BBC: What Happened to Global Warming? - Page 23 - 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 12-14-2009, 05:27 PM   #331
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,692
Local Time: 07:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
That was a cheap video about C02 and its benefits but there are others who agree and they are scientists as well. They make more sense than the EPA calling greenhouse gases dangerous. They target C02 but by saying greenhouse gases they would have to include water vapour if they want to be scientific. Your response article simply said there was uncertainty which is hardly a doom and gloom mass extinction argument that is being bandied around. I posted a peer-reviewed (who cares?) ocean acidification abstract that showed that ocean acidification damage is also uncertain.
I don't care how cheap the video was, the science was bad. You can't support that video and then say your catch phrase "would have to include water vapour" about other studies. Your video eliminated all kinds of factors in order to prove it's point. See? You don't really know how real science works... It's baffling, you wouldn't make it past 9th grade science where I grew up.


Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
That's great but when it comes to economics and politics and especially this subject the main argument is appeal to authority which these emails have challenged.
This is such bullshit. You still think you're an economics expert? You're the poster that said saving makes jobs And you've constantly confused the micro with the macro in order to answer questions.

I've asked you this before but no answer, but what about the science outside of these emails that supports climate change?


Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
I think it makes more sense to wait the time we need to create better technologies and let the economies grow (especially in the 3rd world) and then naturally replace oil than to damage economies slightly while still increasing C02 and letting global governance a foot in the door.
What's the point of creating "better" technologies if burning oil is good for the air, nothing is wrong with the status quo, right? That's what you and the other cronies have been saying, so what's the point of searching for other technologies, it's just going to cost money?
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 12-14-2009, 11:23 PM   #332
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 11:53 AM
A relevant blog post
Quote:
Who argues the most from authority?
Google results for +"nobel laureate" +X, where X is one of the following:

Chemistry: 317,000
Physics: 415,000
Medicine: 467,000
Economics: 484,000

Of course, there are more winners to refer to in Physics than in Economics, so we should control for that. Dividing the number of Google results by the number of winners gives these per capita rates:

Chemistry: 2032
Physics: 2231
Medicine: 2395
Economics: 7446

If the intellectual merit of a body of ideas is not so well established, you're more likely to deflect attention by reassuring everyone that, hey, it can't be that crazy -- after all, the guy is a Nobel laureate. Perhaps that's why physics ranks above chemistry here, what with string theory etc. taking it further into speculation compared to more grounded chemistry.
Gene Expression: Who argues the most from authority?
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 12-15-2009, 01:20 AM   #333
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 06:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
I don't care how cheap the video was, the science was bad. You can't support that video and then say your catch phrase "would have to include water vapour" about other studies. Your video eliminated all kinds of factors in order to prove it's point. See? You don't really know how real science works... It's baffling, you wouldn't make it past 9th grade science where I grew up.
I just watched the video and he still makes more sense than the EPA. Sure the music sucks and it's cheap but he didn't eliminate everything. He showed that C02 is not a pollutant by increasing the C02 ppm content beyond what it is like now and showed that the plants benefited from it. I've also posted a new peer-reviewed study on ocean acidification putting a damper on AWanderer's claim of mass extinction. If you think this guy's fish tank studies suck then you should be equally skeptical of computer models, especially after what Gavin said nonchalantly about not understanding the climate system. Yet these models somehow are "good tools".

My comment on water vapour has to do with the fact that if we don't know how the largest greenhouse gas works (also we can't control it) then the EPA is casting a too broad a stroke on their legislation. Do we have the power to control water vapour to change the climate? It was just a political stunt to scare the Senate into passing some kind of cap and trade legislation because EPA would just cap.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
This is such bullshit. You still think you're an economics expert? You're the poster that said saving makes jobs And you've constantly confused the micro with the macro in order to answer questions.

I've asked you this before but no answer, but what about the science outside of these emails that supports climate change?
Micro and macro economics are just abstract labels. BTW I answered this a long time ago. The main economic unit is the individual. Without the individual how can the overall economy go forward. Keynesians are obsessed by retail sales but if the individual can't buy anymore (due to high personal debt) then companies that need those retail sales can't just rely on other companies for sales unless those other companies are also having sales to individuals. You can't ignore the individual.

Look at Japan. They've been doing stimulus for over a decade and their debt is 100% of GDP. Stimulus is simply more debt except it's from the government on behalf of the taxpayer. The way to grow the economy is to produce goods and services faster than you can consume them and then trade those surpluses with other countries that have surpluses of goods and services we don't have. Then when the individual (along with companies and governemnts) invest their money, what do they invest in? They invest in other economic activities that require borrowed money to buy capital assets (long-term expensive assets like machinery and buildings) so they can start producing goods and services. They also need retained earnings (another term for savings except for corporations) to invest in projects in order to expand capacity and lower prices so we can consume at a higher standard of living.

As individuals invest and earn interest, dividends & capital gains they can reinvest that money and compound their investments to earn more income. The point of saving is so when you are too old and sick to work or just don't want to work anymore you have a nest egg that pays you enough income from the investments (and social security for many people) so they can retire. This is why PPP Purchase power parity is better than GDP because it accounts for how inflation dilutes our buying power even when we get pay raises.

Now on the studies outside of those emails that you remark on, they are also being questioned because we are still seeing hockey stick graphs and currently not all freedom of information requests have been granted. See this video:

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

Now with the email scandal I don't think holding back information will be as tolerated and will send the wrong signals if people continue to go that way. I also posted the Wegman report which concluded this:

http://climateaudit.files.wordpress....man_report.pdf

Quote:
Conclusion 1. The politicization of academic scholarly work leads to confusing public debates. Scholarly papers published in peer reviewed journals are considered the archival record of research. There is usually no requirement to archive supplemental material such as code and data. Consequently, the supplementary material for academic work is often poorly documented and archived and is not sufficiently robust to withstand intense public debate. In the present example there was too much reliance on peer review, which seemed not to be sufficiently independent.

Recommendation 1. Especially when massive amounts of public monies and human lives are at stake, academic work should have a more intense level of scrutiny and review. It is especially the case that authors of policy-related documents like the IPCC report, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, should not be the same people as those that constructed the academic papers.
Then when you get emails that show gaming of the peer-review system and AGW supporters desperately use peer-review as a way of not recognizing other scientists you have to wonder how much independence there really is.

This video doesn't help. Does Nye know that FOIA information being deleted is illegal?

YouTube - Patrick J. Michaels discusses Climategate on CNN

All he has is that the world got warmer (not in the last 8 years) but since the little ice age and so we "have to do something about it". The skeptics are wondering can we? How much is natural and how much is man-made?

Also the IPCC scientist numbers are still being argued as we speak:

YouTube - Developing World Told to Make Sacrifices to Save the Planet

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
What's the point of creating "better" technologies if burning oil is good for the air, nothing is wrong with the status quo, right? That's what you and the other cronies have been saying, so what's the point of searching for other technologies, it's just going to cost money?
Because most of the C02 comes from natural sources and the burned coal, oil and natural gas only make a portion of the C02 in the atmosphere, so when we (hopefully) find a great new technology that keeps our standard of living stable and increases it we can be on renewable resources instead of finite fossil fuels. Yes the fossil fuels currently are plenty and new technologies are finding ways to improve efficiency of drilling so we don't have to worry about that for hundreds of years but at some point it will run out. If no other technology like (nuclear fusion) or something else comes out we at least have nuclear fission. That's why I don't want to slow economic growth because we need investment in new technologies which is cheaper than cap and trade. Bjorn Lomborg believes in AGW but he doesn't feel any reduction targets will be met and if they are it won't stop much warming based on those crappy computer models. That's why a crazy person like Maurice Strong was talking about reducing 95% of our C02 which would be economic suicide the public wouldn't tolerate. This is also why he doesn't like the ballot box because the public will revolt from the hardship caused by that measure. I just don't think there is a consensus and after seeing all those challenges to Al Gore's documentary and all those alarmist predictions from WWF in the past going wrong I can't help being skeptical.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline  
Old 12-15-2009, 01:26 AM   #334
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 06:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
Thanks for proving my point. Good post. Since conservative and libertarian economists are outnumbered by Keynesians and "Conservatives in name only" you can see that predictions that we won't have more recessions because "it's different now" due to derivatives or "it's different now" because of the tech boom was an abuse of authority. This fits in nicely with the green boom that will bust if no cap and trade is passed in the U.S.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline  
Old 12-17-2009, 11:29 AM   #335
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 07:53 PM
Quote:
Chavez, Morales, Mugabe lash out at Copenhagen

In speeches greeted with occasional ripples of applause, the long-term critics of Western policy lashed out at what they called the hypocrisy of the world's wealthy elite.

Mr Chavez, the President of Venezuela, was one of the first world leaders to take the podium at the venue of the Copenhagen talks.

Mr Chavez, paraphrasing Karl Marx, said "a ghost is stalking the streets of Copenhagen... it's capitalism, capitalism is that ghost."

"The destructive model of capitalism is the eradication of life," he said.

But then he wound up to his grand conclusion, “our revolution seeks to help all people…socialism, the other ghost that is probably wandering around this room, that’s the way to save the planet, capitalism is the road to hell....let’s fight against capitalism and make it obey us.” He won a standing ovation.

Bolivian President Evo Morales, the Andean nation's first indigenous leader, said that the capitalist system itself bore blame for climate change.

"Climate change isn't a problem of technology or financing... It's an issue of way of life and a result of the capitalist system and if we don't understand that then we're never going to resolve these problems."

The anti-capitalist theme was picked up on by Mr Mugabe, Zimbabwe's veteran President, who is the target of Western sanctions over alleged human rights abuses.

"When these capitalist gods of carbon burp and belch their dangerous emissions, it's we, the lesser mortals of the developing sphere who gasp and sink and eventually die."
I fear that even quoting these people won't convince some of you of what the true agenda is here.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 12-17-2009, 01:24 PM   #336
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 07:53 PM
Yes, because clearly Chavez, Morales and Mugabe are the ones leading the charge on climate change. And since they're anti-capitalism, everyone involved must be too.

I once was blind but now I see, INDY.
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 12-17-2009, 01:33 PM   #337
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,692
Local Time: 07:53 PM
Still beating those odds INDY
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 12-17-2009, 04:24 PM   #338
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 07:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
Yes, because clearly Chavez, Morales and Mugabe are the ones leading the charge on climate change.
Because they face no real opposition these guys just aren't as well versed in the minced enviro-speak of "environmental justice," "investment in green jobs," "carbon trading," and "global moral imperative." They just say what they mean.


Quote:
And since they're anti-capitalism, everyone involved must be too.
When “Capitalism is the road to hell” gets a standing ovation from the delegates, well, it should at least give pause.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 12-17-2009, 04:55 PM   #339
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 07:53 PM


Bears repeating.
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 12-17-2009, 04:57 PM   #340
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 08:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
I fear that even quoting these people won't convince some of you of what the true agenda is here.
Worth re-posting...



The conservative response should involve ways to enact green technology without sacrificing economic growth. Instead, the response has been roughly equivalent to burying their heads in the sand and having an infantile temper tantrum.

If conservatives don't wish to substantively contribute to public discourse, don't be surprised then when the rest of the world isn't interested in listening to them.
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 12-17-2009, 04:58 PM   #341
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 08:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post


Bears repeating.
Hah...now there's a hive mind moment...
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 12-17-2009, 05:23 PM   #342
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 07:53 PM
Nothing?

Putting aside the trillions in higher taxes and higher energy and fuel costs we will pay. What about the loss of personal liberties? Say goodbye to driving what you want, where you want, when you want. Gone with that the freedom to travel both domestically and abroad. And already there are calls for central temperature controls via the smart grid, banning of big screen Tvs, banning of incandescent light bulbs, meat rationing and one child per family restrictions.

And can a price even be put on forfeiting our national sovereignty to unaccountable global governing bodies?

Sure, "nothing" if you ignore all that.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 12-17-2009, 05:34 PM   #343
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,692
Local Time: 07:53 PM
Paranoid much?

Where is this one child, can't travel here, must watch small TV bill?

Where INDY, where? I've asked you before, you couldn't answer, so I ask you again...

WHERE?
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 12-17-2009, 05:36 PM   #344
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,496
Local Time: 08:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
And can a price even be put on forfeiting our national sovereignty to unaccountable global governing bodies?


you mean like the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 12-17-2009, 05:57 PM   #345
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,295
Local Time: 08:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
What about the loss of personal liberties? Say goodbye to driving what you want, where you want, when you want.
That's right, you will be priced out of your right to drive a Hummer down city streets. Get over it and focus on actually meaningful things.
__________________

__________________
anitram is online now  
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 08:53 PM.


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