International Conference on Climate Change purpleoscar Free Your Mind 19 04-17-2009 07:56 PM
New York Times: Cool the Hype MaxFisher Free Your Mind Archive 17 03-18-2007 06:09 PM
If You Wear A ONE White Band.... Jamila Free Your Mind Archive 18 05-27-2005 07:46 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com