My God...
Look who the first signature block is!
My God...
Look who the first signature block is!
I miss the 1/2 hr News hour...
Are New York and Washington still there? That memo was written 41 years ago.
Ease of use, a diverse population, politically at least, and a team worth rooting for.
Wish Extra Stout still posted.
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra:
"it is possible that warming for windmills vs. CO2 is about equal, and that the windmills will change the wind/climate in ways worse than CO2 ever could."
post6568713
Here's (hopefully) the last thing I have to say on the matter.
The AGW community may be right and the skeptic side wrong (or vice versa). Bottom line is, with so many variables that affect climate, with so many anomalies and contradictions in the data, with so many MAJOR climatic changes without human influence, with so much shady behavior by the climate science community, and with so much at stake, maybe a little skepticism is a healthy thing. And not something to be labeled heretic, denier (a.k.a. holocaust denier) or lumped in with 9/11 twooferism. After all, many climate scientists (many of them former IPCC contributors) are at odds with much of the AGW alarmism.
Last edited by DarrinS; 10-13-2010 at 09:09 PM.
Well, I see that instead of attempting to actually answer any of my questions, Manny filled out a Butthurt form instead:
I'm pretty sure that creating a "butthurt report" is a sure sign of butthurt.
Republican Global Warming Deniers Funded By Energy Industry
Pennsylvania Senate candidate Pat Toomey raised eyebrows when he said in a local radio interview on Friday, that the degree to which human activity is to blame for global warming is being "very much disputed" and "debated."
It's not the first time he's made the argument.
"There is much debate in the scientific community as to the precise sources of global warming," Toomey claimed in June.
Trolling Opensecrets.org, HuffPost found Toomey's top contributors include oil and coal giants Koch Industries ($15,000) and Murray Energy ($16,655). Those are the top two contributors of climate change skeptic Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) who received $45,500 and $30,600 from those companies respectively.
Inhofe drew headlines during the record-breaking snowfall in Washington in February when he built an igloo outside the Capitol with a sign on it that read: "Al Gore's Home. Honk If You Like Global Warming." And for years now, Inhofe has insisted that global warming doesn't exist, deeming it "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people."
The only other Senate candidates whose top contributors include these two companies are global warming deniers David Vitter (R - La.), John Hoeven (R - N.D), and Jim DeMint (R-S.C.). Vitter received $16,750 from Koch Industries and $17,378 from Murray Energy; Hoeven received $10,000 from Koch Industries and $20,789 from Murray Energy; and DeMint received $22,000 from Koch industries and $24,333 from Murray Energy.
Hoeven has said of global warming "there's different opinions of exactly what's causing it," while Vitter has called evidence from liberals supporting climate change "ridiculous pseudo-science garbage." Meanwhile Demint took to Twitter to write, in the midst of the snowstorm in DC last winter: "It's going to keep snowing in DC until Al Gore cries 'uncle.'"
The Washington Post cited Toomey as a prime example of a Tea Party candidate who comes across as moderate and reasonable, when compared to the likes of Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell, but who holds extreme views on specific issues -- in this case, climate change.
The question is whether Toomey's view can even be considered extreme given the views of others in his party.
Though his claims are sharply at odds with scientific consensus, which holds that human activity is primarily responsible for global warming, Toomey's position on climate change will likely be the position held by a majority of GOPers in in the 112th Congress.
A roundup by ThinkProgress's Wonk Room shows that nearly all dispute the scientific consensus that the United States must act to fight global warming pollution. ThinkProgress's Brad Johnson writes:
Remarkably, of the dozens of Republicans vying for the 37 Senate seats in the 2010 election, no one supports climate action, after climate advocate Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE) lost his primary to Christine O'Donnell. Even former climate advocates Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) now toe the science-doubting party line.
Many of these Senate candidates are signatories of the Koch Industries' Americans For Prosperity No Climate Tax pledge and the FreedomWorks Contract From America. The second plank of the Contract From America is to "Reject Cap & Trade: Stop costly new regulations that would increase unemployment, raise consumer prices, and weaken the nation's global competitiveness with virtually no impact on global temperatures."
HuffPost found Koch Industries was a top contributor for Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Daniel Coats (R-Ind), and Rand Paul (R-Ky.). Murray Energy was a top contributor for Carly Fiorina (R-Calif.), and Roy Blunt (R-Mo.). Every one of these Republican candidates for Senate has questioned climate science. (Click on their names for an example.)
Neither company funded a single Democratic candidate for Senate.
In Alaska, the state most coveted by the oil and natural gas industry, Exxon Mobil donated some money to Tea Party candidate Joe Miller and more to write-in candidate Lisa Murkowski, who suffered an unexpected defeat to Miller in the Republican primary election.
That mirrors the strategy Exxon Mobil used in the 2008 presidential election when it contributed to both Barack Obama and John McCain. Though McCain would presumably better protect company interests, by donating to both candidates Exxon might hope to curry favor with whoever ultimately won power.
Listen to Toomey's local radio interview here. The relevant conversation starts around the 15 minute mark:
Toomey is locked in a tight race with Rep. Joe Sestak to replace five-term Sen. Arlen Specter, who lost to Sestak in May's Democratic primary.
"This is just the latest example of Congressman Toomey's refusal to hear perspectives that don't fit into his own narrow mindset, even if those perspectives are backed by a large volume of credible evidence," said Sestak campaign spokesman Jonathon Dworkin. "But try as he might, Toomey can't escape from the facts. Pennsylvania needs a public servant dedicated to finding practical solutions to the problems we face, not another closed-minded ideologue bent on insisting that the 'world is flat.'"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/1...tml?view=print
===========
Nothing new here, just facts that all politicians support/block according to their corporate paymasters' desires.
I tend to view this as part of the Republican "war on science".
Gut biology courses to pamper to evangelicals, play-up the pseudoscience AGW denier "evidence", create a climate where MBAs are viewed as more important and engineers/scientists, and we wonder why scientific literacy is dropping like a rock.
But hey we need to show up them intellectual types, with their hoity toity PhD's. I mean, real men don't "titrate ionic solutions". Yippy ki yay.
Pfft.
Yeah engineers are scientists no longer run technological development. Its now all bid and managed by financiers.
"All Knowledge is built upon instinctive belief, failing that there is nothing left." -Bertrand Russell
"Honor is simply the morality of superior men." -Henry Mencken
Officially Noted By Agloco
Fuzzy Fan Club: Cosmic Cowboy, TSA, Wild Cobra, Viva Las Espuelas
I would find your arguments so much more credible if you held the deniers you agree with to the same ethical and intellectual standards.
That you hold double standards for the side you agree with, mostly by simple silence, does not lead me to be convinced of your cause.
I'll take your arguments more seriously when you start using the term skeptic instead of denier.
@ the amounts of money quoted in that article.
How much did BP give Obama?
So you admit the possibility that they are correct and if so what chance do you give it?
I'll say it again. Once the people who claim there is a climatological crisis start acting like there's a climatological crisis, I'll start paying attention.
Europe on track for Kyoto targets while emissions from imported goods rise
It's a sham. From Al Gore and his million-man-equivalent carbon footprint to Nancy Pelosi and the rest of them in Congress who fly around on military jets as if they were riding a bike to the corner store.The European Environment Agency reported that by the end of last year emissions produced by the current 27 member countries have fallen by more than 17% since 1990, putting them "well on track" to meet the target to meet the EU's own pledge of a 20% reduction by 2020 . The original 15 EU member states who signed Kyoto have dropped their emissions by 6%, giving them "a headstart to reach and even over-achieve" their target under the treaty of an 8% reduction. Emissions from the current 27 member countries have fallen by more than 17% since 1990, putting them "well on track" to meet the target to meet the EU's own pledge of a 20% reduction by the same date, added the report.
However a report due to be published soon by the Policy Exchange thinktank has measured the emissions generated by goods and services consumed by those countries and found that it has increased by more than 40%.
As a result, "demonstrating success in reducing carbon levels is questionable," said Simon Less, the thinktank's head of environment and energy.
next thing you know, they'll be landing on a carrier.
Did they recycle the "Mission Accomplished" banner?
No one here believes that.
Even if they did, you would still deny there is anything to worry about.
I think his point is things like Al Gore living in a smaller, energy efficient home and not using multiple large computer monitors. Using more fuel efficient transportation. just one example. If the leader of the AGW movement doesn't live by his own words, why should we?
So the entire complex planetary atmosphere, with all the oceans currents, biological processes and so forth, boil down to one simplifying assumption.I did not ask if Henry's law was direct.
I asked:
Is it possible that the processes involved in planetary atmospheres/oceans are too complex to apply Henry's law without some heavy modifications to that calculation?
If you refuse to answer this question, I will simply assume it is possible that a simple application of Henry's law might not be entirely appropriate, although useful.
The entire ocean behaves exactly like a small beaker in a laboratory under carefully controlled conditions?
I find that a bit of a stretch.
Have we seen massive levels of vulcanism in the last 200 years? 50 years [that might cause our current run up in Co2]?
So, essentially, you have not eliminated vulcanism as the source of the Co2 spike?
You have attributed the entire spike in concentration, to my knowledge to an increase in temperature in the oceans.
You have stated that the increase in CO2 is NOT due to any human activity.
Is that correct?
By that definition the consensus concerning gravitational, chemical, and electrical constants of the universe is weak science.
There is a huge degree of consensus concerning the atomic weight of the elements that comprise the current periodic table.
Is that consensus weak science?
No, it's not that simple either. Just not as complex as i think you are trying to say. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your intent.
We know all but certain that the CO2 levels in the atmosphere rise and fall with ocean temperature. The science we know dictates this, and the data shows such trends. Henry's law has not been proven wrong, and has no controversy about how it works. We know that the ocean system has a long lag period. We know that the data points for CO2 in proxy data is far enough apart that there is only about about a 5% chance of seeing a CO2 peak similar to ours should there be a 50 year occurrence in the past. Now CO2 is complex in the aspect that it goes through various chemical changes more so than most absorbed gases, but this works both ways, and is under temperatures and pressures with depth and location than a laboratory experiment.
Everything we know as valid science is strong enough that I believe the AGW theory is still just a hypothesis. Anyone who understands more than just the basics of the carbon cycle can positively state that the CO2 levels we see could be natural.Solution:
CO2(atmospheric) ⇌ CO2(dissolved)
Conversion to carbonic acid:
CO2(dissolved) + H2O ⇌ H2CO3
First ionization:
H2CO3 ⇌ H+ + HCO3− (bicarbonate ion)
Second ionization:
HCO3− ⇌ H+ + CO3−− (carbonate ion)
Nobody disputes the correlation.
What is in question is causation.
Have you determined a testable hypothesis in order to research this?
What would your null hypothesis be?
Just as the values for certain aspects given are also hypothesis.
I fully agree the data is somewhat ambiguous, and we need more testing, data, and research.
Can we form reasonable courses of action, based on incomplete data?
Also, by the by, here is the scoreboard so far:
Yonivore:
One question asked. Completely ignored.
One logical fallacy.
Obstructed view:
Five questions asked.
Two questions dodged without honest answers.
Two questions answered fairly.
One ignored.
DarrinS:
Nine logical fallacies
One false assertion
One question pending, probable second false assertion
OV did the best so far. Darrin... not so much.
(still in the process of combing through thread, by the way)
Cobra, you are doing fairly well, actually. Kudos to sticking to the science in a fairly reasonable manner.
There is still some "hand-wavy" dismissals though. Get to that in a bit.
We can go back and forth with graphs and arrows and quibbling over details, but we do have a way to short-circuit the argument:
The conclusions the guy makes are pretty much logically sound.
I can spell them out if'n nobody wants to watch a youtube, and we can examine them.
What is the wisest thing to do, given the uncertainties and risks?
The video's premise is dumb. Not all probabilities are created equal.
Worst case extremes are not even remotely the most probable outcomes. I cut it off halfway through it was so worthless.
That is poor risk management.
He actually addresses the scope of risk towards the end.
It is most definitely not poor risk managment.
The follow up videos in the series are very comprehensive discussions about the entire subject.
He also has a very interesting background lecture concerning the physical impossibility of increasing our usage of fossil fuels for much longer. It is mathmatically impossible to indefinitely increase our consumption of fossil fuels by 2% per year.
In and of itself that is glaringly obvious if one thinks about it, but it has some real implications for depletion factors that need to be considered, when weighing options.
One thing that WC, Darrin, Yoni, and a host of other right-wing ideologues consistantly seem to not want to address is the implications of what happens when you approach depletion of fossil fuels.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
