Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience.

[MannyIsGod]

I don't understand the science yet I can say that the science is bad!

[admiralsnackbar]

Which of the tens of thousands of scientists should I trust and why?

While you're at it, you might also ask yourself why you're drawn to side with a particular side -- the minority, at that -- rather than remaining skeptical of all claims?

[MannyIsGod]

Scientific articles have been posted that directly refute what you've been saying, Yoni. If you can't understand those articles, then that is your problem. I personally find it funny that you immediately assume they are wrong even though you don't understand them. Its very telling.

[Yonivore]

While you're at it, you might also ask yourself why you're drawn to side with a particular side -- the minority, at that -- rather than remaining skeptical of all claims?
I remain skeptical because no one, in the public sector (where most of us live and learn about the science affecting our planet), is making a compelling case for anthropogenic global climate change a) existing or b) being a real problem about which we should be concerned.

Oh, I agree, there are plenty of people saying it -- just not convincingly.

And, you haven't named anyone to whom you think I should listen.

And, Manny, I don't need to understand the science to know no one is making a convincing argument in your favor. In fact, as time goes by, it appears the AGCC crowd is losing steam...while the earth continues to do just fine.

Will you name a scientist to whom I should be paying attention? To whom the world should be listening? And, why?

[MannyIsGod]

The case is being made just fine. The only place its not is here in the United States and thats mainly because of the political nature of the debate here and our dropping scientific literacy.

You see the exact same figures regarding evolution. The GOP's war on science has been quite effective here.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/147242/worldwide-blame-climate-change-falls-humans.aspx

[Yonivore]

Scientific articles have been posted that directly refute what you've been saying, Yoni. If you can't understand those articles, then that is your problem. I personally find it funny that you immediately assume they are wrong even though you don't understand them. Its very telling.
Maybe I can take another approach.

If, as a lay person, you've been fed a steady stream of "scientific" evidence that AGCC exists and, over time, the major works of evidence -- touted by the IPCC, the UN, and Al Gore (among others) -- turn out to be seriously flawed, either by error or intention; why the fuck would you pay attention to some anonymous guy in a political forum who answers every question with a scientific paper claiming there are tens of thousand of scientists peer-reviewing millions of papers that all prove AGCC exists.

Why Manny? It's irrelevant. You're asking a lay person -- in an internet forum (not exactly an institution of scientific import) to digest information people have ostensibly spent years analyzing and assembling into the documents you post. I immediately discount them because I don't know you, I don't know the author, and I don't know from where their data comes -- even if they say it comes from legitimate source a, b, or c.

Now, if one of your authors were to appear on the national or international stage and make a compelling argument, supported by his paper you posted here? I might be willing to listen.

Can you get that?

You want to persuade, produce a national or international figure that can make a compelling case that isn't later found to be lacking. So far, the AGCC crowd hasn't produced that person.

I think the world deserves to be convinced before we leap off an economic bluff.

[RandomGuy]

So, if I've got this right, you're suggesting Al Gore, et. al. are suffering from congnitive dissonance to the extent they preach at the alter of AGCC while ignoring their own alarmist rhetoric in their personal behaviors?

Can you please provide the name of a globally recognized AGCC proponent that doesn't suffer from this "cognitive dissonance."

I was referring to your logical fallacies, which you repeat, as if you do not understand they are flawed logically.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5796523&postcount=2741
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5796523&postcount=2742

You appear smart enough to understand that flawed logic is not a basis on which to form opinions about important things.

I am left wondering why you persist in them. I can only conclude you are ignoring them, or treating them as if they don't exist.

[MannyIsGod]

Besides, if you don't understand the science, how on earth would you recognize a compelling case if it bit you in the ass?

[Wild Cobra]

Maybe I can take another approach.

If, as a lay person, you've been fed a steady stream of "scientific" evidence that AGCC exists and, over time, the major works of evidence -- touted by the IPCC, the UN, and Al Gore (among others) -- turn out to be seriously flawed, either by error or intention; why the fuck would you pay attention to some anonymous guy in a political forum who answers every question with a scientific paper claiming there are tens of thousand of scientists peer-reviewing millions of papers that all prove AGCC exists.

Why Manny? It's irrelevant. You're asking a lay person -- in an internet forum (not exactly an institution of scientific import) to digest information people have ostensibly spent years analyzing and assembling into the documents you post. I immediately discount them because I don't know you, I don't know the author, and I don't know from where their data comes -- even if they say it comes from legitimate source a, b, or c.

Now, if one of your authors were to appear on the national or international stage and make a compelling argument, supported by his paper you posted here? I might be willing to listen.

Can you get that?

You want to persuade, produce a national or international figure that can make a compelling case that isn't later found to be lacking. So far, the AGCC crowd hasn't produced that person.

I think the world deserves to be convinced before we leap off an economic bluff.
It's hard to shake people's faith. He's going to believe what ever his preachers of AGW tell him.

So it is written, so it shall be.

[RandomGuy]

Maybe I can take another approach.

If, as a lay person, you've been fed a steady stream of "scientific" evidence that AGCC exists and, over time, the major works of evidence -- touted by the IPCC, the UN, and Al Gore (among others) -- turn out to be seriously flawed, either by error or intention; why the fuck would you pay attention to some anonymous guy in a political forum who answers every question with a scientific paper claiming there are tens of thousand of scientists peer-reviewing millions of papers that all prove AGCC exists.

Why Manny? It's irrelevant. You're asking a lay person -- in an internet forum (not exactly an institution of scientific import) to digest information people have ostensibly spent years analyzing and assembling into the documents you post. I immediately discount them because I don't know you, I don't know the author, and I don't know from where their data comes -- even if they say it comes from legitimate source a, b, or c.

Now, if one of your authors were to appear on the national or international stage and make a compelling argument, supported by his paper you posted here? I might be willing to listen.

Can you get that?

You want to persuade, produce a national or international figure that can make a compelling case that isn't later found to be lacking. So far, the AGCC crowd hasn't produced that person.

I think the world deserves to be convinced before we leap off an economic bluff.

Anyone I would produce would be automatically shot down by you as being non-credible, simply because they believe there is evidence that we are affecting our environment.

Your definition of "credible" is someone who agrees with you to begin with.

Kind of hard to prove anything to someone who won't listen, or believe you, no matter how good your arguments are or evidence is.

[MannyIsGod]

Maybe I can take another approach.

If, as a lay person, you've been fed a steady stream of "scientific" evidence that AGCC exists and, over time, the major works of evidence -- touted by the IPCC, the UN, and Al Gore (among others) -- turn out to be seriously flawed, either by error or intention; why the fuck would you pay attention to some anonymous guy in a political forum who answers every question with a scientific paper claiming there are tens of thousand of scientists peer-reviewing millions of papers that all prove AGCC exists.


How exactly do you know they're seriously flawed again? Through your understanding of the science involved?



Why Manny? It's irrelevant. You're asking a lay person -- in an internet forum (not exactly an institution of scientific import) to digest information people have ostensibly spent years analyzing and assembling into the documents you post. I immediately discount them because I don't know you, I don't know the author, and I don't know from where their data comes -- even if they say it comes from legitimate source a, b, or c.


Do you know the blog authors whom - as you put it so well - pick the proper scientists for you to follow?

Do you know the scientist whom you posted in the thread above talking about sea level change? You sure didn't have a problem believing his argument. I'm sure you know him though.



Now, if one of your authors were to appear on the national or international stage and make a compelling argument, supported by his paper you posted here? I might be willing to listen.

Can you get that?

You want to persuade, produce a national or international figure that can make a compelling case that isn't later found to be lacking. So far, the AGCC crowd hasn't produced that person.

I think the world deserves to be convinced before we leap off an economic bluff.

I just showed you that the world is buying it. I've shown you how the military is buying it. I've shown you how international health organizations are buying it. I've shown you how all the major scientific organizations are buying it. I've shown you how the free fucking market you worship is buying it.

I really don't care if science illiterate partisan hacks who rely on blogs for their info buy it.

[DarrinS]

The case is being made just fine. The only place its not is here in the United States and thats mainly because of the political nature of the debate here and our dropping scientific literacy.

You see the exact same figures regarding evolution. The GOP's war on science has been quite effective here.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/147242/worldwide-blame-climate-change-falls-humans.aspx


really?

[MannyIsGod]

Yes, really. I don't lie in my posts, Darrin. I leave that to you and others.

[RandomGuy]

It's hard to shake people's faith. He's going to believe what ever his preachers of AGW tell him.

So it is written, so it shall be.


I would say my statement is dogmatic.

I take scientists at their word.

They are experts.

I have no proof of any vast conspiracy on their part to lie.

When I look at the people criticising these experts, they almost always turn out to be dishonest, sometimes actively making things up, and hand waving, as Dr. Moerner did.

I ask for any evidence that these scientists are lying and I get... more ad hominem.

If the evidence is sooo fake, as you claim it is, then it would be very easy to prove it is faked.

You all are no different than the 9-11 truthers in any of the above regards.

That leads me to the conclusion in the OP.

[Yonivore]

The case is being made just fine. The only place its not is here in the United States and thats mainly because of the political nature of the debate here and our dropping scientific literacy.

You see the exact same figures regarding evolution. The GOP's war on science has been quite effective here.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/147242/worldwide-blame-climate-change-falls-humans.aspx
The case isn't being made that well.

Most of the Kyoto protocol signatories have had abysmal progress in achieving their objectives and, yet, no doom or gloom.

And, there are other signs Europe has put responses to AGCC behind their economic woes.

Don't distract, I believe the theory of evolution is the best explanation for why species have so much in common.

[Wild Cobra]

Yes, really. I don't lie in my posts, Darrin. I leave that to you and others.
You just don't answer anyone's tough questions.

[MannyIsGod]

I'm not distracting. I'm giving you another example of well established scientific theory that is "debated" in this country for political reasons. Its not like AGW theory is alone.

[RandomGuy]

I think the world deserves to be convinced before we leap off an economic bluff.

Here is, ultimately, the weakest part of your entire argument.

Reducing CO2 emissions will help the economy.

Reducing them sooner, rather than later will grow the economy more over the long run than not reducing CO2 emissions.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The case isn't being made that well.

Most of the Kyoto protocol signatories have had abysmal progress in achieving their objectives and, yet, no doom or gloom.

And, there are other signs Europe has put responses to AGCC behind their economic woes.

Don't distract, I believe the theory of evolution is the best explanation for why species have so much in common.

Showing that the policies to curb emissions have a negative economic impact is does not disprove that AGW is happening. All you are doing is parroting the energy lobby's arguments.

We shouldn't do this because its not happening.

We shouldn't do this because even though its happening because we are not sure of the impact.

We shouldn't do this because it would hurt the economy.

Its so transparent where the arguments come from its sad. Almost as sad as how our political process is beholden to them.

[Wild Cobra]

Yes, really. I don't lie in my posts, Darrin. I leave that to you and others.
So... It's not a lie to say "The GOP's war on science has been quite effective here."

How can you be certain of that? You expect us to believe what you say on AGW, and turn around and post partisanship rather than science?

You have lost what little credibility you had left with me.

[RandomGuy]

I'm not distracting. I'm giving you another example of well established scientific theory that is "debated" in this country for political reasons. Its not like AGW theory is alone.

I will concur about that.

Politicizing of the science simply starts to fit in with a general pattern.

Demonize the scientists, then ignore what they are telling you.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You have lost what little credibility you had left with me.

:rollin:lol:blah:rollin:lol:blah

[RandomGuy]

So... It's not a lie to say "The GOP's war on science has been quite effective here."

How can you be certain of that? You expect us to believe what you say on AGW, and turn around and post partisanship rather than science?

You have lost what little credibility you had left with me.

How do you explain a stage full of presidential candidates, only one of which has the guts to say they believe in evolution?

That seems to be the message that right-wing politicians seem compelled to give to get primary votes.

I see the demonizing of climate scientists in the same light.

[Wild Cobra]

Here is, ultimately, the weakest part of your entire argument.

Reducing CO2 emissions will help the economy.

Reducing them sooner, rather than later will grow the economy more over the long run than not reducing CO2 emissions.

That is an untested hypothesis that not everyone shares. I will contend that elimination our CO2 output will not change anything significantly since the exchange of CO2 between the ocean and atmosphere changes with temperature. That CO2 in the atmosphere varies primarily with ocean temperature.

If you want to reduce atmospheric CO2, you have to cool the ocean. Outside of that, you probably have to remove 50 GtC for every 1 GtC that the equilibrium will settle to.

[Wild Cobra]

How do you explain a stage full of presidential candidates, only one of which has the guts to say they believe in evolution?

That seems to be the message that right-wing politicians seem compelled to give to get primary votes.

I see the demonizing of climate scientists in the same light.
It doesn't matter. You are content with mixing politics and sciences, using that as evidence. I am not. Mixing politics and science is why people believe in the AGW scare.

[RandomGuy]

On the topic of evolution and evolution education in schools, Michele Bachmann has publicly declared her desire to push the teaching of intelligent design in science classes along with evolution education. Bachmann claims she is aware of "hundreds and hundreds" of scientists who believe in inelligent design and that it should be inserted into the science curriculum so students can decide for themselves what to believe. She even pushed for her home state of Minnesota to adopt intelligent design curricula.


In a speech given during his campaign, Newt Gingrich defended his idea that the United States was founded on Christian principles and prayer and Creationism should be put back in schools. This includes teaching creationism and intelligent design along with or instead of evolution.


Mr. Huntsman's belief in evolution and global climate change had him Tweeting "Call me crazy." Huntsman has publicly declared in numerous places that he trusts and believes the scientists on scientific issues like the theory of evolution. He is the only one in the field who has repeatedly publicly declared his support of scientists on scientific issues.


Ron Paul wants to completely eliminate the Department of Education and leave decisions like whether or not to include alternatives to evolution in the science classroom up to the individual states. However, he publicly declared when asked at a town hall style campaign stop that evolution is a theory and he did not accept it.


Perhaps the most outspoken candidate on the topic of teaching evolution in schools, Mr. Perry has declared several times he does not believe in the theory of evolution and has even said that they teach intelligent design and creationism in Texas public schools (which is an untrue statement). After declaring that evolution is just a "theory that's out there", he could not seem to escape questions at most campaign stops about science related topics.


While governor in Massachusetts, Mr. Romney opposed teaching intelligent design or creationism in the science classroom. In a recent campaign stop, he was one of the only republicans who admitted to believing in evolution. Furthermore, Romney said there is no conflict between "true religion" and "true science".


Mr. Santorum is an anti-evolution candidate who believes intelligent design should be taught in classrooms. He also does not believe in global warming or using embryonic stem cells for research.

This sample seems to bear out findings of actual studies.

[RandomGuy]

That is an untested hypothesis that not everyone shares. I will contend that elimination our CO2 output will not change anything significantly since the exchange of CO2 between the ocean and atmosphere changes with temperature. That CO2 in the atmosphere varies primarily with ocean temperature.

If you want to reduce atmospheric CO2, you have to cool the ocean. Outside of that, you probably have to remove 50 GtC for every 1 GtC that the equilibrium will settle to.

As I said before, get out there and publish.

If your theories hold weight, they can stand professional scrutiny.

[Yonivore]

Okay, Uncle. I give.

Just tell me one thing.

If we do nothing; when will I notice the first negative impacts of anthropogenic global climate change?

I want to prepare my family because, trust me we're spinning our wheels in the face your predictions of doom and gloom.

Haven't we already passed a couple of points of no return?

On the Brink: Planet Near Irreversible Point of Global Warming (http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=chr-greentree_gc&ei=utf-8&ilc=12&type=937811&p=We've+only+got+10+years+to+act+before+global+war ming+is+irreversible)

Global Warming Close to Becoming Irreversible: Scientific ... (http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=chr-greentree_gc&ei=utf-8&ilc=12&type=937811&p=We've+only+got+10+years+to+act+before+global+war ming+is+irreversible)

Global Warming is Irreversible, study suggests - The Green ... (http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oGdWHX2o1PoXYAvuBXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE1azFncWE 1BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMwRjb2xvA3NrMQR2dGlkA01TWTAwNV8xN zM-/SIG=135l7om23/EXP=1334725463/**http%3a//www2.macleans.ca/2009/01/29/global-warming-is-irreversible-study-suggests/)

World headed for irreversible climate change in five years ... (http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oGdWHX2o1PoXYAweBXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE1bTU2MTR zBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNARjb2xvA3NrMQR2dGlkA01TWTAwNV8xN zM-/SIG=13ft4rdo6/EXP=1334725463/**http%3a//www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/09/fossil-fuel-infrastructure-climate-change)

Time is Fast Running Out to Stop Irreversible Climate Change ... (http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oGdWHX2o1PoXYAw.BXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE1dTFkaGQ 4BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNQRjb2xvA3NrMQR2dGlkA01TWTAwNV8xN zM-/SIG=15bleg0qk/EXP=1334725463/**http%3a//www.stwr.org/climate-change-environment/time-is-fast-running-out-to-stop-irreversible-climate-change-a-group-of-global-warming-experts-warn.html)

Please let me know if those are the good scientists (among your minions of tens of thousand peer-reviewing the millions upon millions of scientific papers) or the bad ones (just making shit up to stir the pudding). And, if they're the good ones, what's the point of doing anything?

If they're right, times up. We should direct our efforts at adapting to the coming change instead of trying to reverse the irreversible.

I know it's about the science for you but, face it, no one is doing much more than paying lip service to doing anything concrete to reduce our CO2 emissions. Well, paying lip service while enriching themselves and throwing bad ass parties around the world - to which they travel in jets and limos - to slap each other on the back about all the good they're doing for the environment.

[RandomGuy]

It doesn't matter. You are content with mixing politics and sciences, using that as evidence. I am not. Mixing politics and science is why people believe in the AGW scare.

How do you explain the studies done showing that belief in this "AGW scare" varies proportionately with expertise?

Alarmism about ultimate effects aside, the science seems to show some evidence that we are warming the planet overall. That is a conclusion that a lot of scientists have come to.

[Wild Cobra]

How do you explain the studies done showing that belief in this "AGW scare" varies proportionately with expertise?

Alarmism about ultimate effects aside, the science seems to show some evidence that we are warming the planet overall. That is a conclusion that a lot of scientists have come to.
As already pointed out, look at how many predictions are overdue.

How can this science be trusted when so many things are constantly revised and outcomes do not happen as predicted?

It appears the same incorrect hypothesis and theories are being taught in college courses, and they are constantly wrong on predictions.

Again...

Show me something that takes full and proper account of the known energy changes caused by the sun, and the well established forcing caused by black carbon. BC is easy to determine. Mixed greenhouse gasses are not.

Of all the studies thrown this way supporting CO2 as a big of culprit as claimed, none of them properly take onto account other variables that must be considered.

In accounting, your itemized additions and subtractions net change must equal the real changes to the bottom line. Don't you see... two sets of books are being kept here. the numbers do not add up. Why should I believe any of it.

[DarrinS]

How do you explain the studies done showing that belief in this "AGW scare" varies proportionately with expertise?

link?

[RandomGuy]

As already pointed out, look at how many predictions are overdue.

How can this science be trusted when so many things are constantly revised and outcomes do not happen as predicted?

It appears the same incorrect hypothesis and theories are being taught in college courses, and they are constantly wrong on predictions.

Again...

Show me something that takes full and proper account of the known energy changes caused by the sun, and the well established forcing caused by black carbon. BC is easy to determine. Mixed greenhouse gasses are not.

Of all the studies thrown this way supporting CO2 as a big of culprit as claimed, none of them properly take onto account other variables that must be considered.

In accounting, your itemized additions and subtractions net change must equal the real changes to the bottom line. Don't you see... two sets of books are being kept here. the numbers do not add up. Why should I believe any of it.

That didn't answer my question. You just talked about what you wanted to talk about, as if I didn't ask anything.

How do you explain the fact that confidence in AGW goes up as expertise in climate science does?

[RandomGuy]

link?

You will dismiss anything I post out of hand anyway, using ad hominem logical fallacies.

You have worn me down to the point where I no longer feel the need to provide you with things.

Go find it. It is out there.

[RandomGuy]

Okay, Uncle. I give.

Just tell me one thing.

If we do nothing; when will I notice the first negative impacts of anthropogenic global climate change?

I want to prepare my family because, trust me we're spinning our wheels in the face your predictions of doom and gloom.

Haven't we already passed a couple of points of no return?

On the Brink: Planet Near Irreversible Point of Global Warming (http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=chr-greentree_gc&ei=utf-8&ilc=12&type=937811&p=We've+only+got+10+years+to+act+before+global+war ming+is+irreversible)

Global Warming Close to Becoming Irreversible: Scientific ... (http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=chr-greentree_gc&ei=utf-8&ilc=12&type=937811&p=We've+only+got+10+years+to+act+before+global+war ming+is+irreversible)

Global Warming is Irreversible, study suggests - The Green ... (http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oGdWHX2o1PoXYAvuBXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE1azFncWE 1BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMwRjb2xvA3NrMQR2dGlkA01TWTAwNV8xN zM-/SIG=135l7om23/EXP=1334725463/**http%3a//www2.macleans.ca/2009/01/29/global-warming-is-irreversible-study-suggests/)

World headed for irreversible climate change in five years ... (http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oGdWHX2o1PoXYAweBXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE1bTU2MTR zBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNARjb2xvA3NrMQR2dGlkA01TWTAwNV8xN zM-/SIG=13ft4rdo6/EXP=1334725463/**http%3a//www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/09/fossil-fuel-infrastructure-climate-change)

Time is Fast Running Out to Stop Irreversible Climate Change ... (http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oGdWHX2o1PoXYAw.BXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE1dTFkaGQ 4BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNQRjb2xvA3NrMQR2dGlkA01TWTAwNV8xN zM-/SIG=15bleg0qk/EXP=1334725463/**http%3a//www.stwr.org/climate-change-environment/time-is-fast-running-out-to-stop-irreversible-climate-change-a-group-of-global-warming-experts-warn.html)

Please let me know if those are the good scientists (among your minions of tens of thousand peer-reviewing the millions upon millions of scientific papers) or the bad ones (just making shit up to stir the pudding). And, if they're the good ones, what's the point of doing anything?

If they're right, times up. We should direct our efforts at adapting to the coming change instead of trying to reverse the irreversible.

I know it's about the science for you but, face it, no one is doing much more than paying lip service to doing anything concrete to reduce our CO2 emissions. .

I think they are right to a fair degree, actually. We are on a long term track.

This is probably one of the better points you have made, IMO.

People who have smeared the scientists have mostly won the PR war, and no one wants to do what needs to be done, due to a lack of political will.

Our responsibility to the future though, does not stop even though some of the changes may be, for the moment, irreversible.

As for what you and your family can do:

Don't live near coastlines. Build stronger houses. Shoot for energy independence.

Things we should be doing anway.

[Wild Cobra]

How do you explain the fact that confidence in AGW goes up as expertise in climate science does?
If by expertise, you mean people who learn from schools teaching improper climate science, then isn't that the answer?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If by expertise, you mean people who learn from schools teaching improper climate science, then isn't that the answer?

Its mindnumbingly stupid utterances like this that make me feel it is relevant to remind people how stupid he is. We are talking about a guy that thought it was a good idea to use a CO2 solubility chart to predict the behavior of the ocean and compared it to a fizzing soda. That is 'proper climate science' to this dolt.

[Wild Cobra]

For those who like satellite data:


For this reason and others, Andrew Dessler, a climate researcher at Texas A&M University, says he is skeptical of the satellite data’s reliability. “As far as the data go, I don’t really trust the satellite data. While satellites clearly have some advantages over the surface thermometer record, such as better sampling, measuring temperature from a satellite is actually an incredibly difficult problem. That’s why, every few years, another big problem in the UAH temperature calculation is discovered. And, when these problems are fixed, the trend always goes up,”

Sound's like they are monkeying with the dataset to me.

Satellite climate data at 33 years: questioning shaky claims that downplay global warming (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/post/the-satellite-temperature-record-questioning-shaky-claims-after-33-years/2011/12/20/gIQAd8KE7O_blog.html)

[FuzzyLumpkins]

For those who like satellite data:



Sound's like they are monkeying with the dataset to me.

Satellite climate data at 33 years: questioning shaky claims that downplay global warming (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/post/the-satellite-temperature-record-questioning-shaky-claims-after-33-years/2011/12/20/gIQAd8KE7O_blog.html)

Further evidence that you are dumb as fuck. Reading comprehension or the lack thereof is very telling.

The satellite data indicates that there is a discrepancy between the IPCC models and the satellite data. What is telling is the UofA scientists response to the blog

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/12/addressing-criticisms-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-at-13-century/

The salient point is


The first issue I want to address deals the relationship between temperature trends of observations versus model output. I often see such posts refer to an old CCSP document (2006) which, as I’ve reported in congressional testimony, was not very accurate to begin with, but which has been superseded and contradicted by several more recent publications.

These publications specifically document the fact that bulk atmospheric temperatures in the climate system are warming at only 1/2 to 1/4 the rate of the IPCC AR4 model trends. Indeed actual upper air temperatures are warming the same or less than the observed surface temperatures (most obvious in the tropics) which is in clear and significant contradiction to model projections, which suggest warming should be amplified with altitude.

The blog post even indicates one of its quoted scientists, Ben Santer, agrees that the upper air is warming less than the surface – a result with which no model agrees. So, the model vs. observational issue was not presented accurately in the post. This has been addressed in the peer reviewed literature by us and others (Christy et al. 2007, 2010, 2011, McKitrick et al. 2010, Klotzbach et al. 2009, 2010.)

Then, some people find comfort in simply denigrating the uncooperative UAH data (about which there have been many validation studies.) We were the first to develop a microwave-based global temperature product. We have sought to produce the most accurate representation of the real world possible with these data – there is no premium in generating problematic data. When problems with various instruments or processes are discovered, we characterize, fix and publish the information. That adjustments are required through time is obvious as no one can predict when an instrument might run into problems, and the development of such a dataset from satellites was uncharted territory before we developed the first methods.

What WC is too stupid to realize is that this particular data actually from John Cristy, who is a noted perer reviewed skeptic who says that the warming is not as significant as the IPCC models should predict and uses satellite data to back up the claim. He goes further to justify his work and does what i feel is a decent job in doing so.

By posting and agreeing with that blog WC is actually supporting the notion of AGW and supports that it is more signiicant than this satellite data as presented might suggest.

Further it absolutely destroys the notion asserted and repeated ad nauseum by the usual suspects that the scientific community is one homogenous group hell bent on proving AGW and over-exaggerating its effects for gain and profit.

Prima facia its stupid and it also underlies what is a concern amongst many in the scientific community: that it is too compartmentalized into camps that are uncooperative and adversarial. This argument underscores a pissing contest between climatologists that use satellite data and those that use surface temperature data.

There was a similar pissing contest between climatologists and astrophysicists 5-10 years ago because the astrophysicists were attributing the warming to solar activity. To some extent its healthy debate and good for finding the truth otoh it leads to refusal to share information which has the opposite effect.

Dumbass just picked the wrong side.

[RandomGuy]

If by expertise, you mean people who learn from schools teaching improper climate science, then isn't that the answer?

I will take that as an explanation.

"Climate Scientists are too stupid to realize their mistakes".

So you are telling me that the scientists doing this, who spend almost a decade getting PhD's in sceince-heavy courses are all too stupid to realize how bad the science is, and just haven't figured it out yet.

You are right, and they are all wrong because they are learning "improper climate science".

Given your continually demonstrated lack of critical thinking skills, I can state that your ability to determine what is "proper science" is rather low. The odds that you are right about the science being "improper" are therefore, commensurately low.

Generally, these PhD's have spend a lot of time with hard science and math courses that tend to weed out people who can't follow along or just don't have the intellectual heft to be scientists.

I find your explanation to be highly implausible.

Lastly, I find the word choice here to be damning.

"improper". Science isn't proper or improper. That is a word that is better applied to political correctness.

That says to me that you want to substitute your politics for what is being taught there.

[Yonivore]

I think they are right to a fair degree, actually. We are on a long term track.
It seems we're always on a "long term track," with anthropogenic global climate change yet, nearly every time we reach a predicted benchmark in the models, they're wrong...usually on the high side. Why do the models never underestimate the affects? Combine that with all the errors and scandals that have been discovered and I think any reasonable person has cause to be skeptical.


This is probably one of the better points you have made, IMO.
I've made it before.


People who have smeared the scientists have mostly won the PR war, and no one wants to do what needs to be done, due to a lack of political will.
I don't believe skeptics are smearing the scientists -- they're smearing the self-appointed demagogues that have aggregated your scientists' works into political bodies such as the IPCC, the UN, the GISS, and Al Gore, et. al., in order to control people's behavior by promising gloom and doom. The skepticism is increased by the knowledge the people doing the most to raise international awareness of global climate change are making butt loads of money doing so while, at the same time, doing absolutely nothing to control their own carbon footprints -- most of whom use more energy than some small countries.


Our responsibility to the future though, does not stop even though some of the changes may be, for the moment, irreversible.

As for what you and your family can do:

Don't live near coastlines. Build stronger houses. Shoot for energy independence.

Things we should be doing anway.
And, I do. But, green energies are nowhere close to being mature enough for the kinds of nonsense being demanded today. Our administration is choking off the oil and coal industries while throwing billions upon billions of dollars at renewable energy sources that -- as of today -- satisfy what? 1-3% of our energy demands?

Also, and you can correct me here because I'm not going to go find it again, it is my understanding the only way to reduce our CO2 emissions to the levels we're told are necessary to avert catastrophe would necessitate our taking most of our industrialization back to levels not seen since before the industrial revolution. Is that true?

On top of it all, China just keeps chugging along burning fuel like there's no tomorrow... If China offsets our reductions by increasing their own fuel consumption, what's the point? Isn't this a global problem?

[RandomGuy]

I don't believe skeptics are smearing the scientists

You have, in essence, accused them of fraud.

WC has, directly, accused them of being stupid.

You and other self-professed skeptics posted, and continue to pos,t op-ed pieces that directly smear the scientists, all the articles here you post do the same thing continually.

You seem to be believing something here that is easily proved to be factually incorrect. While that may not bother you, when it comes to asking me to sign on to a public policy you prefer, that does not help.

If you can provide me with a reasonable level of credible evidence, I can be convinced.



But, green energies are nowhere close to being mature enough for the kinds of nonsense being demanded today. Our administration is choking off the oil and coal industries while throwing billions upon billions of dollars at renewable energy sources that -- as of today -- satisfy what? 1-3% of our energy demands?

Also, and you can correct me here because I'm not going to go find it again, it is my understanding the only way to reduce our CO2 emissions to the levels we're told are necessary to avert catastrophe would necessitate our taking most of our industrialization back to levels not seen since before the industrial revolution. Is that true?

On top of it all, China just keeps chugging along burning fuel like there's no tomorrow... If China offsets our reductions by increasing their own fuel consumption, what's the point? Isn't this a global problem?

We are arguably not choking off the oil and coal industries. Production of both has increased in recent years. This is due to demand and supply, as it always is.

An argument that we currently get only X% of our power so, why bother developing it, is specious. "Only X% of our transportation needs is met by automobiles, the technology is just not there to move away from horses". "Our production lines in this factory only produce 1% of our total product output, therefore it doens't make sense to expand the factory"

What matters is potential going forward. One of the hardest lessons to learn in cost accounting is that sunk costs are irrelevant to making descions about future capital allocation.

You are incorrect that we would have to completely give up and go back to levels of well-being that are "pre-industrial revolution", to get our CO2 levels to zero. Nuclear and renewables are fully capable of meeting these needs with enough investment, and our ability to use energy efficiently has come a LONG way, and has the potential to go even further.

We currently have invested trillions in new coal and oil, and gas infrastructure as a global civilization, because that is what we have always done, and it has been economical in the past. What you miss here is that over time, we MUST invest similarly in nuclear and renewables.

The economics based on the physical reality of oil/coal depletion, regardless of government action, will make those sources of energy more expensive, per unit of energy.

At the same time, the economics of renewables, through technological advances, and infrastructure investment, will make those cheaper, per unit of energy.

We are nearing the crossing point now.

Yes, China, and India, are chugging these fuels. They will also be the most harmed, by what I have read. At some point they will realize this collectively too. Changing weather patterns drying up the monsoons in India will drive that point home pretty clearly.

From an economic competitiveness perspective, if your costs are stable, while your competitors' is going up, then your products become all the more cheaper, comparatively. Let China base its current economic investments on depletable fuels.

Basically what I see here is that you are basing plans for future investments on past assumptions and data. While this works a lot of the time, it is often wrong in rapidly changing environments. The world has changed while you weren't looking.

[Yonivore]

You have, in essence, accused them of fraud.

WC has, directly, accused them of being stupid.

You and other self-professed skeptics posted, and continue to pos,t op-ed pieces that directly smear the scientists, all the articles here you post do the same thing continually.

You seem to be believing something here that is easily proved to be factually incorrect. While that may not bother you, when it comes to asking me to sign on to a public policy you prefer, that does not help.

If you can provide me with a reasonable level of credible evidence, I can be convinced.
You're right, I have. As have others in this forum. But, I doubt anything I, or anyone else in this forum, says has one scintilla of impact on anything happening outside this forum.

Out in the real world, its not the scientists being attacked, its the organizations and people that are co-opting the science, exaggerating the claims, raking in the dough and, all the while, living like nothing they say is true.


We are arguably not choking off the oil and coal industries. Production of both has increased in recent years. This is due to demand and supply, as it always is.
Well as soon as the EPA gets their way, coal mining will drop off dramatically. The EPA is, last I checked, an agency in the Executive Branch.

And, increases in oil production have absolutely nothing to do with anything Barack Obama has done. Production has increased because private interests, on private and state-controlled lands, have increased production.

Obama’s Claim of Increasing Domestic Drilling Not Accurate, Say Energy Analysts (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-s-claim-increasing-domestic-drilling-not-accurate-say-energy-analysts)


The increase in domestic drilling was almost entirely in areas for which the Obama administration exercised no authority, as oil production on federal land declined by 11 percent in fiscal year 2011, according to a study by the Institute on Energy Research (IER), a free-market energy think tank. But oil production on state lands increased that year by 14 percent and increased by 12 percent on private lands.

For his part, Obama has placed a moratorium on Gulf drilling - while other countries continue to drill there.

Obama has stalled a major pipeline to carry oil to our refineries in Texas - So, Canada said "Fuck You," we'll let Warrent Buffet rail this stuff to our coasts and sell it to China who is more than happy to burn it up into the atmosphere.

Obama is responsible for ZERO increases in our energy production.


An argument that we currently get only X% of our power so, why bother developing it, is specious. "Only X% of our transportation needs is met by automobiles, the technology is just not there to move away from horses". "Our production lines in this factory only produce 1% of our total product output, therefore it doens't make sense to expand the factory"
It's not specious when you take into account the vast amounts of taxpayer treasure that is being funneled down that rabbit hole.

And, your examples don't compare. Many people kept their horses until automobiles were proven -- Obama wants to take away fossil fuels while renewable energies are not yet capable of supporting our needs. Also, it's private vs. public.

If a factory, horse rancher, or buggy-whip manufacturer wants to risk their capital on continuing a business model that doesn't look promising -- that's their choice, it's their money. As a taxpayer, I don't think my government should be in the business of free market speculation...WITH MY MONEY.


What matters is potential going forward. One of the hardest lessons to learn in cost accounting is that sunk costs are irrelevant to making descions about future capital allocation.
They're not irrelevant when they're foolish.


You are incorrect that we would have to completely give up and go back to levels of well-being that are "pre-industrial revolution", to get our CO2 levels to zero. Nuclear and renewables are fully capable of meeting these needs with enough investment, and our ability to use energy efficiently has come a LONG way, and has the potential to go even further.
"Nuclear and renewables..."

Renewables, where we're sinking the most money, are not fully capable of meeting these needs in the near -- or distant future.

Nuclear energy, of which I'm a fan, faces its own challenges from the environmental crowd who chains themselves to construction sites every time there's a nuclear plant being raised.


We currently have invested trillions in new coal and oil, and gas infrastructure as a global civilization, because that is what we have always done, and it has been economical in the past. What you miss here is that over time, we MUST invest similarly in nuclear and renewables.

The economics based on the physical reality of oil/coal depletion, regardless of government action, will make those sources of energy more expensive, per unit of energy.
Then, I'm confident, the free market will find a solution.


At the same time, the economics of renewables, through technological advances, and infrastructure investment, will make those cheaper, per unit of energy.

We are nearing the crossing point now.
Sounds like an AGCC prediction, if you ask me.


Yes, China, and India, are chugging these fuels. They will also be the most harmed, by what I have read. At some point they will realize this collectively too. Changing weather patterns drying up the monsoons in India will drive that point home pretty clearly.

From an economic competitiveness perspective, if your costs are stable, while your competitors' is going up, then your products become all the more cheaper, comparatively. Let China base its current economic investments on depletable fuels.

Basically what I see here is that you are basing plans for future investments on past assumptions and data. While this works a lot of the time, it is often wrong in rapidly changing environments. The world has changed while you weren't looking.
What I'm fundamentally saying is let private interests and the free markets determine what energy sources are most economical.

[RandomGuy]

At the same time, the economics of renewables, through technological advances, and infrastructure investment, will make those cheaper, per unit of energy.

We are nearing the crossing point now.



Sounds like an AGCC prediction, if you ask me.


You asked *me* to correct you on your facts. I have done so.

If the bulk of your response is one that mouse might try, i.e. "nuh-uh", then why do you ask me in the first place?

That these renewables are going to get cheaper is based on the following data and principles:

Technological development and innovation has driven the costs down on renewables consistantly for decades. There is no indication that we are approaching any wall in this regard, i.e. it is reasonable this trend will continue.

Basic business 101:
Efficiencies of scale bring unit costs down.
Learning curves bring unit costs down.

The very point you make about renewables making up such a small % of our energy needs directly implies that the costs MUST and WILL come down.

This isn't an "AGCC prediction". This is a logical extension of a trend, and based on basic market/economic principles.

You have set up a false dichotomy of choices.

1) No government intervention at all.

or

2) Total government "speculation with MY MONEY".


I reject your choice set. It is unrealistic and self-defeating.

Government should set ground rules and market rules, and then get out of the way as much as possible and let the engine of American innovation do what it does best.

Government's role is reducing uncertainty. The fact that you and people who believe as you do can't comprimise vastly increases uncertainty for businesses. The ironic thing is that this lack of certainty reduces business invesment, giving you an excuse to blame government, and comprimise even less.

Power swings back and forth, with one side wanting X policy, then another coming along and changing that, and in the mean time, a business wanting to invest doesn't know what the rules will be in 10 years, let alone 2.

What is needed is an obvious comprimse that can be instituted where both viewpoints give up something, and agree to not changing the rules capriciously.

The free market can then make plans and get us to the best solutions.

Lastly:

Free market systems can come up with solutions, that are, for society as a whole VERY inefficient, they do this with astonishing regularity.

Blind faith is not something that is warranted here. Reasonable solutions are.



Give me a reasonable choice set. I am perfectly willing to comprimise.

[RandomGuy]

kijVlez5R9w

[MannyIsGod]

LOL Climate Model "benchmarks".

Can someone provide me to a link describing these so called "benchmarks" that have been failed time and time again?

Thanks.

[MannyIsGod]

:lol

Thats a great video because I swear Bob Lutz sounds exactly like a combination of Yonivore, Darrin, and WC.

:lol @ somehow the Keys were supposed to be underwater. Thats not an IPCC prediction but I could imagine that coming straight form one of Yonivore's posts.

Great video (although Mahr blaming tornadoes at the start irritated me almost enough to turn it off).

[DarrinS]

kijVlez5R9w

:lol @ tornadoes

[Yonivore]

Okay, I'm not about to entertain the idea Bill Maher could fairly moderate a debate on such an issue. It's his job to get laughs by ridiculing those who disagree with his views.

Also, while I absolutely love Neil Degrasse Tyson, he's a great entertainer and makes scientific subjects easier for people like me to understand, he's not a climate scientist which, by the way, is something you and others have criticized about in the past -- that AGCC skeptic are, in large part, not climate scientists.

As an astrophysicist, Neil Degrasse Tyson is more closely aligned - on subject matter - with the 50 former NASA scientists that wrote the letter to the NASA administrator. Now, I'm not claiming they should agree with one another just that if you are going to give Neil Degrasse Tyson any respect on this subject, you should do so for the 50 former NASA scientists, as well.

Nevertheless, Lutz, or anyone with whom Maher disagrees or sees as a comedic target, who goes on Maher's show is an idiot and deserves what they get. Therefore, Lutz is an idiot.

so, instead of looking at the entertainment video you posted, I went and found a collection of statements from other real scientists (no, not all are astrophysicists or climate scientists) and, I'd like for Manny and Random to respond to these specific quotes from actual scientists -- about climate change.


Freeman Dyson, Professor Emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society said in a 2011 email exchange with a journalist (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/letters-to-a-heretic-an-email-conversation-with-climate-change-sceptic-professor-freeman-dyson-2224912.html): "First, the computer models are very good at solving the equations of fluid dynamics but very bad at describing the real world. The real world is full of things like clouds and vegetation and soil and dust which the models describe very poorly. Second, we do not know whether the recent changes in climate are on balance doing more harm than good. The strongest warming is in cold places like Greenland. More people die from cold in winter than die from heat in summer. Third, there are many other causes of climate change besides human activities, as we know from studying the past. Fourth, the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is strongly coupled with other carbon reservoirs in the biosphere, vegetation and top-soil, which are as large or larger. It is misleading to consider only the atmosphere and ocean, as the climate models do, and ignore the other reservoirs. Fifth, the biological effects of CO2 in the atmosphere are beneficial, both to food crops and to natural vegetation. The biological effects are better known and probably more important than the climatic effects. Sixth, summing up the other five reasons, the climate of the earth is an immensely complicated system and nobody is close to understanding it."
True or false? Mostly true or mostly false? Reason for a lay person to harbor some skepticism over mankind's contribution to global warming or not?


Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences has made his views clear (http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Lindzen/no_consensus.html) in several newspaper articles:"We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 °C higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds). But – and I cannot stress this enough – we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future.".[9] "[T]here has been no question whatsoever that CO2 is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas – albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in CO2 should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed."
True or false? Mostly true or mostly false? Reason for a lay person to harbor some skepticism over mankind's contribution to global warming or not?


Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University and former Chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003) said in 2005 evidence given to a select committee (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=exvuVXd14M0C): "In conclusion, observational data do not support the sea level rise scenario. On the contrary, they seriously contradict it. Therefore we should free the world from the condemnation of becoming extensively flooded in the near future."
True or false? Mostly true or mostly false? Reason for a lay person to harbor some skepticism over mankind's contribution to global warming or not?

Yeah, I know what y'all've already said about this guy but, given the earlier suggestion over the uncertainty in satellite data, what makes it better than an actual, in-person, observation that sea levels aren't rising? Particularly if observed in places where the satellite data may indicate it is or where AGCC models indicate it should be? Just asking the question...not making a declaration of any kind.


Garth Paltridge, Visiting Fellow ANU and retired Chief Research Scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired Director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre said in his 2009 book (http://books.google.com.au/books?id=FXNzPgAACAAJ&dq=climate+caper&ei=DCDQSuylA5-qkASewLz1DQ): "There are good and straightforward scientific reasons to believe that the burning of fossil fuel and consequent increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide will lead to an increase in the average temperature of the world above that which would otherwise be the case. Whether the increase will be large enough to be noticeable is still an unanswered question."
True or false? Mostly true or mostly false? Reason for a lay person to harbor some skepticism over mankind's contribution to global warming or not?


Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London said in a 2007 opinion piece (http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=2938762&page=1): "It is claimed, on the basis of computer models, that this should lead to 1.1 – 6.4 C warming. What is rarely noted is that we are already three-quarters of the way into this in terms of radiative forcing, but we have only witnessed a 0.6 (+/-0.2) C rise, and there is no reason to suppose that all of this is due to humans."
True or false? Mostly true or mostly false? Reason for a lay person to harbor some skepticism over mankind's contribution to global warming or not?


Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute said in a 2009 essay (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/commentaries/tennekes_essays_climate_models.pdf): "The blind adherence to the harebrained idea that climate models can generate 'realistic' simulations of climate is the principal reason why I remain a climate skeptic."
There's more to the essay but, that's the take away quote.

So, Agree or disagree? Mostly agree or mostly disagree? Reason for a lay person to harbor some skepticism over mankind's contribution to global warming or not?

I know, I can find more quotes if you like, there were a couple of dozen more on the list where I found these.

Now, if you respond with a scientific paper, just know I'm going to respond in this way; As you've already noted, I'm not a climate scientist, nor am I involved in the field of climate science; and, I'm not about to go back through college for a degree in a subject just so I can understand the peer-reviewed white papers you post, ostensibly in response to my posts so, I'll simply stipulate, up front, I don't understand the papers you're going to post. Tell me instead what the paper says, where I can read it, how it contradicts the above quotes, and where any public figure is telling me what you say the scientific article is telling me.

Because, as you said earlier, you're losing the PR war because people like those above and John Stossel, and many of the places where I consume my information are able to, in layman's terms, convince me AGCC is either a crock of shit or, at best, a seriously flawed theory.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Weather is always a named peril even in shitty homeowners policies --excepting flood mind you-- but make sure to ask for comprehensive coverage.


(Reuters) - Property insurance rates are on the rise around the world, solidifying a turn in the market after years of declines, insurance brokerage Marsh said on Tuesday.

Just in the United States, customers without significant exposure to natural catastrophes saw price increases of up to 10 percent in the first quarter, while those in disaster-prone areas paid rates up to 20 percent higher than their last contract, the Marsh & McLennan Cos Inc (MMC.N) unit said.

"We believe that this trend will continue in the short term, with the average rate of increase continuing to rise month over month," Dean Klisura, a Marsh managing director, said in a statement.

Prices are on the rise elsewhere, Marsh added, most sharply in the countries that have had recent natural disasters.

The company cited two main factors for the increase in prices: 2011's record-setting catastrophe losses (more than $100 billion by most estimates)and changes in the way insurance companies model their exposure to risk.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/10/us-insurance-prices-idUSBRE8390ZJ20120410

[Yonivore]

:lol @ somehow the Keys were supposed to be underwater. Thats not an IPCC prediction but I could imagine that coming straight form one of Yonivore's posts.
I know how you feel about The American Thinker but, hear me out because the article I'm linking defends your assertion the IPCC never said the Florida Keys would be under water...

Did ABC Fabricate Projections of an Underwater Southern Florida? (Updated) (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/06/did_abc_fabricate_projections.html)


Proclaiming that “sea levels are expected to rise three to five feet by late this century,” the video flashes the cover of the Obama administration’s Global Climate Change Impacts In the United States report [PDF] (http://downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/climate-impacts-report.pdf). Through the magic of animation, the report is seen opening to a page depicting a Section titled “Coastal areas are at an increasing risk from sea-level rise and storm surge.” A graphic of the Sunshine State below claims to represent “Florida with 3-feet of sea-level rise” and warns that “Areas in Red would be underwater with a 3-foot sea-level rise predicted this century.” That same voice-over (Champions?) identifies the sunken regions:

“This 13 agency report shows Southern Florida disappearing, with the Everglades, Florida Keys and parts of Cape Canaveral under water.”True, the report dismisses even IPCC AR4’s worst-case predictions of 10 to 23 inches SLR by 2100 as faulty and instead claims that “average estimates under higher emissions scenarios are for sea-level rise between 3 and 4 feet by the end of this century.” It even suggests as much as 6.5 feet.

Alarmist nonsense, to be sure. But nowhere in this report can either the page ABC highlighted or any of its claims of Southern Florida and the Keys doing a lost continent of Atlantis impression be found. That page, shown at 0:36, simply does not exist in the report. So then, exactly where did it come from?

Maybe Lutz watches ABC?

Or, maybe Lutz took the word of our President?


** Update 6/17/09 1910 EDT

AT reader Mike Malone pointed me to the White House website (http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Streaming-Now-Climate-Change-Impacts-Across-America-Renewed-Focus-for-Decisions/), and to the fact that the graphic ABC misrepresented as part of the official report is, in fact, a slide from the PowerPoint presentation (http://www.globalchange.gov/images/documents/us-impacts/usimpacts.ppt) used to launch the report yesterday. That leaves two questions: Why was this startling (albeit alarmist standard issue) claim included in the frantic speech-making event yet excluded from the actual report? And why did ABC deliberately imply otherwise by creating the animation depicting the report being turned to a page containing the claim? Any guesses?
You'll have to watch the video yourself, I'm not that interested but, I did look at the Powerpoint presentation and -- I'll be damned if the administration didn't claim the Florida Keys would be underwater. Right there in slide #11.

So, again, your problem isn't the skeptics. It's the people bringing YOUR message to the masses.

Does any of this make sense to you or are you still of the impression every American should be cuddling up with a different IPCC-approved white paper every evening?


Great video (although Mahr blaming tornadoes at the start irritated me almost enough to turn it off).
Another example of the idiots carrying your water on this issue.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Blog v Science Round 2803

[Yonivore]

Blog v Science Round 2803
Yep.

The Obama White House's blog vs. the IPCC.

[Yonivore]

Here, Fuzzy; maybe it wasn't big enough for you...


“This 13 agency report shows Southern

Florida disappearing, with the

Everglades, Florida Keys and parts of

Cape Canaveral under water.”

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Other greatest hits from Yoni's blog

Obama's Coalition of the Enraged
Shredding the Constitution
Balance the budget by 2039? Wanna bet?
The Answer Really Isn't Blowing in the Wind
Obama's Smart Diplomacy Disaster

Way to choose a scource that is not mindlessly partisan politics!

[Yonivore]

Other greatest hits from Yoni's blog
You've obviously missed the point of the post. Hopefully, Manny and Random haven't.

The American Thinker blog post isn't about the science of AGCC; it's about the misinformation on AGCC being spread by those who ostensibly agree with yours and Manny's and Random's point of view.

Manny LOL'd at that Lutz character for suggesting the IPCC predicted the Florida Keys would be under water.

I merely pointed out Lutz could have honestly come by the impression from watching ABC News or by watching the Obama administration's streamed release of a report that didn't actually say that but was said in the speech, during the release, and shown in a PowerPoint presentation shown during the speech.

So, it's not exactly fair to ridicule Lutz for merely taking this administration at its word, is it?


Way to choose a scource that is not mindlessly partisan politics!
The actual source I'm talking about is WhiteHouse.gov; I only got there through the American Thinker blog that pointed out the curious misrepresentation.

So, don't go to The American Thinker. Go to the WhiteHouse.gov website, watch the speech, download and view the PowerPoint presentation. While I can't vouch for it being said in the speech, I have no reason to doubt it was said because, I did see it in the PowerPoint presentation.

The administration's report claimed -- in a visual in the PowerPoint presentation -- that the Florida Keys would be underwater.

[RandomGuy]

So then, exactly where did it come from?
.

Footnote 103.

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Nature/rahmstorf_science_2007.pdf

Duh.

This is what the climate scientist is saying.


Regarding the lowest plausible limit to sealevel
rise, a possible assumption may be that the
rate shown in Fig. 3 stops increasing within a few
years (although it is difficult to see a physical
reason for this) and settles at a constant value of
3.5 mm/year. This implies a sea-level rise of 38
cm from 1990 to 2100. Any lower value would
require that the rate of sea-level rise drops despite
rising temperature, reversing the relationship
found in Fig. 2.
Although a full physical understanding of
sea-level rise is lacking, the uncertainty in future
sea-level rise is probably larger than previously
estimated. A rise of over 1 m by 2100 for strong
warming scenarios cannot be ruled out, because
all that such a rise would require is that the linear
relation of the rate of sea-level rise and temperature,
which was found to be valid in the 20th
century, remains valid in the 21st century. On the
other hand, very low sea-level rise values as
reported in the IPCC TAR now appear rather
implausible in the light of the observational data.

Of course, he has no evidence of this, and is just making it up for more research money.

So we can dismiss it out of hand, right?



[The Obama administration claims that south Florida faces a 3 foot rise in ocean level! How Ridiculous! See that powerpoint slide!]


Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also Known as: Appeal to Mockery, The Horse Laugh.

Description of Appeal to Ridicule
The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an "argument." This line of "reasoning" has the following form:


X, which is some form of ridicule is presented (typically directed at the claim).
Therefore claim C is false.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because mocking a claim does not show that it is false. This is especially clear in the following example: "1+1=2! That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard!"

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html


Once again, skeptics of AGCC have clearly demonstrated illogical thinking.

[RandomGuy]

It should be noted:


Areas
where coastal land is sinking, for example
by as much as 1.5 feet in this century
along portions of the Gulf Coast, would
experience that much additional sea-level
rise relative to the land.^128


Sea-level rise numbers are calculated based on an extrapolation
of NOAA tide gauge stations with records exceeding 50 years, as
reported in Zervas, C., 2001: Sea Level Variations of the United
States 1985-1999. NOAA technical report NOS CO-OPS 36.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring,
MD, 66 pp. <http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/publications/
techrpt36doc.pdf>

Sinking land + rising water = larger relative sea level, depending on locale.

Once again, when one drills down into "skeptics" claims, they don't tend to be either logical, or based on sound science.

And this is supposed to convince me of some vast evil conspiracy?

[Yonivore]

Once again, skeptics of AGCC have clearly demonstrated illogical thinking.
First of all, I didn't ask where it came from. I pointed out the Obama administration and ABC misrepresented the affects of AGCC on sea level, during a release of the administration's report on Global Climate Change Impacts In the United States.

During the speech and in their PowerPoint presentation, accompanying that speech, the administration says sea levels will rise to the point the Florida Keys are submerged.

Manny LOL'd at that Lutz guy for suggesting it has been said.

I merely show where Lutz might have gotten the idea.

I didn't discuss the science or the accuracy of the claim. I was merely pointing out it was unfair to ridicule Lutz for something the Obama administration also said -- and that was further reported by ABC.

And, I was doing so to illustrate the point AGCC proponents have a lousy set of mouthpieces doing their bidding to a public you want to understand AGCC.

I don't care what your scientist says in the paper you posted. He wasn't the one giving the speech or reporting on it, was he?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Uh-huh. So do you or do you not have americanthinker.com bookmarked or from email notifications?


Alarmist nonsense, to be sure.

I am sure you find out of hand dismissals like this to be compelling but I do not.

Meanwhile State Farm is dumping its Florida homeowners policies

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/palm-beach/fl-state-farm-20111019,0,6603066.story

Florida flood insurance rates are having to be artificially capped due to cost increases:

http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/business/realestate/housekeys/blog/2011/09/flood_insurance_program_set_to.html

[Yonivore]

Uh-huh. So do you or do you not have americanthinker.com bookmarked or from email notifications?
Actually, I googled the term, "Did the IPCC predict the Florida Keys would be under water" (or something like that).

Found the American Thinker article.

Followed the links to the WhiteHouse.gov blog.

Decided not to watch the video but, did download the WHITE HOUSE'S PowerPoint Presentation.

Found that Slide #11 represents a prediction the Florida Keys will be under water.

It was that easy.


I am sure you find out of hand dismissals like this to be compelling but I do not.

Meanwhile State Farm is dumping its Florida homeowners policies

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/palm-beach/fl-state-farm-20111019,0,6603066.story

Florida flood insurance rates are having to be artificially capped due to cost increases:

http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/business/realestate/housekeys/blog/2011/09/flood_insurance_program_set_to.html
I don't even know what you're suggesting here. I made no judgment on the accuracy of the claim that the Florida Keys would be under water. Manny ridiculed Lutz for saying the prediction had been made, I googled it, found a legitimate U. S. government source that said it, saw it had also been repeated by ABC News (In a somewhat alarmist report, I might add), and suggested Lutz may have gotten the idea from either ABC New, the White House, or some other source that reported on the release of the report.

I did not make a judgment on the science because as you've already noted, I'm not a climate scientist, nor am I involved in the field of climate science; and, I'm not about to go back through college for a degree in a subject just so I can understand the peer-reviewed white papers you post, ostensibly in response to my posts so, I'll simply stipulate, up front, I don't understand the papers you're going to post. Tell me instead what the paper says, where I can read it, how it contradicts what I have posted, and where any public figure is telling me what you say the scientific article is telling me.

[Yonivore]

By the way, I do have American Thinker bookmarked. It's a great blog.

[Yonivore]

By the way, here's slide #11 from the White House PowerPoint Presentation:


http://img846.imageshack.us/img846/5184/usimpacts.jpg

[FuzzyLumpkins]

By the way, I do have American Thinker bookmarked. It's a great blog.

Thats what I figured.

And you cannot see a relationship between the insurance industry getting out of the Florida risk market and AGW? Intentionally obtuse is cute.

those are news articles from the Orlando Sentinel saying that the insurance industry is bailing out of the risk market because of water and weather related claims. Thats not peer reviewed anything. Its a newspaper article.

What I am trying to convey to your 'conservative' mindset is that because they believe in AGW as evidenced by

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/story/2012/02/23/nb-climate-change-insurance-836.html


Here are some quotes posted by Insurance Networking News:

“From our industry’s perspective, the footprints of climate change are around us and the trend of increasing damage to property and threat to lives is clear,” said Franklin Nutter, president of the Reinsurance Association of America.

Cynthia McHale, the insurance program director at Ceres, issued a more unequivocal statement: “Our climate is changing, human activity is helping to drive the change, and the costs of these extreme weather events are going to keep ballooning unless we break through our political paralysis, and bring down emissions that are warming our planet. If we continue on this path, extreme weather is certain to cause more homes and businesses to be uninsurable in the private insurance market, leaving the costs to taxpayers or individuals.”

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-03-04/news/31120659_1_climate-change-extreme-weather-insurance-industry

They are putting their money where their mouth is and dumping FL homeowners and flood policies. This should appeal to your 'conservative' mindset because those policies do not just go away they are picked up by the fed and state governments.

[RandomGuy]

First of all, I didn't ask where it came from. I pointed out the Obama administration and ABC misrepresented the affects of AGCC on sea level, during a release of the administration's report on Global Climate Change Impacts In the United States.

During the speech and in their PowerPoint presentation, accompanying that speech, the administration says sea levels will rise to the point the Florida Keys are submerged.

Manny LOL'd at that Lutz guy for suggesting it has been said.

I merely show where Lutz might have gotten the idea.

I didn't discuss the science or the accuracy of the claim. I was merely pointing out it was unfair to ridicule Lutz for something the Obama administration also said -- and that was further reported by ABC.

And, I was doing so to illustrate the point AGCC proponents have a lousy set of mouthpieces doing their bidding to a public you want to understand AGCC.

I don't care what your scientist says in the paper you posted. He wasn't the one giving the speech or reporting on it, was he?

Lutz claimed that "the Florida keys were supposed to have disappeared by now"

The powerpoint noted that change is in the mid-range of recent predictions by 2100.

The scientist I quoted noted a great deal of uncertainty.

He also noted the large swings in sea level in the past adds to that.

His attempt was to incorporate new evidence into old projections to see if a better range of rise could be had.

His calculations suggest that it can, and that the IPCC could quite possibly be lower.

[Yonivore]

Thats what I figured.
You must be psychic.


And you cannot see a relationship between the insurance industry getting out of the Florida risk market and AGW? Intentionally obtuse is cute.

those are news articles from the Orlando Sentinel saying that the insurance industry is bailing out of the risk market because of water and weather related claims. Thats not peer reviewed anything. Its a newspaper article.

What I am trying to convey to your 'conservative' mindset is that because they believe in AGW as evidenced by

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/story/2012/02/23/nb-climate-change-insurance-836.html

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-03-04/news/31120659_1_climate-change-extreme-weather-insurance-industry

They are putting their money where their mouth is and dumping FL homeowners and flood policies. This should appeal to your 'conservative' mindset because those policies do not just go away they are picked up by the fed and state governments.
Fuck man, what do you do, quit reading my posts after one line? I'm not challenging either the claim the Florida Keys will be under water or the claim they won't. And, frankly, I don't care what insurance companies are doing out there, on what insurance companies are basing their decisions, or in what climate theory they find themselves invested. That's not the point I'm trying to make.

One more time for Fuzzy. I'll keep it real simple.

MannyIsGod (You know his work here, right?) ridiculed the guy in the Bill Maher video, Lutz is his name, for suggesting the AGCC crowd had predicted the Florida Keys would be under water.

Are you with me, so far?

Manny scoffed that the IPCC never made that prediction.

Are you good? Go back and re-read if you need to.

I googled something close to the term, "Did the IPCC predict the Florida Keys would be under water."

I found the American Thinker article that suggested Manny was right, the IPCC, never did predict sea level rises would inundate the Florida Keys.

So far, so good?

I also found that ABC News reported that the White House, during some kind of release of a climate report (I didn't even note the date), made the claim and illustrated the claim in a PowerPoint Presentation that, indeed, the Florida Keys would be under water due to AGCC.

I suggested Lutz got his impression from those sources because, and I hope you agree here, most of us get our information on current events -- including science -- from sources other than the white papers buried behind a consensus document released by the IPCC -- or the U. S. Government, for that matter.

Still with me?

In short I was pointing out to Manny it was wrong to ridicule Lutz for merely repeating a claim he may have gotten from an ostensibly credible source.

The bigger point was that this is a real issue for AGCC proponents.

There are people, who agree with your's and Manny's and Random's position on AGCC -- to whom the public looks for information -- misrepresenting the scientific data on AGCC.

I think that's a huge issue. Manny even did a face palm over Bill Maher's tornado comment.

These public figures -- from comedians to Presidents --are the ones doing your bidding on this issue. When they make mistakes, misrepresentations, or when they lie; it damages your cause.

That's my point. I have no opinion on whether or not Key West will be under water in a 100 years.

[RandomGuy]

You've obviously missed the point of the post. Hopefully, Manny and Random haven't.

The American Thinker blog post isn't about the science of AGCC; it's about the misinformation on AGCC being spread by those who ostensibly agree with yours and Manny's and Random's point of view.
.

They did not mis-represent Herr Doktor Rahmstorf's work.

Professor of Physics of the Oceans, Potsdam University
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/


A rise of over 1 m by 2100 for strong
warming scenarios cannot be ruled out, because
all that such a rise would require is that the linear
relation of the rate of sea-level rise and temperature,
which was found to be valid in the 20th
century, remains valid in the 21st century. On the
other hand, very low sea-level rise values as
reported in the IPCC TAR now appear rather
implausible in the light of the observational data.


Here is what would happen to Florida due to a sea level rise of 3 feet

Do you claim that Professor Rahmstorf's work is "misrepresentation of AGCC"?

He is lying?

[Wild Cobra]

WC has, directly, accused them of being stupid.

You complain about what you think we lie about, then do it yourself.

Intelligence and education are not the same thing. An educated person can have low or average intelligence, and an uneducated man can be intelligent, etc.

What I am speaking of is in this field, the facts are not settled, but being taught as settled.

Science once taught the world was flat. That there were four elements. were these people stupid?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You must be psychic.


Fuck man, what do you do, quit reading my posts after one line? I'm not challenging either the claim the Florida Keys will be under water or the claim they won't. And, frankly, I don't care what insurance companies are doing out there, on what insurance companies are basing their decisions, or in what climate theory they find themselves invested. That's not the point I'm trying to make.

One more time for Fuzzy. I'll keep it real simple.

MannyIsGod (You know his work here, right?) ridiculed the guy in the Bill Maher video, Lutz is his name, for suggesting the AGCC crowd had predicted the Florida Keys would be under water.

Are you with me, so far?

Manny scoffed that the IPCC never made that prediction.

Are you good? Go back and re-read if you need to.

I googled something close to the term, "Did the IPCC predict the Florida Keys would be under water."

I found the American Thinker article that suggested Manny was right, the IPCC, never did predict sea level rises would inundate the Florida Keys.

So far, so good?

I also found that ABC News reported that the White House, during some kind of release of a climate report (I didn't even note the date), made the claim and illustrated the claim in a PowerPoint Presentation that, indeed, the Florida Keys would be under water due to AGCC.

I suggested Lutz got his impression from those sources because, and I hope you agree here, most of us get our information on current events -- including science -- from sources other than the white papers buried behind a consensus document released by the IPCC -- or the U. S. Government, for that matter.

Still with me?

In short I was pointing out to Manny it was wrong to ridicule Lutz for merely repeating a claim he may have gotten from an ostensibly credible source.

The bigger point was that this is a real issue for AGCC proponents.

There are people, who agree with your's and Manny's and Random's position on AGCC -- to whom the public looks for information -- misrepresenting the scientific data on AGCC.

I think that's a huge issue. Manny even did a face palm over Bill Maher's tornado comment.

These public figures -- from comedians to Presidents --are the ones doing your bidding on this issue. When they make mistakes, misrepresentations, or when they lie; it damages your cause.

That's my point. I have no opinion on whether or not Key West will be under water in a 100 years.

So you are arguing with RG over a pissing contest with MiG and you do not contradict that Florida is at high risk due to AGW as evidenced by amongst other things the insurance industry?

Either you really have no point or are just dissembling. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the former.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You complain about what you think we lie about, then do it yourself.

Intelligence and education are not the same thing. An educated person can have low or average intelligence, and an uneducated man can be intelligent, etc.

What I am speaking of is in this field, the facts are not settled, but being taught as settled.

Science once taught the world was flat. That there were four elements. were these people stupid?

And the uneducated can be really, really stupid as well. You left out that possibility.

[MannyIsGod]

By the way, here's slide #11 from the White House PowerPoint Presentation:


http://img846.imageshack.us/img846/5184/usimpacts.jpg

CENTURY

CENTURY

NOW

NOW

CENTURY

CENTURY

NOW

NOW


No wonder you don't understand science. You can't even count to 100.

[TeyshaBlue]

Counting's hard.

[MannyIsGod]

I shouldn't expect too much. Dude only has 10 fingers and 10 toes.

[DarrinS]

So, who is right on the sea level issue?

These fuckers are all over the place.


IPCC worst case scenario: 0.6 meters (~23 inches)


German dude: > 1 meter


Al Gore: 6 meters (20 feet)


:lmao

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao Al Gore! He said 6 meters! LOL LOST TO GEORGE BUSH. LOL NOT A CLIMATE SCIENTIST! LOL EVERY CLIMATE SKEPTIC ON THE INTERNET LOVES HIM!

[Yonivore]

Lutz claimed that "the Florida keys were supposed to have disappeared by now"

The powerpoint noted that change is in the mid-range of recent predictions by 2100.

The scientist I quoted noted a great deal of uncertainty.

He also noted the large swings in sea level in the past adds to that.

His attempt was to incorporate new evidence into old projections to see if a better range of rise could be had.

His calculations suggest that it can, and that the IPCC could quite possibly be lower.
Yet, what all of us here, in the vast unwashed masses, hear is, "Scientists Predict the Florida Keys will be under water by 2100."

What you've described above is a hedge. Sea levels may or may not rise and cover the Florida Keys -- there's a lot of variables to consider. That's what you're telling me the scientists were actually trying to say.

What gets reported is "Scientists Predict the Florida Keys will be under water by 2100."

Are you even beginning to see the problem?

The vast majority of us aren't climate geeks we have neither the capacity nor the inclination to digest all the millions of scientific papers from the tens of thousands of scientists (y'all's numbers, not mine) and come up with an independent conclusion on what it is the scientific community is saying about AGCC.

So, we rely on others -- whether it be the news, the government, our favorite blogs, etc... -- where there is a capacity to understand these things.

I don't know this Lutz character so, I'm not going to try and find where he got the idea the Keys would be under water three years ago. It's good enough for me that our White House illustrated it and allowed an ABC report to hype it without saying what you said.

[MannyIsGod]

Does Yonivore even know what year it is?

[MannyIsGod]

Scientists say Keys might be underwater by 2100. Its 2011 and they're not, therefore I am confused and I determine that I cannot trust scientists due to another failed prediction.

Oh, and AL GORE!

[DarrinS]

:lmao Al Gore! He said 6 meters! LOL LOST TO GEORGE BUSH. LOL NOT A CLIMATE SCIENTIST! LOL EVERY CLIMATE SKEPTIC ON THE INTERNET LOVES HIM!


Al Gore and the IPCC -- forever linked

82RFIqcLDSQ

[Yonivore]

:lmao Al Gore! He said 6 meters! LOL LOST TO GEORGE BUSH. LOL NOT A CLIMATE SCIENTIST! LOL EVERY CLIMATE SKEPTIC ON THE INTERNET LOVES HIM!
We don't love him. We use him as an example of the problem I've been trying to describe YOU have over the past several pages of this thread.

He has, over the years, had a varying degree of credibility in the AGCC community. Didn't he and his Inconvenient Truth video receive a Nobel?

People, on your side of the fence on this issue, who are NOT climate geeks -- like you -- find Al Gore to be a credible voice of reason on the matter.

That should concern you not cause you to ridicule me for pointing it out.

[Yonivore]

Does Yonivore even know what year it is?
I'm really trying to keep this civil.

Yeah, I know what year it is.

Do you know who's representing your cause on the world stage?

People like Al Gore and Bill Maher.

[MannyIsGod]

Yonivore, as I've stated many times on here, I very much dislike Al Gore. However, I also really don't give a rats ass about the policy side of AGW. Therefore, I don't care who represents the issue.

I'll be happy to study atmospheric and climate dynamics for the next 50+ years whether or not the GOP ever believes an ounce of AGW theory. Its not my desire to develop some kind of PR campaign to convince people like you to unbury your heads and pay attention to the science instead of making decisions based on whether or not you like the guy giving the message. And I can tell you, that scientists around the world share my sentiment because if they didn't they sure as hell wouldn't have become scientists and would have instead gone into PR.

I commend you for trying to keep it civil, and I will in turn try to do the same. But the reality is that I have absolutely zero interest in the perceived success or failure of the PR campaign.

I will say this: It doesnt take an understanding of advanced atmospheric dynamics to understand climate change, and when polls show that climate change denial in this country is broken down along party lines, it tells me a whole hell of a lot. Its a pattern we see in other "contriversial" scientific issues (IE evolution)

[MannyIsGod]

http://www.people-press.org/2011/12/01/modest-rise-in-number-saying-there-is-solid-evidence-of-global-warming/

[MannyIsGod]

It is fair to say that most Americans do not have the scientific background or available resources to make an accurate assessment of the cause of what they perceive to be this winter's warmer-than-usual temperatures. Thus, Americans, when asked to speculate on the cause of the warmer temperatures, must rely on what they have read, heard, or seen. The types of discussions Americans read, see, or hear on this issue, in turn, are clearly related to their political orientations.

Gallup has previously documented a decline in Americans' concern about the seriousness of global warming, driven by greater skepticism among conservatives and Republicans. This conforms with skepticism among the conservative news media about the impact of human activities on global warming and controversies about global warming research in general.

The current findings confirm that politics do play a role in views about climate change. The majority of Democrats who believe that temperatures were warmer than usual this winter ascribe this phenomenon to global warming, while even higher majorities of Republicans and independents ascribe it to normal temperature fluctuations.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/153365/Republicans-Democrats-Differ-Causes-Warmer-Weather.aspx

[MannyIsGod]

http://www.ipsos-na.com/download/pr.aspx?id=10987

[Yonivore]

Scientists say Keys might be underwater by 2100.
That's not how ABC reported it.


Its 2011 and they're not, therefore I am confused and I determine that I cannot trust scientists due to another failed prediction.
You're right it is 2011 and that's 12 years beyond when the United Nations told us, back in 1989 that global warming would be beyond our control and creating eco-refugees by 1999.


http://nofrakkingconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/1989_un_grim_forecast_highlighted.jpg


Oh, and AL GORE!
Yeah, how 'bout that guy. He's AGCC's biggest fan and it's biggest financial beneficiary.

The AGCC crowd will never live down that piece of crap receiving a Nobel for his work on climate change.

[RandomGuy]

Here is an example of how things are changing.

From the other thread, a reasonable, no-governent subsidy price for enough renewable PV capacity to run a modest passenger car on a daily basis is roughly $100,000.

This provides power for 15 years at little to no cost.

The current projected (NPV) cost of gasoline alone for the same period, (based on 4% annual increases beyond inflation) is $61,000.

This leaves out a host of other considerations, but is meant to be illustrative of the economics involved.

Moving forward, assuming the cost of the PV system doesn't change at all relative to inflation, the price point where the gasoline cost exceeds the $100,000 is roughly $6.3/gallon, in 13 years.

The price of the PV isn't constant though. It is, as noted declining.
Assuming a downward sustained trend of 2% at the same time, the economics force the "switchover" point where the PV energy is cheaper than the gasoline energy to 9 years.

None of this uses any overly unrealistic assumptions.

The installed PV system has the benefit of not requiring yearly imports of oil, it can't be blockaded, subject to speculation or manipulations by national actors.

It also has the flexibility of producing a readily marketable product for the owner. The system produces this product, even if you don't use the car.

You can't say that about a gallon of gasoline. It has the advantage of being very energy dense, but requires a constant rolling cost, and you are competign with 3 billion asians for it.

[RandomGuy]

You complain about what you think we lie about, then do it yourself.

Intelligence and education are not the same thing. An educated person can have low or average intelligence, and an uneducated man can be intelligent, etc.

What I am speaking of is in this field, the facts are not settled, but being taught as settled.

Science once taught the world was flat. That there were four elements. were these people stupid?

The scientists polled were not in school, but out in the real world.

They would presumedly be past what the schools taught them, and, if it was different than what they encountered in school, they should be reasonably able to determine that.

Since they haven't, your statement about how and what they are taught directly implies they are stupid. Or all lying.

I'm sorry you can't see the logical implications of your biased statements.

[Yonivore]

Yonivore, as I've stated many times on here, I very much dislike Al Gore. However, I also really don't give a rats ass about the policy side of AGW. Therefore, I don't care who represents the issue.
You should. They're the chief reason AGCC proponents are losing the battle.


I'll be happy to study atmospheric and climate dynamics for the next 50+ years whether or not the GOP ever believes an ounce of AGW theory. Its not my desire to develop some kind of PR campaign to convince people like you to unbury your heads and pay attention to the science instead of making decisions based on whether or not you like the guy giving the message.
I was down with that until you suggested it was a dislike of the messenger that was causing the skepticism. That's not it. It's that the messenger has been provably wrong on so many occasions.



And I can tell you, that scientists around the world share my sentiment because if they didn't they sure as hell wouldn't have become scientists and would have instead gone into PR.

I commend you for trying to keep it civil, and I will in turn try to do the same. But the reality is that I have absolutely zero interest in the perceived success or failure of the PR campaign.

I will say this: It doesnt take an understanding of advanced atmospheric dynamics to understand climate change, and when polls show that climate change denial in this country is broken down along party lines, it tells me a whole hell of a lot. Its a pattern we see in other "contriversial" scientific issues (IE evolution)
No one is suggesting the climate isn't changing. There is just considerable (and legitimate) disagreement over what's causing it, if it's even a bad thing, and that man can do anything to alter it.

[MannyIsGod]

You should. They're the chief reason AGCC proponents are losing the battle.


I was down with that until you suggested it was a dislike of the messenger that was causing the skepticism. That's not it. It's that the messenger has been provably wrong on so many occasions.



No one is suggesting the climate isn't changing. There is just considerable (and legitimate) disagreement over what's causing it, if it's even a bad thing, and that man can do anything to alter it.

The battle? WHAT battle? I don't care that the science isn't convincing to people like you, Yoni. Policy doesn't really matter to me. I don't have a battle.

You keep saying that the messenger has been proven wrong, but its simply not the case. You've been TOLD the messenger is wrong, though.

I'll give you an example. You've been told that the IPCC models are wrong and have over projected the heating. They have not. The heating we're seeing is right in line with the range the IPCC gave at this point. Yet, according to you - the climate models have been proven wrong again and again.

How exactly does one change that perception when one of the parties doesn't look at the data?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That's not how ABC reported it.


You need to actually go and watch the newscast. He clearly says 'late this century.'

Further your blog references conditions in Florida, so my point about claims and the reaction of the insurance industry to flood and weather related claims is straight up on point.

I was wrong you are dissembling.

[Yonivore]

You need to actually go and watch the newscast. He clearly says 'late this century.'
Does he just as clearly say this is the worst case scenario that the sea level rise may actually be quite modest and within natural variations?


Further your blog references conditions in Florida, so my point about claims and the reaction of the insurance industry to flood and weather related claims is straight up on point.
So go post it in the comments on American Thinker. Your insurance comments were germane to the point of the discussion in her.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Does he just as clearly say this is the worst case scenario that the sea level rise may actually be quite modest and within natural variations?


So go post it in the comments on American Thinker. Your insurance comments were germane to the point of the discussion in her.

So you get to pick and choose what to discuss of the drivel you cite? It is directly related to credibility. You can belabor one point as to avoid seeing the forest but it is what it is.

[RandomGuy]

So, who is right on the sea level issue?

These fuckers are all over the place.


IPCC worst case scenario: 0.6 meters (~23 inches)


German dude: > 1 meter


Al Gore: 6 meters (20 feet)


:lmao

You sound just like mouse criticising scientists for not having perfect information about everything.

Appeals to ridicule don't help your case.

I would also note that the report from the administration cited 569 scientific papers about climate change.

If there is "no evidence" of AGCC, as Yoni claims, all that is lies and mis-representation.

It is about a whole lot more than mere sea level rises.

Water resources, energy, insurance costs, diseases human, and otherwise, ecological damage, agriculture, etc.

[Yonivore]

The battle? WHAT battle? I don't care that the science isn't convincing to people like you, Yoni. Policy doesn't really matter to me. I don't have a battle.
Okay, a point and a question.

I agree, my opinion doesn't matter. But, there are scientists that disagree with your assertion on Anthropogenic Global Climate Change.

Why are you spending so much time arguing the science, in here, if you don't care about convincing people like me? People like me are the only ones posting information counter to your position.


You keep saying that the messenger has been proven wrong, but its simply not the case. You've been TOLD the messenger is wrong, though.

I'll give you an example. You've been told that the IPCC models are wrong and have over projected the heating. They have not. The heating we're seeing is right in line with the range the IPCC gave at this point. Yet, according to you - the climate models have been proven wrong again and again.
Are you saying there aren't a myriad of factual errors in the movie "Inconvenient Truth?"

Al Gore represented he was using IPCC models and predictions to make that piece of garbage.

You saying "The heating we're seeing is right in line with the range the IPCC gave at this point," is meaningless when Al Gore - someone with a little bit bigger public presence than MannyIsGod - is screaming about death, destruction, and polar bears.

AND, getting Nobel prizes for it!


How exactly does one change that perception when one of the parties doesn't look at the data?
You get the media and the AGCC celebrities to tone down the alarmist rhetoric and report the data accurately.

That's how.

[RandomGuy]

1 CCSP, 2009: Best Practice Approaches for Characterizing,
Communicating, and Incorporating Scientific Uncertainty in
Decisionmaking. [Morgan, G., H. Dowlatabadi, M. Henrion,
D. Keith, R. Lempert, S. McBrid, M. Small, and T. Wilbanks
(eds.)]. Synthesis and Assessment Product 5.2. National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington DC.
2 Historical data: Lüthi, D., M. Le Floch, B. Bereiter, T. Blunier,
J.-M. Barnola, U. Siegenthaler, D. Raynaud, J. Jouzel, H.
Fischer, K. Kawamura, and T.F. Stocker, 2008: High-resolution
carbon dioxide concentration record 650,000-800,000
years before present. Nature, 453(7193), 379-382.
1959-2008 data: Tans, P., 2008: Trends in Atmospheric
Carbon Dioxide: Mauna Loa. NOAA Earth System Research
Laboratory (ESRL). [Web site] <http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/
gmd/ccgg/trends/> Data available at <ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.
gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_annmean_mlo.txt>
2100 projected data: International Institute for Applied
System Analysis (IIASA) GGI Scenario Database, 2008.
<http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/GGI/DB/>
3 Forster, P., V. Ramaswamy, P. Artaxo, T. Berntsen, R. Betts,
D.W. Fahey, J. Haywood, J. Lean, D.C. Lowe, G. Myhre, J.
Nganga, R. Prinn, G. Raga, M. Schulz, and R. Van Dorland,
2007: Changes in atmospheric constituents and in radiative
forcing. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Basis.
Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
[Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis,
K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York,
pp. 129-234.
4 Denman, K.L., G. Brasseur, A. Chidthaisong, P. Ciais, P.M.
Cox, R.E. Dickinson, D. Hauglustaine, C. Heinze, E.
Holland, D. Jacob, U. Lohmann, S Ramachandran, P.L. da
Silva Dias, S.C. Wofsy, and X. Zhang, 2007: Couplings between
changes in the climate system and biogeochemistry. In:
Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution
of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon,
S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt,
M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, pp. 499-587.
5 Ko, M., J.S. Daniel, J.R. Herman, P.A. Newman, and V.
Ramaswamy, 2008: The future and recovery. In: Trends in
Emissions of Ozone-Depleting Substances, Ozone Layer Recovery,
and Implications for Ultraviolet Radiation Exposure.
[Ravishankara, A.R., M.J. Kurylo, and C.A. Ennis (eds.)].
Synthesis and Assessment Product 2.4. NOAA’s National
Climatic Data Center, Asheville, NC, pp. 133-154.
6 Ravishankara, A.R., M.J. Kurylo, and A.-M. Schmoltner,
2008: Introduction. In: Trends in Emissions of Ozone-
Depleting Substances, Ozone Layer Recovery, and Implications
for Ultraviolet Radiation Exposure. [Ravishankara,
A.R., M.J. Kurylo, and C.A. Ennis (eds.)]. Synthesis and
Assessment Product 2.4. NOAA’s National Climatic Data
Center, Asheville, NC, pp. 23-28.
7 Blasing, T.J., 2008: Recent Greenhouse Gas Concentrations.
Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge
National Laboratory. <http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.
html>
8 Fahey, D.W. (lead author), 2007: Twenty Questions and Answers
about the Ozone Layer: 2006 Update. World Meteorological
Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 50 pp. <http://www.esrl.
noaa.gov/csd/assessments/2006/twentyquestions.html>
9 Thompson, D.W.J. and S. Solomon, 2002: Interpretation
of recent Southern Hemisphere climate change. Science,
296(5569), 895-899.
10 Kahn, R.A., H. Yu, S.E. Schwartz, M. Chin, G. Feingold, L.A.
Remer, D. Rind, R. Halthore, and P. DeCola, 2009: Introduction.
In: Atmospheric Aerosol Properties and Climate
Impacts. [Chin, M., R.A. Kahn, and S.E. Schwartz (eds.)].
Synthesis and Assessment Product 2.3. National Aeronautics
and Space Administration, Washington, DC, pp. 9-20.
11 Solomon, S., G.-K. Plattner, R. Knutti, and P. Friedlingstein,
2009: Irreversible climate change because of carbon dioxide
emissions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
106(6), 1704-1709.
12 Archer, D., 2005: Fate of fossil fuel CO2 in geologic
time. Journal of Geophysical Research, 110, C09S05,
doi:10.1029/2004JC002625.
13 Shindell, D.T., H. Levy II, A. Gilliland, M.D. Schwarzkopf,
and L.W. Horowitz, 2008: Climate change from short-lived
emissions due to human activities. In: Climate Projections
Based on Emissions Scenarios for Long-Lived and Short-
Lived Radiatively Active Gases and Aerosols. [Levy II, H.,
D.T. Shindell, A. Gilliland, M.D. Schwarzkopf, and L.W.
Horowitz, (eds.)]. Synthesis and Assessment Product 3.2.
U.S. Climate Change Science Program, Washington, DC,
pp. 27-60.
14 Santer, B.D., J.E. Penner, and P.W. Thorne, 2006: How well
can the observed vertical temperature changes be reconciled
with our understanding of the causes of these changes? In:
Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for
Understanding and Reconciling Differences [Karl, T.R.,
S.J. Hassol, C.D. Miller, and W.L. Murray (eds.)]. Synthesis
and Assessment Product 1.1 U.S. Climate Change Science
Program, Washington, DC, pp. 89-118.
15 Hansen, J., M. Sato, R. Ruedy, L. Nazarenko, A. Lacis,
G.A. Schmidt, G. Russell, I. Aleinov, M. Bauer, S. Bauer,
N. Bell, B. Cairns, V. Canuto, M. Chandler, Y. Cheng, A.
Del Genio, G. Faluveg E. Fleming, A. Friend, T. Hall,
C. Jackman, M. Kelley, N. Kiang, D. Koch, J. Lean, J.
Lerner, K. Lo, S. Menon, R. Miller, P. Minnis, T. Novakov,
V. Oinas, Ja. Perlwitz, Ju. Perlwitz, D. Rind, A. Romanou, D.
Shindell, P. Stone, S. Sun, N. Tausnev, D. Thresher, B.
Wielicki, T. Wong, M. Yao, and S. Zhang 2005: Efficacy
of climate forcings. Journal of Geophysical Research, 110,
D18104, doi:10.1029/2005JD005776.
16 National Research Council, 2005: Radiative Forcing of
Climate Change: Expanding the Concept and Addressing
Uncertainties. National Academies Press, Washington DC,
207 pp.
17 Hansen, J., M. Sato, R. Ruedy, A. Lacis, and V. Oinas, 2000:
Global warming in the twenty-first century: an alternative
scenario. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
97(18), 9875-9880.
18 Field, C.B., J. Sarmiento, and B. Hales, 2007: The carbon cycle
of North America in a global context. In: The First State
of the Carbon Cycle Report (SOCCR): The North American
Carbon Budget and Implications for the Global Carbon
Cycle [King, A.W., L. Dilling, G.P. Zimmerman, D.M.
Fairman, R.A. Houghton, G. Marland, A.Z. Rose, and Rose

[Yonivore]

So you get to pick and choose what to discuss of the drivel you cite? It is directly related to credibility. You can belabor one point as to avoid seeing the forest but it is what it is.
I chose the point that was relevant to the conversation I was having. I wasn't interested in whether or not Lutz statement was true.

I was discussing ABC's and the White House's misrepresentation of a government report.

[RandomGuy]

Wilbanks (eds.)]. Synthesis and Assessment Product 2.2. NOAA’s
National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, NC, pp. 21-28.
19 Tarnocai, C., C.-L. Ping, and J. Kimble, 2007: Carbon cycles in
the permafrost region of North America. In: The First State of
the Carbon Cycle Report (SOCCR): The North American Carbon
Budget and Implications for the Global Carbon Cycle [King,
A.W., L. Dilling, G.P. Zimmerman, D.M. Fairman, R.A. Houghton,
G. Marland, A.Z. Rose, and T.J. Wilbanks (eds.)]. Synthesis and
Assessment Product 2.2. NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center,
Asheville, NC, pp. 127-138.
20 Jansen, E., J. Overpeck, K.R. Briffa, J.-C. Duplessy, F. Joos, V.
Masson-Delmotte, D. Olago, B. Otto-Bliesner, W.R. Peltier, S.
Rahmstorf, R. Ramesh, D. Raynaud, D. Rind, O. Solomina, R.
Villalba and D. Zhang, 2007: Palaeoclimate. In: Climate Change
2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group
I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen,
M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H.L. Miller (eds.)].
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York,
pp. 433-497.
21 Canadell, J.G., C. Le Quéré, M.R. Raupach, C.B. Field, E.T.
Buitenhuis, P. Ciais, T.J. Conway, N.P. Gillett, R.A. Houghton, and
G. Marland, 2007: Contributions to accelerating atmospheric CO2
growth from economic activity, carbon intensity, and efficiency of
natural sinks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
104(47), 18866-18870.
22 Royal Society, 2005: Ocean Acidification Due to Increasing Atmospheric
Carbon Dioxide. Policy Document 12/05. Royal Society,
London, 60 pp.
23 Orr, J.C., V.J. Fabry, O. Aumont, L. Bopp, S.C. Doney, R.A. Feely,
A. Gnanadesikan, N. Gruber, A. Ishida, F. Joos, R.M. Key, K.
Lindsay, E. Maier-Reimer, R. Matear, P. Monfray, A. Mouchet,
R.G. Najjar, G.-K. Plattner, K.B. Rodgers, C.L. Sabine, J.L.
Sarmiento, R. Schlitzer, R.D. Slater, I.J. Totterdell, M.-F. Weirig,
Y. Yamanaka, and A. Yool, 2005: Anthropogenic ocean acidification
over the twenty-first century and its impact on calcifying organisms.
Nature, 437(7059), 681-686.
24 Allen, M.R., 2003: Liability for climate change. Nature, 421(6926),
891-892.
25 Clarke, L., J. Edmonds, H. Jacoby, H. Pitcher, J. Reilly, and R.
Richels, 2007: Scenarios of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Atmospheric
Concentrations. Sub-report 2.1A of Synthesis and Assessment
Product 2.1. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Biological
& Environmental Research, Washington, DC, 154 pp.
26 The spatial average of annual-average surface air temperatures
around the globe is commonly referred to as the global average
surface air temperature.
27 Meier, M.F., M.B. Dyurgerov, U.K. Rick, S. O’Neel, W.T.
Pfeffer, R.S. Anderson, S.P. Anderson, and A.F. Glazovsky, 2007:
Glaciers dominate eustatic sea-level rise in the 21st century.
Science, 317(5841), 1064-1067.
28 Trenberth, K.E., P.D. Jones, P. Ambenje, R. Bojariu, D. Easterling,
A. Klein Tank, D. Parker, F. Rahimzadeh, J.A. Renwick, M.
Rusticucci, B. Soden, and P. Zhai, 2007: Observations: surface and
atmospheric climate change. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical
Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
[Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B.
Averyt, M. Tignor, and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, pp. 235-335.
29 Steffen, K., P.U. Clark, J.G. Cogley, D. Holland, S. Marshall, E.
Rignot, and R. Thomas, 2008: Rapid changes in glaciers and ice
sheets and their impacts on sea level. In: Abrupt Climate Change.
Synthesis and Assessment Product 3.4. U.S. Geological Survey,
Reston, VA, pp. 60-142.
30 Lanzante, J.R., T.C. Peterson, F.J. Wentz, and K.Y. Vinnikov, 2006:
What do observations indicate about the change of temperatures
in the atmosphere and at the surface since the advent of measuring
temperatures vertically? In: Temperature Trends in the Lower
Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences
[Karl, T.R., S.J. Hassol, C.D. Miller, and W.L. Murray (eds.)]. Synthesis
and Assessment Product 1.1 U.S. Climate Change Science
Program, Washington, DC, pp. 47-70.
31 Santer, B.D., P.W. Thorne, L. Haimberger, K.E. Taylor, T.M.L.
Wigley, J.R. Lanzante, S. Solomon, M. Free, P.J. Gleckler, P.D.
Jones, T.R. Karl, S.A. Klein, C. Mears, D. Nychka, G.A. Schmidt,
S.C. Sherwood, and F.J. Wentz, 2008: Consistency of modelled and
observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere. International
Journal of Climatology, 28(13), 1703-1722.
32 Uncertainties in the data are an order of magnitude smaller than
the trend according to Karl, T.R., J.R. Christy, R.A. Clarke, G.V.
Gruza, J. Jouzel, M.E. Mann, J. Oerlemans, M.J. Salinger, and
S.-W. Wang, 2001: Observed climate variability and change. In:
Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working
Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change [Houghton, J.T., Y. Ding, D.J.
Griggs, M. Noguer, P.J. van der Linden, X. Dai, K. Maskell, and
C.A. Johnson (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
UK, and New York, pp. 99-181.
Temperature data:
Smith, T.M. and R.W. Reynolds, 2004: Improved extended
reconstruction of SST (1854–1997). Journal of Climate, 17(12),
2466-2477.
Jones, P.D., M. New, D.E. Parker, S. Martin, and I.G. Rigor,
1999: Surface air temperature and its changes over the past 150
years. Reviews of Geophysics, 37(2), 173-199.
Carbon dioxide data:
Data from 1974 to present: Tans, P., 2008: Trends in Atmospheric
Carbon Dioxide: Mauna Loa. NOAA Earth System Research
Laboratory (ESRL). [Web site] <http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/
ccgg/trends/> Data available at <ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/
trends/co2_annmean_mlo.txt>
1958-1974 data are from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography
(Keeling) Mauna Loa Observatory record. <http://scrippsco2.
ucsd.edu/>
Pre-1958 values are annual points taken from a smooth
fit to the Law Dome data: Etheridge, D.M., L.P. Steele, R.L.
Langenfelds, R.J. Francey, J.-M. Barnola, and V.I. Morgan, 1996:
Natural and anthropogenic changes in atmospheric CO2 over the
last 1000 years from air in Antarctic ice and firn. Journal of Geophysical
Research, 101(D2), 4115-4128.
33 Easterling, D. and M. Wehner, 2009: Is the climate warming
or cooling? Geophysical Research Letters, 36, L08706,
doi:10.1029/2009GL037810.
34 Barnett, T.P., D.W. Pierce, H.G. Hidalgo, C. Bonfils, B.D. Santer, T.
Das, G. Bala, A.W. Wood, T. Nozawa, A.A. Mirin, D.R. Cayan, and
M.D. Dettinger, 2008: Human-induced changes in the hydrology of
the western United States. Science, 319(5866), 1080-1083.
35 Willett, K.M., N.P. Gillett, P.D. Jones, and P.W. Thorne, 2007: Attribution
of observed surface humidity changes to human influence.
Nature, 449(7163), 710-712.
36 Santer, B.D., C. Mears, F.J. Wentz, K.E. Taylor, P.J. Gleckler, T.M.L.
Wigley, T.P. Barnett, J.S. Boyle, W. Brüggemann, N.P. Gillett,
S.A. Klein, G.A. Meehl, T. Nozawa, D.W. Pierce, P.A. Stott, W.M.
Washington, and M.F. Wehner, 2007: Identification of human-induced
changes in atmospheric moisture content. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences, 104(39), 15248-15253..


Sorry, there's no proof, none, zilch, zero, that humankind is having any appreciable affect on global climate.

There are 20 pages more worth of citations.

That is a lot of mis-charatorisation. Remember, since there is "no proof" that we are having any appreciable affect, all of the science points to no effect whatsoever.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

1 CCSP, 2009: Best Practice Approaches for Characterizing,
Communicating, and Incorporating Scientific Uncertainty in
Decisionmaking. [Morgan, G., H. Dowlatabadi, M. Henrion,
D. Keith, R. Lempert, S. McBrid, M. Small, and T. Wilbanks
(eds.)]. Synthesis and Assessment Product 5.2. National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington DC.

pfft. if you are not 100% sure then you just blow it off.

[RandomGuy]

Not only is there no proof, all of these scientists finding this evidence that we aren't having as much of an affect can't figure out that their findings contradict what they were taught in school.

We need to teach them "proper" theory about AGCC.

[Yonivore]

citations
Your point?

I've already stated the actual report that was released by the government did not make the claim the Florida Keys would be under water by 2100. I merely demonstrated the person announcing the release said that in his speech and indicated it in the PowerPoint presentation accompanying the release.

That, apparently, was sufficient for ABC News to run an alarmist story about "Thinking twice before retiring to Florida."

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I chose the point that was relevant to the conversation I was having. I wasn't interested in whether or not Lutz statement was true.

I was discussing ABC's and the White House's misrepresentation of a government report.

So was I. You went to a politically partisan blog. I went to a newspaper and insurance industry sources.

You are not the arbiter of this debate for anyone but yourself. If you do not think that how property claims are rising or what the insurance industry is doing about it in Florida and lists as cause is compelling then so be it but it is very much so on point.

Critical thinking helps. I do not allow myself to be spoonfed by pundits and hacks.

[RandomGuy]

Your point?

I've already stated the actual report that was released by the government did not make the claim the Florida Keys would be under water by 2100. I merely demonstrated the person announcing the release said that in his speech and indicated it in the PowerPoint presentation accompanying the release.

That, apparently, was sufficient for ABC News to run an alarmist story about "Thinking twice before retiring to Florida."

My point is that you are both factually incorrect, and that your thinking about the subect is seriously logically flawed.

Your public policy perscription about the science that you think illogically about, and actively, provably misrepresent, is quite arguably disasterous, and the worst effects you claim about not adopting your policy perscription are simply not plausible.

You are about as wrong on this as it is possible to be on a subject.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

i also want to point out that I went to those tow sources versus scientific literature precisely because the discussion was with you. You have indicated a distrust and/or difficulty understanding --I am now realizing is more out of convenience-- of scientific literature.

I figured you being a self styled 'conservative' might consider industry leaders to be a source that you could actually find credence.

What i am finding is that you are so politically programmed to distraction. Your reaction is predetermined before an argument is even made. You as a matter of course just discount arguments and find solace in pundits and hacks.

I am ambivalent between concern and sadness.

[RandomGuy]

Thats what I figured.

And you cannot see a relationship between the insurance industry getting out of the Florida risk market and AGW? Intentionally obtuse is cute.

those are news articles from the Orlando Sentinel saying that the insurance industry is bailing out of the risk market because of water and weather related claims. Thats not peer reviewed anything. Its a newspaper article.

What I am trying to convey to your 'conservative' mindset is that because they believe in AGW as evidenced by

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/story/2012/02/23/nb-climate-change-insurance-836.html



http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-03-04/news/31120659_1_climate-change-extreme-weather-insurance-industry

They are putting their money where their mouth is and dumping FL homeowners and flood policies. This should appeal to your 'conservative' mindset because those policies do not just go away they are picked up by the fed and state governments.

Oddly enough, the number of claims for lightning strikes is... (drumroll) directly related to temperature as well.

The costs of doing nothing to society are buried in everything.

The costs of pushing for green energy are upfront.

Because we have a segment of the population that will bitch and whine about taxes, a cost they can see, we will be forced to accept the higher, hidden costs to our economy that will cost us far more in the long run.

The same can be said about a lot of things.

Goverment is where we actively, collectively pool our resources to do things that the free market and individuals cannot.

This pooling of resources gets demonized as inherently evil, severely limiting our ability as a country to respond to obvious trends in a thoughtful manner.

[Yonivore]

My point is that you are both factually incorrect, and that your thinking about the subect is seriously logically flawed.

Your public policy perscription about the science that you think illogically about, and actively, provably misrepresent, is quite arguably disasterous, and the worst effects you claim about not adopting your policy perscription are simply not plausible.

You are about as wrong on this as it is possible to be on a subject.
Wait, I'm not an English major either.

What are you saying?

I'm wrong about ABC misrepresenting the report?

I'm wrong about the White House discussing information, in the release, that isn't contained in the report?

I'm wrong about asserting there are a bunch of idiots trying to scare us into believing in anthropogenic global climate change?

I'm wrong about there not being any reasonable, knowledgeable people -- with a shred of credibility on the issue -- explaining AGCC to the country or the world?

What am I wrong about?

[DarrinS]

If there is "no evidence" of AGCC, as you claim, all that is lies and mis-representation.


Please stop claiming that I claim this, as you misrepresent ME.

I don't think there is "no evidence" of AGW -- I just have doubts about (1) the amount of human contribution vs. natural variability (2) climate sensitivity and (3) the nature of feedbacks.

[RandomGuy]

i also want to point out that I went to those tow sources versus scientific literature precisely because the discussion was with you. You have indicated a distrust and/or difficulty understanding --I am now realizing is more out of convenience-- of scientific literature.

I figured you being a self styled 'conservative' might consider industry leaders to be a source that you could actually find credence.

What i am finding is that you are so politically programmed to distraction. Your reaction is predetermined before an argument is even made. You as a matter of course just discount arguments and find solace in pundits and hacks.

I am ambivalent between concern and sadness.

Think about what it takes to be a religious conservative, and it becomes clearer.

Unfailing, unchanging, unquestioning, adherence to dogma, and commonly held belief systems. That is what it takes to sustain a religion.

Now apply an inability to adapt to change to a rapidly changing world that requires changing policy solutions, and adaptations in position to changing conditions.

Conservatism, and caution are not inherently bad. It just leads to inadaptability, especially given human tendencies to confirmation bias.

[Yonivore]

So was I. You went to a politically partisan blog.
I went through a politically partisan blog to get to a government website, a government presentation and an ABC report.

For what it's worth, the politically partisan blog, about which you're hyperventilating, supported Manny's view. I think I pointed that out several times.


I went to a newspaper and insurance industry sources.

You are not the arbiter of this debate for anyone but yourself. If you do not think that how property claims are rising or what the insurance industry is doing about it in Florida and lists as cause is compelling then so be it but it is very much so on point.
They're not compelling in a discussion about whether or not ABC and the government are misrepresenting facts contained in a government report. I didn't even get into what the facts are -- just that ABC and the presenter of the report, represented facts different than how they were printed in the actual report.


Critical thinking helps. I do not allow myself to be spoonfed by pundits and hacks.
So does paying attention to what's being said.

[RandomGuy]

That's not how ABC reported it.


You're right it is 2011 and that's 12 years beyond when the United Nations told us, back in 1989 that global warming would be beyond our control and creating eco-refugees by 1999.


http://nofrakkingconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/1989_un_grim_forecast_highlighted.jpg


Yeah, how 'bout that guy. He's AGCC's biggest fan and it's biggest financial beneficiary.

The AGCC crowd will never live down that piece of crap receiving a Nobel for his work on climate change.

If I had a dime for every statement or mistake by a scientist mouse dredges up to disprove evolution...

Your ad hominem is rejected.

Given the amount of published science is increasing exponentially, with the implication that our overall knowledge base is increasing, it should surprise no one that 30 year old predictions didn't pan out.

"This guy predicted we would have men on the moon by 1950, boy was he wrong. That must mean that predictions of being on the moon by 1970 are just as wrong".

Specious, and illogical, with a side order of sneering condescention.

No thanks.

[Yonivore]

Think about what it takes to be a religious conservative, and it becomes clearer.

Unfailing, unchanging, unquestioning, adherence to dogma, and commonly held belief systems. That is what it takes to sustain a religion.
"Settled Science" - Motto of the Church of Anthropogenic Global Climate Change. Al Gore, Head Pastor

[Yonivore]

If I had a dime for every statement or mistake by a scientist mouse dredges up to disprove evolution...

Your ad hominem is rejected.

Given the amount of published science is increasing exponentially, with the implication that our overall knowledge base is increasing, it should surprise no one that 30 year old predictions didn't pan out.

"This guy predicted we would have men on the moon by 1950, boy was he wrong. That must mean that predictions of being on the moon by 1970 are just as wrong".

Specious, and illogical, with a side order of sneering condescention.

No thanks.
Well, except that it's not just any scientist, it's the same body upon which you would have me rely for scientific certainty, today.

Who's to say they're not wrong again?

[MannyIsGod]

:lol

Get the media to convince me.

Really Yoni?


I mean REALLY?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Think about what it takes to be a religious conservative, and it becomes clearer.

Unfailing, unchanging, unquestioning, adherence to dogma, and commonly held belief systems. That is what it takes to sustain a religion.

Now apply an inability to adapt to change to a rapidly changing world that requires changing policy solutions, and adaptations in position to changing conditions.

Conservatism, and caution are not inherently bad. It just leads to inadaptability, especially given human tendencies to confirmation bias.

Its just very disappointing to me how far critical thinking and consideration of principles has disappeared. I put conservative and liberal in quotations because as principles they no longer have meaning. They are just about who gets to have control.

Its engendered by the political process and most people are too lazy to give a fuck.

I can understand tradition.
I can understand risk aversion.
I can understand liberty.
I can understand compassion.

Its certainly not about policy specifics either. Its about who gets to make them, what or why they are that way be damned.

You'll get some lipservice as to that but there is always a source and seldom its from true self reliance and an attempt at critical decision making.

[DarrinS]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/153365/Republicans-Democrats-Differ-Causes-Warmer-Weather.aspx

Do you not see the irony in using this poll to support your assertion?


Did you read this?





Most Americans agree that this winter has been warmer than usual in their local area, but don't agree on the cause. Republicans and independents are more likely to say the warmer temperatures are due to normal year-to-year temperature variations, while Democrats are more likely to say the cause is global warming.





Seriously? :lmao @ Manny. You know better.

[RandomGuy]

.

[Yonivore]

:lol

Get the media to convince me.

Really Yoni?


I mean REALLY?
No, not really.

Get the media and world organizations that want me to be alarmed about AGCC and be convinced it is real, that it's bad, and that I can do something about it to FIND an anthropogenic global climate change proponent with credibility and an ability to communicate complicated science in a easy way.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson, for instance. He might could be a good spokesperson -- even though he's not a climate scientist -- for the AGCC crowd to develop into a credible, reasonable messenger.

[Yonivore]

Well, except that it's not just any scientist, it's the same body upon which you would have me rely for scientific certainty, today.

Who's to say they're not wrong again?
Wait! There are people saying they're wrong again and, quite frankly, they make a more compelling argument, to me -- a simple lay person, not involved in climate science -- that Al Gore, you, or any of the white papers you've linked in here.

[RandomGuy]

Wait, I'm not an English major either.

What are you saying?

I'm wrong about ABC misrepresenting the report?

I'm wrong about the White House discussing information, in the release, that isn't contained in the report?

I'm wrong about asserting there are a bunch of idiots trying to scare us into believing in anthropogenic global climate change?

I'm wrong about there not being any reasonable, knowledgeable people -- with a shred of credibility on the issue -- explaining AGCC to the country or the world?

What am I wrong about?

Your misrepresentation are based on strawman attacks where you misrepresent what scientists say by implication.

You are wrong that there is no evidence of AGW.

Your "do nothing" public policy prescription leads to a lot of hidden, widespread costs. These costs will end up being far more disruptive to the economy than any 100 Solyndras. But, you won't see them. They won't be detailed in conservative blogs or on Fox news headlines. For you, they won't seem to exist.

They will be there nonetheless.

You claim that pushing for renewables and lowering emissions would "push us off a cliff". I have repeatedly pointed out that is quite arguably not only wrong, but the opposite of what would likely happen in the long run.

Your response is simply to double down on ad hominems, and whatever other logical fallacy seems to make sense to you.

(shrugs)

I do not buy the evil conspiracy. There is evidence of AGW, because that is what the scientists producing the research have concluded.

I take them at their word, because I do not have reason to doubt them.

[MannyIsGod]

Do you not see the irony in using this poll to support your assertion?


Did you read this?






Seriously? :lmao @ Manny. You know better.

Raising the global temps has raised winter temps in the United States.

This is not some random event like an isolated tornado outbreak.

I read it, and I found nothing wrong with it.

[RandomGuy]

No, not really.

Get the media and world organizations that want me to be alarmed about AGCC and be convinced it is real, that it's bad, and that I can do something about it to FIND an anthropogenic global climate change proponent with credibility and an ability to communicate complicated science in a easy way.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson, for instance. He might could be a good spokesperson -- even though he's not a climate scientist -- for the AGCC crowd to develop into a credible, reasonable messenger.

I have no doubt, none, zilch, nada, zip, that were he to do so, you would demonize him, and you would be joined by every other Denier blog, WSJ op-ed, and Fox news talking head.

No one here doubts that either, even the people who tend to agree with your conspiracy theory.

[MannyIsGod]

Darrin, I am not you. I read my links, and I make sure that they actually say what I want them to say before I post them. Why? Because I'm not pulling something out of thin air then googling away at finding things to support it.

You are MORE than welcome to try to turn the way I bust you around on me in the future, but I would expect more face plants just like this one.

I bet you felt sooooooooooooooooooo good when you thought you got me too. :lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So was I. You went to a politically partisan blog. I went to a newspaper and insurance industry sources.

You are not the arbiter of this debate for anyone but yourself. If you do not think that how property claims are rising or what the insurance industry is doing about it in Florida and lists as cause is compelling then so be it but it is very much so on point.

Critical thinking helps. I do not allow myself to be spoonfed by pundits and hacks.


So does paying attention to what's being said.

Now you are being petulant. I am forced to dumb it down for you.

You sit there and claim that all you care about is some supposed specific inaccuracy in an ABC report that amongst other things stated that Florida was expected to experience an adverse rise in sea levels in the next 100 years.

Now lets just disregard for a moment that you have been waffling over and over again as to what that particular inaccuracy is.

Instead, lets consider what I was saying. I linked multiple non-scientist, leading industry sources --trying to consider your bias-- that show that the insurance industry is very concerned about flooding and weather related claims in Florida, that they have spoken before both the Canadian and US congresses, and in fact are raising flood insurance rates as well as getting out of the homeowners coverage market entirely citing ballooning flood and weather related claims in the state.

Its pretty clear what my point is: an entire financial industry believes in the significance of climate change in Florida. that they are not only talking the talk but they are walking the walk.

Now lets consider what you are saying: that an ABC News Report about the significance of climate change was inaccurate about said significance in the sate of Florida.

Does that clear up why I am saying that if what I am contending is irrelevant then you have no point? Does that clear up why I am saying that you are being intentionally obtuse? Does that clear up why I say that you are missing the forest for a tree?

Do you want me to spell it out for you any clearer?

You are behaving like a child. One that is putting their hands over their ears and screaming 'I don't have to listen to you.' Its intellectually dishonest and quite frankly contemptible.

[MannyIsGod]

Furthermore, can you explain to me how the poll fails to show that beliefs were broken down on party lines? That was my initial point.

[RandomGuy]

Its just very disappointing to me how far critical thinking and consideration of principles has disappeared. I put conservative and liberal in quotations because as principles they no longer have meaning. They are just about who gets to have control.

Its engendered by the political process and most people are too lazy to give a fuck.

I can understand tradition.
I can understand risk aversion.
I can understand liberty.
I can understand compassion.

Its certainly not about policy specifics either. Its about who gets to make them, what or why they are that way be damned.

You'll get some lipservice as to that but there is always a source and seldom its from true self reliance and an attempt at critical decision making.

I am, in the end, for what works. I don't really think of myself as terribly "liberal", but get shoved in that box by people who think of themselves as "conservative". At this point, it is just shorthand.

FWIW, I end up at pretty much the same spot as the Dalai Lama at political compass.org. Civil liberties, freewill, and moral responsibility to those who need help.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I am, in the end, for what works. I don't really think of myself as terribly "liberal", but get shoved in that box by people who think of themselves as "conservative". At this point, it is just shorthand.

FWIW, I end up at pretty much the same spot as the Dalai Lama at political compass.org. Civil liberties, freewill, and moral responsibility to those who need help.

Oh I get that just from hearing you talk about how taxation should be used as a tool to discourage behavior. That is application of principle which is exactly what I am talking about.

I am referring to the reactionary drivel that you see most often.

[RandomGuy]

Its pretty clear what my point is: an entire financial industry believes in the significance of climate change in Florida. that they are not only talking the talk but they are walking the walk.

Yup.

The costs of living in places subject to hurricaines is going to go up.

One just has to build houses that withstand such things, and avoid building skyscapers near coastlines.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Darrin, I am not you. I read my links, and I make sure that they actually say what I want them to say before I post them. Why? Because I'm not pulling something out of thin air then googling away at finding things to support it.

And when I say reactionary drivel what MIG here is describing is exactly what i am talking about. Darrin makes an extra special shitbag because he has no compunction whatsoever misrepresenting or straight out lying if he cannot find what he is looking for.

[RandomGuy]

Well, except that it's not just any scientist, it's the same body upon which you would have me rely for scientific certainty, today.

Who's to say they're not wrong again?

More information means more certainty.

We will research it more, and over the next 10-20 years get a LOT more science and real data under our belts. Each passing year means that the odds of them being wrong goes down. This is a certainty.

If there is "no evidence" then that will increasingly become evident, and harder to hide by the lying/stupid scientists that Deniers claim is behind this evil plot to take our tax dollars for their own personal gains.

Given that I don't think the scientists are lying, or stupid, I will try not to be a total ass about it, when we do find that our actions are having increasingly adverse affects, and we find out just how thin your claims of "no evidence" really were.

You seem smart enough to pull your head out of your ass eventually. Not even you can keep believing the hacks like Dr. Moerner forever.

[Yonivore]

More information means more certainty.

We will research it more, and over the next 10-20 years get a LOT more science and real data under our belts. Each passing year means that the odds of them being wrong goes down. This is a certainty.

If there is "no evidence" then that will increasingly become evident, and harder to hide by the lying/stupid scientists that Deniers claim is behind this evil plot to take our tax dollars for their own personal gains.

Given that I don't think the scientists are lying, or stupid, I will try not to be a total ass about it, when we do find that our actions are having increasingly adverse affects, and we find out just how thin your claims of "no evidence" really were.

You seem smart enough to pull your head out of your ass eventually. Not even you can keep believing the hacks like Dr. Moerner forever.
Then I'll wait for the certainty.

In the meantime quit taking away oil, dumping my money into green energy, and, for God's sake, quit these annoying blockbuster parties masquerading as climate summits...take Al Gore's Nobel and microphone away...and find someone that will report the science reasonably and responsibly.

And, you can keep your backhanded compliment.

You call Moerner a hack now. I doubt hacks achieve the level of success he has. He simply disagrees with your position so, it's best to hurl insults in an attempt to discredit.

Were all the other scientists I quoted and linked -- way back a few pages ago -- hacks, as well?

[Yonivore]

I have no doubt, none, zilch, nada, zip, that were he to do so, you would demonize him, and you would be joined by every other Denier blog, WSJ op-ed, and Fox news talking head.
Not at all. But, in just watching that short piece of video, I'm not certain Tyson buys into AGCC just the GCC part.

That's the part that's hardest to sell. The "A" part.


No one here doubts that either, even the people who tend to agree with your conspiracy theory.
Can't help you there.

[Yonivore]

Now you are being petulant. I am forced to dumb it down for you.
For the love of Pete and Jesus. Would somebody explain to Fuzzy, I'm not debating the science.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So does paying attention to what's being said.


Instead, lets consider what I was saying. I linked multiple non-scientist, leading industry sources --trying to consider your bias-- that show that the insurance industry is very concerned about flooding and weather related claims in Florida, that they have spoken before both the Canadian and US congresses, and in fact are raising flood insurance rates as well as getting out of the homeowners coverage market entirely citing ballooning flood and weather related claims in the state.

Its pretty clear what my point is: an entire financial industry believes in the significance of climate change in Florida. that they are not only talking the talk but they are walking the walk.

Do you want me to spell it out for you any clearer?

You are behaving like a child. One that is putting their hands over their ears and screaming 'I don't have to listen to you.' Its intellectually dishonest and quite frankly contemptible.


For the love of Pete and Jesus. Would somebody explain to Fuzzy, I'm not debating the science.

I stand by what I said and find more irony in what you are saying as time goes by.

[Yonivore]

I stand by what I said and find more irony in what you are saying as time goes by.
What does that have to do with whether or not ABC and the White House misrepresented what was in the report?

And, what does it have to do with whether or not that Lutz guy might have gotten the idea the Florida Keys were being predicted to be under water?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What does that have to do with whether or not ABC and the White House misrepresented what was in the report?

And, what does it have to do with whether or not that Lutz guy might have gotten the idea the Florida Keys were being predicted to be under water?

What is the point of your criticism of the ABC report? Are you saying that its irrelevant to the effects of climate change in the state of FL. You say you don't trust the media or scientists so i present you the insurance industry.

Heres how the conversation has been going.

You: I read this blog that told me that the presidential report on climate change has inaccuracies regarding FL. See AL GORE AGCC EVIL MEDIA!!!

Me: Okay but the insurance industry says the same thing about FL being at serious risk. They are refusing to write or renew policies and are raising flood coverage. They went to congress stating their concerns here are some links.

RG and MiG: What are these inaccuarcies?

You: It says it should be flooded now. I didn't read the report but I got the power point. Look I has pictures! and Fuzzy that isn't germane to the topic.

RG and MiG: What do 100 years mean?

Me: Look I understand you don't trust the scientific community so instead of looking to them i am trying to appeal to your 'conservative' principles. If you do not believe them then how about a major industry?

You: Oh wait, I didn't mean that it was supposed to be flooded now. What I meant was that they didn't say that it could be natural. there is no proof that it is man made. I don't trust scientists except the ones brought up by this blog. YOU ALL ARE DUPED BY AL GORE AND HIS EVIL MEDIA!! AL GORE AL GORE AL GORE!!!!

You: And Fuzzy i only brought up the blog and am pointing out the inaccuracies. Can't you read? Anything else is irrelevant. Obviously nothing but what I want to talk about is relevant. I CAN'T HEAR YOU!! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!

RG: Well I don't know what your talking about but look, its not like the presidential report did not thoroughly document their conclusions. Here is the first page of three pages of documentation.

MiG: What are you talking about? I don't even pay attention to the media or Al Gore to come to my conclusions. I have been studying climate for years and have come to my own conclusions. i do not even speak to what should be policy about it.

Me: Are you serious? You have been bringing up doubts about a report that FL is at serious risk because of AGW and say that you don't trust scientists. I am showing you a major industry that has come to the same conclusion and how they are acting upon it. You're missing the forest for a tree. Are you daft?

You: I don't care what you guys say. All I know is that you cannot trust AGCC they always lie. This is just a religion for you guys. AL GORE!!! AL GORE!!! AGCC!!! SCIENTISTS ARE LIARS!!!

You: Someone needs to tell Fuzzy that i am not arguing the science.

RG and MiG: you can't be serious. This again? Come on man we have been down this road before are you even going to consider anything we have said?

Me: You told me that I cannot read but did you miss the part where I intentionally did not bring up scientists to show the same conclusion but rather a major industry. I am trying to consider your bias.

You: AL GORE!! APCC AL GORE!!! AL GORE!!!AL GORE!!!AL GORE!!!AL GORE!!!AL GORE!!!AL GORE!!!AL GORE!!!AL GORE!!!AL GORE!!!

You in your most recent response: Fuzzy, what does that have to do with what this blog is telling me to believe. they lie.




Like I said its sad and the more you do it the more that sadness is growing onto contempt.

[Yonivore]

What is the point of your criticism of the ABC report?
Okay, you need to go way back to my original post which was a response to Manny's LOL at the Lutz guy in the Bill Maher video.

Manny LOL'd and said the IPCC never predicted the Florida Keys would be covered with water.

I googled it and found that, as Manny said, the IPCC never did predict the Florida Keys would be covered with water.

But, I also found what I thought was a good explanation of why Mr. Lutz might have gotten the idea the IPCC predicted the Florida Keys would be covered with water.

That's what the post was intended to demonstrate.

It had nothing to do with whether or not the Florida Keys are actually going to be covered with water. It had nothing to do with what ever insurance companies are doing in response to their own ideas of the affects of global climate chance. It wasn't even about the science.

It was about how ideas get put out in the public square.

Do you get it now?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Okay, you need to go way back to my original post which was a response to Manny's LOL at the Lutz guy in the Bill Maher video.

Manny LOL'd and said the IPCC never predicted the Florida Keys would be covered with water.

I googled it and found that, as Manny said, the IPCC never did predict the Florida Keys would be covered with water.

But, I also found what I thought was a good explanation of why Mr. Lutz might have gotten the idea the IPCC predicted the Florida Keys would be covered with water.

That's what the post was intended to demonstrate.

It had nothing to do with whether or not the Florida Keys are actually going to be covered with water. It had nothing to do with what ever insurance companies are doing in response to their own ideas of the affects of global climate chance. It wasn't even about the science.

It was about how ideas get put out in the public square.

Do you get it now?

I got it when you first brought it up.

QER_yqTcmjM

[Yonivore]

I got it when you first brought it up.
Then what the fuck have you been going on about all this time?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Now you are being petulant. I am forced to dumb it down for you.

You sit there and claim that all you care about is some supposed specific inaccuracy in an ABC report that amongst other things stated that Florida was expected to experience an adverse rise in sea levels in the next 100 years.

Now lets just disregard for a moment that you have been waffling over and over again as to what that particular inaccuracy is.

Instead, lets consider what I was saying. I linked multiple non-scientist, leading industry sources --trying to consider your bias-- that show that the insurance industry is very concerned about flooding and weather related claims in Florida, that they have spoken before both the Canadian and US congresses, and in fact are raising flood insurance rates as well as getting out of the homeowners coverage market entirely citing ballooning flood and weather related claims in the state.

Its pretty clear what my point is: an entire financial industry believes in the significance of climate change in Florida. that they are not only talking the talk but they are walking the walk.

Now lets consider what you are saying: that an ABC News Report about the significance of climate change was inaccurate about said significance in the sate of Florida.

Does that clear up why I am saying that if what I am contending is irrelevant then you have no point? Does that clear up why I am saying that you are being intentionally obtuse? Does that clear up why I say that you are missing the forest for a tree?

Do you want me to spell it out for you any clearer?

You are behaving like a child. One that is putting their hands over their ears and screaming 'I don't have to listen to you.' Its intellectually dishonest and quite frankly contemptible.

Belaboring a point over and over and over again is fun but its pointless without a premise.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So you are arguing with RG over a pissing contest with MiG and you do not contradict that Florida is at high risk due to AGW as evidenced by amongst other things the insurance industry?

Either you really have no point or are just dissembling. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the former.


CENTURY

CENTURY

NOW

NOW

CENTURY

CENTURY

NOW

NOW


No wonder you don't understand science. You can't even count to 100.


Scientists say Keys might be underwater by 2100. Its 2011 and they're not, therefore I am confused and I determine that I cannot trust scientists due to another failed prediction.

Oh, and AL GORE!


We don't love him. We use him as an example of the problem I've been trying to describe YOU have over the past several pages of this thread.

He has, over the years, had a varying degree of credibility in the AGCC community. Didn't he and his Inconvenient Truth video receive a Nobel?

People, on your side of the fence on this issue, who are NOT climate geeks -- like you -- find Al Gore to be a credible voice of reason on the matter.

That should concern you not cause you to ridicule me for pointing it out.


I'm really trying to keep this civil.

Yeah, I know what year it is.

Do you know who's representing your cause on the world stage?

People like Al Gore and Bill Maher.


Yonivore, as I've stated many times on here, I very much dislike Al Gore. However, I also really don't give a rats ass about the policy side of AGW. Therefore, I don't care who represents the issue.

I'll be happy to study atmospheric and climate dynamics for the next 50+ years whether or not the GOP ever believes an ounce of AGW theory. Its not my desire to develop some kind of PR campaign to convince people like you to unbury your heads and pay attention to the science instead of making decisions based on whether or not you like the guy giving the message. And I can tell you, that scientists around the world share my sentiment because if they didn't they sure as hell wouldn't have become scientists and would have instead gone into PR.

I commend you for trying to keep it civil, and I will in turn try to do the same. But the reality is that I have absolutely zero interest in the perceived success or failure of the PR campaign.

I will say this: It doesnt take an understanding of advanced atmospheric dynamics to understand climate change, and when polls show that climate change denial in this country is broken down along party lines, it tells me a whole hell of a lot. Its a pattern we see in other "contriversial" scientific issues (IE evolution)


That's not how ABC reported it.


You're right it is 2011 and that's 12 years beyond when the United Nations told us, back in 1989 that global warming would be beyond our control and creating eco-refugees by 1999.


http://nofrakkingconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/1989_un_grim_forecast_highlighted.jpg


Yeah, how 'bout that guy. He's AGCC's biggest fan and it's biggest financial beneficiary.

The AGCC crowd will never live down that piece of crap receiving a Nobel for his work on climate change.


You should. They're the chief reason AGCC proponents are losing the battle.


I was down with that until you suggested it was a dislike of the messenger that was causing the skepticism. That's not it. It's that the messenger has been provably wrong on so many occasions.



No one is suggesting the climate isn't changing. There is just considerable (and legitimate) disagreement over what's causing it, if it's even a bad thing, and that man can do anything to alter it.


You need to actually go and watch the newscast. He clearly says 'late this century.'

Further your blog references conditions in Florida, so my point about claims and the reaction of the insurance industry to flood and weather related claims is straight up on point.

I was wrong you are dissembling.


Does he just as clearly say this is the worst case scenario that the sea level rise may actually be quite modest and within natural variations?


So go post it in the comments on American Thinker. Your insurance comments were germane to the point of the discussion in her.

i can keep up. can you?

[Yonivore]

i can keep up.
No, you really can't.

That too was about messaging. About why should we believe the IPCC now when, in 1989, they were telling us we'd be eco-refugees by now.

I'm done talking about the science. I'm also done talking to you.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No, you really can't.

That too was about messaging. About why should we believe the IPCC now when, in 1989, they were telling us we'd be eco-refugees by now.

I'm done talking about the science. I'm also done talking to you.

I am not talking about science. Well I guess the insurance industry uses actuarial science.

Somewhere you think that the ABC misreported the report but you aren't really sure where and you are not arguing the science. AL GORE AL GORE IPCC IS BAD AGCC RELIGION Oh I didn't really mean that I am not arguing the science but they lie. Some other source thats not science doesn't matter because i am not arguing science.

You want to have a problem iwth something but you're really nor sure AL GORE AL GORE IPCC AGCC THEYY LIE. I'm not arguing science. A source that isnt science doesn't matter because I anot arguing science. IPCC!!!

[Wild Cobra]

Seriously? :lmao @ Manny. You know better.
No he doesn't.

He's being indoctrinated on the subject.

[Wild Cobra]

Okay, you need to go way back to my original post which was a response to Manny's LOL at the Lutz guy in the Bill Maher video.

Manny LOL'd and said the IPCC never predicted the Florida Keys would be covered with water.

I googled it and found that, as Manny said, the IPCC never did predict the Florida Keys would be covered with water.

But, I also found what I thought was a good explanation of why Mr. Lutz might have gotten the idea the IPCC predicted the Florida Keys would be covered with water.

That's what the post was intended to demonstrate.

It had nothing to do with whether or not the Florida Keys are actually going to be covered with water. It had nothing to do with what ever insurance companies are doing in response to their own ideas of the affects of global climate chance. It wasn't even about the science.

It was about how ideas get put out in the public square.

Do you get it now?
Don't expect him to get anything. Once he makes up his mind, he knows he is wright, and anyone who disagree gets verbal attacks.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Don't expect him to get anything. Once he makes up his mind, he knows he is wright, and anyone who disagree gets verbal attacks.

Yeah thats why I we went back and forth for hours and for the most part had a discussion. If you weren't so stupid and full of yourself, you would realize i only treat you as i do because you are extra special stupid as has been detailed.

I am not willing to say that Yoni is stupid. Stubborn sure but thats okay. He also shows a bit of introspection from time to time which i certainly appreciate. if you read the thread, i actually made a point to consider his biases and address them.

You on the other hand are a special blend of pigheaded and stupid so i don't really bother doing much with you other than pointing that out.

[Yonivore]

Somewhere you think that the ABC misreported the report but you aren't really sure...
Actually, I am sure about where ABC Misrepresented the report; that's all I've been talking about.

Answer three questions.

Did ABC and the bureaucrat presenting the government report give the impression (and, in the case of ABC, sensationalize the prediction) that the Florida Keys would be under water by 2100? It's a simple yes or no question.

If you answer yes. I've made half of my point. If you answer no. You still have no fucking clue about what I've been discussing.

Second, Did the government report, on which ABC reported and which the government bureaucrat was presenting predict the Florida Keys would be under water by 2100? Another simple, yes or no question.

If you answer yes, you're in disagreement with Manny (And, Manny, I believe I remember you in agreement on this point) and I on the matter because, the report only suggested it was a possibility -- on the high end of the prediction -- that Florida would see sea level rises that would inundate the Florida Keys.

If you answer no; you and I and Manny all agree. ABC sensationalized the report and the bureaucrat uncritically presented an impression that wasn't in the document.

Finally, Could the average, reasonable person, (a non-science geek that doesn't put themselves to bed reading climate papers every night), watch the ABC report and see slide #11 in the PowerPoint presentation and come to the conclusion the government was predicting the Florida Keys would be under water by 2100?

Yes or no?

If yes, we are in agreement and you've discovered the only point I was trying make.

If no. I think you're just being disingenuous.

My larger point to Manny was that this is part of the problem with getting credible information from his side of the argument to the general public at large. The messengers -- from whom most average, non-science geek, people consume their information -- are casting doubt on the science because they ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS hype the predictions.

Al Gore is only mentioned because he's the biggest purveyor of exaggerated global climate change hysteria.

Will you please shut the fuck up about it now?

[Yonivore]

I am not willing to say that Yoni is stupid. Stubborn sure but thats okay. He also shows a bit of introspection from time to time which i certainly appreciate. if you read the thread, i actually made a point to consider his biases and address them.
Oh, stop with the faint praise; you know you think I'm an idiotic far right-wing conservative stuck on stupid.

None of which is true, by the way, but -- nevertheless -- it's really what you project in here. You, and Manny, and Random, and a few others -- and all simply because we don't agree with your world view, won't accept your sources uncritically, and don't cave to the incessant drumbeat of your truths.

As for me, I just simply think you're wrong on some issues and I try, stubbornly (as you said), to get you to understand my position -- not necessarily agree with it, but understand how it might be a reasonable position to take.

[Wild Cobra]

You, and Manny, and Random, and a few others -- and all simply because we don't agree with your world view, won't accept your sources uncritically, and don't cave to the incessant drumbeat of your truths.

Notice how Manny now refuses to respond to me after I asked for clarification, and then brought up Ice Sheets are also affected by geothermal activity.

He just cannot comprehend multiple variables I think.

[Yonivore]

Notice how Manny...
No, I don't notice, WC; I'm just not that interested in the playground politics or personalities in this forum.

Y'all can just leave me out of it.

[RandomGuy]

That too was about messaging. About why should we believe the IPCC now when, in 1989, they were telling us we'd be eco-refugees by now.

I'm done talking about the science. I'm also done talking to you.



Sorry, there's no proof, none, zilch, zero, that humankind is having any appreciable affect on global climate.

You were done talking about science a while back.

Remember, the purpose of this thread is to prove that skeptics of global warming are little more than pseudoscientist deniers.


why should we believe the IPCC now when, in 1989, they were telling us we'd be eco-refugees by now

You can't make your case without

1) Misrepresenting the science ["does the earth have an optimal climate?"]
2) Logically flawed arguments ["Al Gore is a hypocrite, therefore AGCC is bunk"]
3) Unsupported assertions [logically implied "climate scientists are all stupid/lying"]


This is exactly what pseudoscientists and conspiracy theorists do. Even when the logical flaws in your arguments are pointed out clearly, you simply move on to the next point, then circle back around to the debunked argument when that doesnt' work.

Even when you can find a scientist who agrees with you, they do such a bad job at being honest skeptics that even *I* can figure out how bad it is.

The public policy solution you advocate, i.e. "nothing" is arguably going to slow our economy more than cutting CO2 emissions.

What's left?

Repeating the same debunked logical fallacies? You don't have the science on your side, so that seems to be all you have to offer.

[RandomGuy]

Actually, I am sure about where ABC Misrepresented the report; that's all I've been talking about.

Answer three questions.

Did ABC and the bureaucrat presenting the government report give the impression (and, in the case of ABC, sensationalize the prediction) that the Florida Keys would be under water by 2100? It's a simple yes or no question.

If you answer yes. I've made half of my point. If you answer no. You still have no fucking clue about what I've been discussing.


Yes.


Second, Did the government report, on which ABC reported and which the government bureaucrat was presenting predict the Florida Keys would be under water by 2100? Another simple, yes or no question.


As a result of these and other stresses, the corals that
form the reefs in the Florida Keys, Puerto Rico, Hawaii,
and the Pacific Islands are projected to be lost if
carbon dioxide concentrations continue to rise at their
current rate[footnote 560]


To date, 50 percent of the corals
in Virgin Islands National Park have died from the
bleaching and disease events. In the Florida Keys,
summer bleaching in 2005 was also followed by
disease in September.70

The report didn't say exactly that. The local subsidiance will vary greatly, especially if the reefs that are protecting coastlines currently die off and are not replaced.

The IPCC report's lower global rise would be accompanied by variations due to erosion and subsidance that could lead to a lot of low lying areas disappearing. Florida is already having to replace beaches using dredged sand from the shelf, at great expense.




If you answer yes, you're in disagreement with Manny (And, Manny, I believe I remember you in agreement on this point) and I on the matter because, the report only suggested it was a possibility -- on the high end of the prediction -- that Florida would see sea level rises that would inundate the Florida Keys.


If you answer no; you and I and Manny all agree. ABC sensationalized the report and the bureaucrat uncritically presented an impression that wasn't in the document.



It is a fair charactorization of the report to think that the Keys would be lost, so the answer is yes. On skimming, I could not find the claim, but it did go into some detail about the effects of erosion on barrier islands and other Carribean islands.




Finally, Could the average, reasonable person, (a non-science geek that doesn't put themselves to bed reading climate papers every night), watch the ABC report and see slide #11 in the PowerPoint presentation and come to the conclusion the government was predicting the Florida Keys would be under water by 2100? Yes or no?


Yes.


If yes, we are in agreement and you've discovered the only point I was trying make.

Except that your point is based, ultimately, on the assumption that the report that you didn't read couldn't be intepreted that way. It can.



If no. I think you're just being disingenuous.

My larger point to Manny was that this is part of the problem with getting credible information from his side of the argument to the general public at large. The messengers -- from whom most average, non-science geek, people consume their information -- are casting doubt on the science because they ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS hype the predictions.

Al Gore is only mentioned because he's the biggest purveyor of exaggerated global climate change hysteria.

Will you please shut the fuck up about it now?

If you like, I can do some screen caps from the report.

Did you consider that a map like that would have to be prepared by someone? Who do you think prepared the map? The non-scientist buearocrat?

[RandomGuy]

560 Carpenter, K.E., M. Abrar, G. Aeby, R.B. Aronson, S. Banks,
A. Bruckner, A. Chiriboga, J. Cortés, J.C. Delbeek, L.
DeVantier, G.J. Edgar, A.J. Edwards, D. Fenner, H.M. Guzmán,
B.W. Hoeksema, G. Hodgson, O. Johan, W.Y. Licuanan,
S.R. Livingstone, E.R. Lovell, J.A. Moore, D.O. Obura, D.
Ochavillo, B.A. Polidoro, W.F. Precht, M.C. Quibilan, C.
Reboton, Z.T. Richards, A.D. Rogers, J. Sanciangco, A. Sheppard, C.
Sheppard, J. Smith, S. Stuart, E. Turak, J.E.N. Veron, C. Wallace,
E. Weil, and E. Wood, 2008: One-third of reef-building corals face
elevated extinction risk from climate change and local impacts.
Science, 321(5888), 560-563.

[RandomGuy]

Coral reefs sustain fisheries and tourism, have biodiversity value, scientific and educational value, and form natural protection against wave erosion.542
For Hawaii alone, net benefits of reefs to the economy are estimated at $360 million annually, and the overall asset value is conservatively estimated to be
nearly $10 billion.542
In the Caribbean, coral reefs provide annual net benefits from fisheries, tourism, and shoreline protection services of between $3.1 billion and $4.6 billion.
The loss of income by 2015 from degraded reefs is conservatively estimated at several hundred million dollars annually.532,543

(note: this is pretty much the CURRENT costs of the economic losses of what has already occurred)

532 CEO, 2004: Caribbean Environmental Outlook. [Heileman, S., L.J.
Walling, C. Douglas, M. Mason, and M. Chevannes-Creary (eds.)].
United Nations Environmental Programme, Kingston, Jamaica,
114 pp. <http://www.unep.org/geo/pdfs/caribbean_eo.pdf>

543 Hoegh-Guldberg, O., P.J. Mumby, A.J. Hooten, R.S. Steneck,
P. Greenfield, E. Gomez, C.D. Harvell, P.F. Sale, A.J. Edwards,
K. Caldeira, N. Knowlton, C.M. Eakin, R. Iglesias-Prieto, N.
Muthiga, R.H. Bradbury, A. Dubi, and M.E. Hatziolos, 2007: Coral
reefs under rapid climate change and ocean acidification. Science,
318(5857), 1737-1742

542 Cesar, H.S.F. and F.H. van Beukering, 2004: Economic valuation of
the coral reefs of Hawaii. Pacific Science, 58(2), 231-242.


-------------------------

The "do nothing" solution, picks winners and losers. If your arugment about the policy is based on the fact that doing something picks winners and losers, then that is not a valid consideration, as both policy solutions have similar features, in that regard.

Temporary oil jobs, vs. fishing, tourism, and coastal real estate.

[RandomGuy]

But hey, we're not talking about science. It is much more important to focus on Al Gore.

[Yonivore]

You were done talking about science a while back.
I believe I made that declaration after that statement was posted so, why do you bring it back up? I have no intention of arguing the science any more.

I guess I should rephrase my statement to say, I have not been convinced by, nor have I seen any, compelling evidence to suggest the scientists claiming global climate change is being effected by anything mankind is doing.

Random, you can post papers from scientists, I've never heard, of claiming that but; I don't know you, I don't know them, and I don't see their conclusions being presented in a public forum in a convincing way.

What I see are a bunch of clowns telling me the sky is falling unless we reduce or CO2 output by amounts that seem incredibly difficult to achieve without draconian digressive means.

What I see are people, I think are making reasonable arguments, telling me the science, in fact, isn't settled and that there's no conclusive evidence man is contributing to global warming at the level being claimed by your scientists.

What I see are scandals, such as the conspiratorial e-mails from the University of East Anglia, where information not fitting the narrative is suppressed or misrepresented.

That's what I, as a non-science geek, sees.

For instance, I see statements like this:


Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences has made his views clear in several newspaper articles:

"We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 °C higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds). But – and I cannot stress this enough – we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future."

"[T]here has been no question whatsoever that CO2 is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas – albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in CO2 should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed."
I see those as reasonable statements.

I see Lindzen as an Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences should know somewhat about what he's talking.

I see this in these statements in the places where I consume my information, places I have come to trust over the years, and think -- hmmm, maybe there is something to what Lindzen says.

I post that in here and you will a) vilify Lindzen and b) post a paper from a scientist the papers aren't quoting, who isn't on or in the news, and for whom it would take me an amount of time I'm not willing to invest to read and understand his work, validate his credentials, and determine the work actually says what you say it does to counter Lindzen.

You know what I'd like to see? I'd like to see the AGCC proponent scientists of your choosing in a public open debate against someone like Lindzen. If such a debate exists and is recorded -- I'd watch the whole damn thing.

But, as you know, the public advocates that AGCC is real and leading to cataclysmic world destruction have no interest in debating the issue in an open forum.

Another strike against your position.

Please note, I do not want to argue the science implicated in Lindzen's statement -- I only used it to demonstrate I believe there are ostensibly credible people, heavily involved in climate science, that disagree with your position.

[RandomGuy]

Don't expect him to get anything. Once he makes up his mind, he knows he is wright, and anyone who disagree gets verbal attacks.

Are you talking about Yonivore, or to Yonivore? I'm confused. :p:

(edit)

To be fair, you could be talking about me, except I don't pretend to be a 'wright. Never been good with wood tools.

[RandomGuy]

I believe I made that declaration after that statement was posted so, why do you bring it back up? I have no intention of arguing the science any more.

I guess I should rephrase my statement to say, I have not been convinced by, nor have I seen any, compelling evidence to suggest the scientists claiming global climate change is being effected by anything mankind is doing.

Random, you can post papers from scientists, I've never heard, of claiming that but; I don't know you, I don't know them, and I don't see their conclusions being presented in a public forum in a convincing way.

What I see are a bunch of clowns telling me the sky is falling unless we reduce or CO2 output by amounts that seem incredibly difficult to achieve without draconian digressive means.

What I see are people, I think are making reasonable arguments, telling me the science, in fact, isn't settled and that there's no conclusive evidence man is contributing to global warming at the level being claimed by your scientists.

What I see are scandals, such as the conspiratorial e-mails from the University of East Anglia, where information not fitting the narrative is suppressed or misrepresented.

That's what I, as a non-science geek, sees.

For instance, I see statements like this:


I see those as reasonable statements.

I see Lindzen as an Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences should know somewhat about what he's talking.

I see this in these statements in the places where I consume my information, places I have come to trust over the years, and think -- hmmm, maybe there is something to what Lindzen says.

I post that in here and you will a) vilify Lindzen and b) post a paper from a scientist the papers aren't quoting, who isn't on or in the news, and for whom it would take me an amount of time I'm not willing to invest to read and understand his work, validate his credentials, and determine the work actually says what you say it does to counter Lindzen.

You know what I'd like to see? I'd like to see the AGCC proponent scientists of your choosing in a public open debate against someone like Lindzen. If such a debate exists and is recorded -- I'd watch the whole damn thing.

But, as you know, the public advocates that AGCC is real and leading to cataclysmic world destruction have no interest in debating the issue in an open forum.

Another strike against your position.

Please note, I do not want to argue the science implicated in Lindzen's statement -- I only used it to demonstrate I believe there are ostensibly credible people, heavily involved in climate science, that disagree with your position.

Fair enough.

You are seeking a level of certainty that will not be possible until it is quite possibly too late.

That is not conservative risk management.

The ealier we act, the more time we have, and the lower the costs of mitigation and damage are. I would point out that fossil fuels aren't going anywhere.

You want us to blindly accept the risks and costs.

That is the definition of foolish to me. I do not accept risks so cavalierly.

[RandomGuy]

I got it when you first brought it up.

QER_yqTcmjM

I love orbital.

You should see the movie that the song "you lot" is based on. It is interesting and thought provoking, although controversial.

[Yonivore]

Did you consider that a map like that would have to be prepared by someone? Who do you think prepared the map? The non-scientist buearocrat?
OMG, Random! It doesn't matter who prepared the slide if it's illustrating

Is the report as hysterical about the possibility the Keys will be under water as is the ABC Report?

No. It actually reports variations that includes little change in sea levels.

That's my point. The general public, at large, isn't going to read the report and say -- hmmm, it's possible but, the report doesn't actually say the Keys will be inundated.

No, they're going to see the ABC report that breathlessly begins, "If you're thinking of retiring to Florida, think again."

And, if they even bothered to watch the release of the report, streamed at WhiteHouse.gov, they're going to hear the presenter tell them and see Slide #11 illustrate that Florida will be under water by 2100.

That's it. That's pretty much the extent of what they're going to know.

[RandomGuy]

I believe I made that declaration after that statement was posted so, why do you bring it back up? I have no intention of arguing the science any more.

Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences has made his views clear in several newspaper articles:


"We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 °C higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds). But – and I cannot stress this enough – we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future."

"[T]here has been no question whatsoever that CO2 is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas – albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in CO2 should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed."



I see Lindzen as an Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences should know somewhat about what he's talking.

I see this in these statements in the places where I consume my information, places I have come to trust over the years, and think -- hmmm, maybe there is something to what Lindzen says.

I post that in here and you will a) vilify Lindzen and b) post a paper from a scientist the papers aren't quoting, who isn't on or in the news, and for whom it would take me an amount of time I'm not willing to invest to read and understand his work, validate his credentials, and determine the work actually says what you say it does to counter Lindzen.

Those statements seem fair to me as well.


if all else were kept equal,

This an important bit to me. All things are not kept equal, and there are other things that are going on. More reason for study and caution. We are flipping switches in a complex machine without fully knowing what those switches do.

From what I can determine Lindzen is fairly credible.

Why is he in the minority?

[Yonivore]

Fair enough.

You are seeking a level of certainty that will not be possible until it is quite possibly too late.
But see, you say that in the context of a world where we have been told over and over again we were running out of time.

That was the purpose of posting that 1989 article where the UN told me I'd be an eco-refugee by 2000.

That's the problem. You need to find reasonable, credible messengers to explain the science.


That is not conservative risk management.

The ealier we act, the more time we have, and the lower the costs of mitigation and damage are. I would point out that fossil fuels aren't going anywhere.

You want us to blindly accept the risks and costs.

That is the definition of foolish to me.
At what cost? The destruction of industries on the premise we may be avoiding some cataclysm is, to me, just as foolish.


I do not accept risks so cavalierly.
Nor do I; it just depends on how you define risk.

And, I'm not convinced there's any risk to waiting until the science is actually settled.

However, I see a real risk to our economy if the EPA -- on the premise of reducing CO2 emissions -- is allowed to regulated coal mines and coal-powered energy plants out of business.

[Yonivore]

Those statements seem fair to me as well.

This an important bit to me. All things are not kept equal, and there are other things that are going on. More reason for study and caution. We are flipping switches in a complex machine without fully knowing what those switches do.

From what I can determine Lindzen is fairly credible.

Why is he in the minority?
I think the argument goes the AGCC "industry" has become too large to fail and heretics are few and far between because they don't want to see the government grants to dry up. There is a butt load of money in climate research.

Why was Galileo in the minority? Because of the risks inherent in going against the establishment.

That also goes to my oft-repeated statement that if the people telling me global climate change is a problem would start acting global climate change is a problem I might start thinking global climate change is a problem.

The perceptions -- out in the real world, away from scientific geekland -- is that we're being scammed by hucksters; Gore being chief among them. To see him live in an energy guzzling mansion, creating a carbon footprint the size of Texas, and receiving a Nobel Prize just for creating a movie that purports to tell me something he's not living like he believes should make your stomach turn.

People that don't ascribe to AGCC have already laughed him off the stage. The reason we keep throwing him in your face is because the AGCC community still embraces him and they haven't laughed him off the stage.

[RandomGuy]

OMG, Random! It doesn't matter who prepared the slide if it's illustrating

Is the report as hysterical about the possibility the Keys will be under water as is the ABC Report?

No. It actually reports variations that includes little change in sea levels.

That's my point. The general public, at large, isn't going to read the report and say -- hmmm, it's possible but, the report doesn't actually say the Keys will be inundated.

No, they're going to see the ABC report that breathlessly begins, "If you're thinking of retiring to Florida, think again."

And, if they even bothered to watch the release of the report, streamed at WhiteHouse.gov, they're going to hear the presenter tell them and see Slide #11 illustrate that Florida will be under water by 2100.

That's it. That's pretty much the extent of what they're going to know.


By the way, here's slide #11 from the White House PowerPoint Presentation:
(ommitted to save bandwidth)

The map shows parts of Florida, not all of Florida.

If you want to rag on ABC for being sensationalistic, be my guest. It sells, and that is what the free market is supposed to do. Don't tell me you hate the free market all of a sudden. (poke poke)

No barrier reefs, means that areas exposed to hurricaines will be eroded badly, such as the southern tip of Florida.

Warmer waters means more energy for Hurricaines, all things held equal.

This does not sound shrill or irrational.

That coral reefs are dying. That isn't in dispute. It is measureable and an objective fact.

The causes are posited as increased acidification, from increased dissolved CO2 in the water, and warming water.

You can quibble, and are, about whether we are the cause for this.

You don't know, any more than I do. We both have to trust scientists on this, like it or not, with all their fallibility.

You are hanging your hat on the ambiguity of science about whether we are the cause.

Fuck, there is still ambiguity about gravity, and we have been studying that a LOT longer, but we can use what we do know to do a heck of a lot.

[Yonivore]

The map shows parts of Florida, not all of Florida.
The part of Florida that was the subject of the conversation was the Keys. They are under water in that slide.


If you want to rag on ABC for being sensationalistic, be my guest. It sells, and that is what the free market is supposed to do. Don't tell me you hate the free market all of a sudden. (poke poke)
I'm not ragging on ABC -- now right now, anyway -- I'm pointing out that when they sensationalize the effects of AGCC that later turn out to be gross exaggerations, it causes AGCC proponents to lose credibility.


No barrier reefs, means that areas exposed to hurricaines will be eroded badly, such as the southern tip of Florida.

Warmer waters means more energy for Hurricaines, all things held equal.

This does not sound shrill or irrational.

That coral reefs are dying. That isn't in dispute. It is measureable and an objective fact.

The causes are posited as increased acidification, from increased dissolved CO2 in the water, and warming water.

You can quibble, and are, about whether we are the cause for this.

You don't know, any more than I do. We both have to trust scientists on this, like it or not, with all their fallibility.

You are hanging your hat on the ambiguity of science about whether we are the cause.

Fuck, there is still ambiguity about gravity, and we have been studying that a LOT longer, but we can use what we do know to do a heck of a lot.
You're right, neither of us knows if the Florida Keys will be under water in a hundred years. We don't even know if that's likely.

[DarrinS]

Scientific Consensus Redux

Looking back, it turns out that a lot of scientific consensuses were wrong.

http://reason.com/archives/2010/06/29/agreeing-to-agree




Last week, the prestigious journal, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, published an article that tried to assess the relative credibility of climate scientists who “support the tenets of anthropogenic climate change” versus those who do not. One goal of the study is to “provide an independent assessment of level of scientific consensus concerning anthropogenic climate change.” The researchers found that 97–98 percent of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field are convinced of man-made climate change. In addition, using publication and citation data, the study found that the few climate change dissenters are far less scientifically prominent than convinced researchers. The article concludes, “This extensive analysis of the mainstream versus skeptical/contrarian researchers suggests a strong role for considering expert credibility in the relative weight of and attention to these groups of researchers in future discussions in media, policy, and public forums regarding anthropogenic climate change.” Translation: reporters, politicians, and citizens should stop listening to climate change skeptics.

Naturally, there has been some pushback against the article. For example, Georgia Institute of Technology climatologist Judith Curry who was not pigeonholed in the study told ScienceInsider, “This is a completely unconvincing analysis.” One of the chief objections to the findings is that peer review is stacked in favor of the consensus view, locking skeptics out of publishing in major scientific journals. John Christy, a prominent climate change researcher at the University of Alabama in Huntsville who is skeptical of catastrophic claims, asserted that because of “the tight interdependency between funding, reviewers, popularity. ... We [skeptical researchers] are being ‘black‑listed,’ as best I can tell, by our colleagues.”

This fight over credibility prompted me to wonder about the role that the concept of a “scientific consensus” has played out in earlier policy debates. We all surely want our decisions to be guided by the best possible information. Consider the overwhelming consensus among researchers that biotech crops are safe for humans and the environment—a conclusion that is rejected by the very environmentalist organizations that loudly insist on the policy relevance of the scientific consensus on global warming. But I digress.

Taking a lead from the PNAS researchers I decided to mine the “literature” on the history of uses of the phrase “scientific consensus.” I restricted my research to Nexis searches of major world publications, figuring that’s where mainstream views would be best represented. So how has the phrase “scientific consensus” been used in past policy debates?

My Nexis search found that 36 articles using that phrase appeared in major world publications prior to my arbitrary June 1985 search cutoff. One of the first instances of the uses of the phrase appears in the July 1, 1979 issue of The Washington Post on the safety of the artificial sweetener saccharin. “The real issue raised by saccharin is not whether it causes cancer (there is now a broad scientific consensus that it does)” (parenthetical in original) reported the Post. The sweetener was listed in 1981 in the U.S. National Toxicology Program’s Report on Carcinogens as a substance reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen. Interesting. Thirty years later, the National Cancer Institute reports that “there is no clear evidence that saccharin causes cancer in humans.” In light of this new scientific consensus, the sweetener was delisted as a probable carcinogen in 2000.

Similarly, the Post reported later that same year (October 6, 1979) a “profound shift” in the prevailing scientific consensus about the causes of cancer. According to the Post, researchers in the 1960s believed that most cancers were caused by viruses, but now diet was considered the far more important factor. One of the more important findings was that increased dietary fiber appeared to reduce significantly the incidence of colon cancer. Twenty years later, a major prospective study of nearly 90,000 women reported, “No significant association between fiber intake and the risk of colorectal adenoma was found.” In 2005, another big study confirmed that “high dietary fiber intake was not associated with a reduced risk of colorectal cancer.” While dietary fiber may not prevent colon cancer, it is associated with lower cardiovascular risk.

In its June 1, 1984 issue, The Washington Post reported the issuance of a massive new report by the White House science office supporting the scientific consensus that “agents found to cause cancer in animals should be considered ‘suspect human carcinogens,’” and that “giving animals high doses of an agent is a proper way to test its carcinogenicity.” Although such studies remain a regulatory benchmark, at least some researchers question the usefulness of such tests today.

The December 17, 1979 issue of Newsweek reported that the Department of Energy was boosting research spending on fusion energy reactors based on a scientific consensus that the break-even point—that a fusion reactor would produce more energy than it consumes—could be passed within five years. That hasn’t happened yet and the latest effort to spark a fusion energy revolution, the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, will not be ready for full-scale testing until 2026.

An article in the June 8, 1981 issue of The Washington Post cited a spokesman for the American Medical Association opposing proposed federal legislation that would make abortion murder as saying, "The legislation is founded on the idea that a scientific consensus exists that life begins at the time of conception. We will go up there to say that no such consensus exists." It still doesn’t.

In the years prior to 1985, several publications reported the scientific consensus that acid rain emitted by coal-fired electricity generation plants belching sulfur dioxide was destroying vast swathes of forests and lakes in the eastern United States. For example, the March 10, 1985 New York Times cited environmental lawyer Richard Ottinger, who asserted that there is a “broad scientific consensus'' that acid rain is destroying lakes and forests and ''is a threat to our health.'' In 1991, after 10 years and $500 million, the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program study (as far as I can tell that report is oddly missing from the web) actually reported, according to a 1992 article in Reason: “The assessment concluded that acid rain was not damaging forests, did not hurt crops, and caused no measurable health problems. The report also concluded that acid rain helped acidify only a fraction of Northeastern lakes and that the number of acid lakes had not increased since 1980.” Nevertheless, Congress passed the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments that regulate sulfur dioxide emissions through a cap-and-trade scheme. Acid rain was clearly causing some problems, but was not the wide-scale environmental disaster that had been feared.

Interestingly, the only mention of a scientific consensus with regard to stratospheric ozone depletion by ubiquitous chlorofluorocarbon (CFCs) refrigerants was an article in the October 6, 1982 issue of the industry journal Chemical Week. That article noted that the National Research Council had just issued a report that had cut estimates of ozone depletion in half from a 1979 NRC report. The 1982 NRC report noted, “Current scientific understanding…indicates that if the production of two CFCs …were to continue into the future at the rate prevalent in 1977 the steady state reduction in total global ozone…could be between 5 and 9 percent.” Such a reduction might have been marginally harmful, but not catastrophic. It was not until 1986 that the mainstream press reported the discovery of the “ozone hole” over Antarctica. This discovery quickly led to the adoption of an international treaty aiming to drastically reduce the global production of CFCs in 1987. (For what it is worth, I supported the international ban of CFCs in my 1993 book Eco-Scam.)

With regard to anthropogenic climate change, my Nexis search of major world publications finds before 1985 just a single 1981 New York Times article. “There has been a growing scientific consensus that the buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is creating a ‘greenhouse effect’ by trapping some of the earth's heat and warming the atmosphere,” reported the Times in its January 14, 1981 issue.

What a difference the passage of 25 years makes. My Nexis search turned up 457 articles in major publications that in the last year cited or used the phrase “scientific consensus.” Checking to see how many combined that phrase with “climate change,” Nexis reported that the number comes to 342 articles. Briefly scanning through a selection of the articles it is clear that some of them involved the controversy over whether or not there is a “scientific consensus” on climate change. The majority appear to cite various experts and policymakers asserting the existence of a scientific consensus that anthropogenic climate change is dangerous to humanity.

So what to make of this increase in the use of the concept of “scientific consensus?” After all, several scientific consensuses before 1985 turned out to be wrong or exaggerated, e.g., saccharin, dietary fiber, fusion reactors, stratospheric ozone depletion, and even arguably acid rain and high-dose animal testing for carcinogenicity. One reasonable response might be that anthropogenic climate change is different from the cited examples because much more research has been done. And yet. One should always keep in mind that a scientific consensus crucially determines and limits the questions researchers ask. And one should always worry about to what degree supporters of any given scientific consensus risk succumbing to confirmation bias. In any case, the credibility of scientific research is not ultimately determined by how many researchers agree with it or how often it is cited by like-minded colleagues, but whether or not it conforms to reality.

[RandomGuy]

I think the argument goes the AGCC "industry" has become too large to fail and heretics are few and far between because they don't want to see the government grants to dry up. There is a butt load of money in climate research.

Why was Galileo in the minority? Because of the risks inherent in going against the establishment.

That also goes to my oft-repeated statement that if the people telling me global climate change is a problem would start acting global climate change is a problem I might start thinking global climate change is a problem.

The perceptions -- out in the real world, away from scientific geekland -- is that we're being scammed by hucksters; Gore being chief among them. To see him live in an energy guzzling mansion, creating a carbon footprint the size of Texas, and receiving a Nobel Prize just for creating a movie that purports to tell me something he's not living like he believes should make your stomach turn.

People that don't ascribe to AGCC have already laughed him off the stage. The reason we keep throwing him in your face is because the AGCC community still embraces him and they haven't laughed him off the stage.

More ad hominem.

Hell, let's set aside the logic for a second.

I'll use your metrics.

That means if I can find one huckster in the "skeptics" camp, I can harp on that endlessly, and use it to disprove the skeptics?

Should I bring up the bit I found about Dr. Moerner again? Should I scour the denier blogs and start posting all the easily debunkable statements, logical fallacies and so forth on the part of the "skeptics"?

Do you doubt I could find more than a small amount of deceptiion, bad science, and flawed logic? I have already, when I have taken the time to dig into stuff you try to present as honest skepticism.

Are you going to similarly disavow these people? There are more than a few hacks I could pick from.

[RandomGuy]

Scientific Consensus Redux

Looking back, it turns out that a lot of scientific consensuses were wrong.

http://reason.com/archives/2010/06/29/agreeing-to-agree

In any case, the credibility of scientific research is not ultimately determined by how many researchers agree with it or how often it is cited by like-minded colleagues, but whether or not it conforms to reality.


Indeed.

It is a hell of a lot easier to get people to go along, if your theory is the best one.

Otherwise, you have to believe shitty conspiracy theories to justify your beliefs.

[Yonivore]

More ad hominem.

Hell, let's set aside the logic for a second.

I'll use your metrics.

That means if I can find one huckster in the "skeptics" camp, I can harp on that endlessly, and use it to disprove the skeptics?
That's pretty much what happens.

The great unwashed masses are left to figure it out for themselves.


Should I bring up the bit I found about Dr. Moerner again? Should I scour the denier blogs and start posting all the easily debunkable statements, logical fallacies and so forth on the part of the "skeptics"?

Do you doubt I could find more than a small amount of deceptiion, bad science, and flawed logic? I have already, when I have taken the time to dig into stuff you try to present as honest skepticism.

Are you going to similarly disavow these people? There are more than a few hacks I could pick from.
I'm going to remain unconvinced.

I think we've washed the dog here, Random. See you in another thread.

[RandomGuy]

The part of Florida that was the subject of the conversation was the Keys. They are under water in that slide.

...

You're right, neither of us knows if the Florida Keys will be under water in a hundred years. We don't even know if that's likely.

Yes, actually, we do.

We have current trends. We have little evidence that those trends will change.

We have current conditions.

Criticaly Eroded Beaches in the Florida Keys (symbolized in red)


There is a total of 36.3 miles of beaches that line the Florida Keys and attract both tourists and marine life. Unfortunately, 10.2 miles of this, or 28% of the beaches that line the Keys are deemed critically eroded. So far, with the effort of the state of Florida, 1.4 miles of the beaches have been restored and maintained leaving 8.8mi left in critical state. The two regions that have been hit the hardest are the Middle Keys and the Lower Keys. The Middle Keys region spans from Tavernier Creek to Pigeon Key and currently has 3.5 miles of critically eroded beaches along its shoreline. The hardest hit of all the sub-regions in the Keys is the span from Pigeon Key to Key West, Florida. This region alone has 6.7 miles of critically eroded beaches (Bureau, 2008)

http://cee514coastalanalysisfloridakeys.weebly.com/uploads/3/3/7/5/3375402/7336582.jpg?338


Currently the process of restoring the beaches in much of the Keys is to truck sand in from a different location and place it on the sites of the critically eroded beaches. Vegetation is also grown in order to reinforce the sand and prevent further beach erosion. However, these efforts are very costly due to the shipping costs, the labor costs, and also the material costs.
http://cee514coastalanalysisfloridakeys.weebly.com/erosion.html

This is not an unknown.

Warming isn't the only thing causing the die offs though, to be fair.


In the Caribbean alone, with a decrease of 80% over the last three decades, the coral reef coverage has dramatically changed, causing negative effects on the ecosystem (Gardener, 2003). These declines are directly related to human interferences. The amount of the coral reefs that is estimated to have been impacted by human activities is up to 97% (Lipp, 2002). The two main human impacts in the Florida Keys are the amounts of runoff and wastewater that flow into the Caribbean basin and also the amount of recreational and commercial fishing.

Especially in the Keys, human pollution is affecting the coral reefs. Along with being a human health risk and risk to the swimmers, wastewater is an issue impacting the corals. A study at the University of South Florida showed quantitative amounts of wastewater indicators in the coral surface microlayers (CSM). These microlayers are layers of mucus that cover the top few millimeters of the coral. Indicators of human feces bacteria were found in 93.3% of the CSM samples (Lipp, 2002).

We're going to have to address a whole host of other things, that to me seem highly unlikely to happen. Unless you want more government interference in the free market that is causing the problem? I don't see that happening.

[DarrinS]

Indeed.

It is a hell of a lot easier to get people to go along, if your theory is the best one.

Otherwise, you have to believe shitty conspiracy theories to justify your beliefs.


What if your theory is : stress causes peptic ulcers? It was "common knowledge" just 20 years ago, until they figured out that the bacterium Helicobacter pylori was causing it.

http://www.cdc.gov/ulcer/history.htm





The road to a cure for ulcers has been a long and bumpy one. Recent news that ulcers are caused by a bacterium and can be cured with antibiotics has changed traditional thinking. Physicians and consumers have not been informed of the good news.

...


1995
Data show that about 75 percent of ulcer patients are still treated primarily with antisecretory medications, and only 5 percent receive antibiotic therapy. Consumer research by the American Digestive Health Foundation finds that nearly 90 percent of ulcer sufferers are unaware that H. pylori causes ulcers. In fact, nearly 90 percent of those with ulcers blame their ulcers on stress or worry, and 60 percent point to diet.

[RandomGuy]

That's pretty much what happens.

The great unwashed masses are left to figure it out for themselves.


I'm going to remain unconvinced.

I think we've washed the dog here, Random. See you in another thread.

I agree. It is pretty much done. Thanks for the conversation though. I don't agree with you about it, but it was good.

[DarrinS]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9576387/ns/health-health_care/t/two-australians-win-nobel-prize-medicine/





Dr. Barry Marshall was so determined to convince the world that bacteria — not stress — caused ulcers that he drank a batch of it.

Five days later he was throwing up, and he had severe stomach inflammation for about two weeks.

It was just the result he was hoping for. His bold action over 20 years ago symbolized the perseverance Marshall brought to proving a controversial idea — one that gained the ultimate validation Monday as he and Dr. Robin Warren won the Nobel Prize in medicine.

The discovery by the two Australians that ulcers weren’t caused by stress, but rather by the bacterium Helicobacter pylori, turned medical dogma on its head. As a result, peptic ulcer disease has been transformed from a chronic, frequently disabling condition to one that can be cured by a short regimen of antibiotics and other medicines, said the Nobel Assembly of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm.

'No one believed it'
Warren, a retired pathologist, said it took a decade for others to accept their findings.

The long-standard teaching in medicine was that “the stomach was sterile and nothing grew there because of corrosive gastric juices,” he said. “So everybody believed there were no bacteria in the stomach.”

“When I said they were there, no one believed it,” he added.

The two researchers began working together in 1981. “After about three years we were pretty convinced that these bacteria were important in ulcers and it was a frustrating time for the next 10 years though because nobody believed us,” said Marshall, a researcher at the University of Western Australia.

“The idea of stress and things like that was just so entrenched nobody could really believe that it was bacteria. It had to come from some weird place like Perth, Western Australia, because I think nobody else would have even considered it.”

....

[RandomGuy]

What if your theory is : stress causes peptic ulcers? It was "common knowledge" just 20 years ago, until they figured out that the bacterium Helicobacter pylori was causing it.

http://www.cdc.gov/ulcer/history.htm

More faulty logic. I have debunked this type of idea already.

That you can't see how/why this is a bad argument has ceased to concern me. I am a bit tired of spoon feeding you critical thinking. Not only is this bad logic, the underlying idea actually supports AGW. If you can't figure out why I might think that, then you simply prove my OP.

You can stop proving the OP already. I don't need any more from you to prove that to any reasonable degree. Thank you.

[Yonivore]

I agree. It is pretty much done. Thanks for the conversation though. I don't agree with you about it, but it was good.
:toast

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That's the problem. You need to find reasonable, credible messengers to explain the science.

How about the insurance industry?

And why not fixate on something that was said 25 years ago? You seem the well thought out arbiter of what stuff has to do with anything.

Your incredulity argument rings hollow when nothing meets your supposed standards.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Oh, stop with the faint praise; you know you think I'm an idiotic far right-wing conservative stuck on stupid.

None of which is true, by the way, but -- nevertheless -- it's really what you project in here. You, and Manny, and Random, and a few others -- and all simply because we don't agree with your world view, won't accept your sources uncritically, and don't cave to the incessant drumbeat of your truths.

As for me, I just simply think you're wrong on some issues and I try, stubbornly (as you said), to get you to understand my position -- not necessarily agree with it, but understand how it might be a reasonable position to take.

I put on the spot I actually put you on the ground of average when it comes to intelligence. You have yet to surprise me with your acumen and you are certainly intellectually lazy which in large part I think is intentional but at the same time you are definitely the special brand of stupid that WC brings to the table. I really do not for sure though. You do not have a constant litany of plain stupid takes; you just have halflhearted attempts at understanding that falls back on pundits.

Its pretty common in this country and especially this state.

Youre in some ways a generic AM Talk Radio/Drudge Report/news via emails and blogs type but I don't think your far right wing either.

[Yonivore]

I put on the spot I actually put you on the ground of average when it comes to intelligence. You have yet to surprise me with your acumen and you are certainly intellectually lazy which in large part I think is intentional but at the same time you are definitely the special brand of stupid that WC brings to the table. I really do not for sure though. You do not have a constant litany of plain stupid takes; you just have halflhearted attempts at understanding that falls back on pundits.

Its pretty common in this country and especially this state.

Youre in some ways a generic AM Talk Radio/Drudge Report/news via emails and blogs type but I don't think your far right wing either.
Not that I asked for the personality assessment but, thanks!

Look, I went to another website and got this nifty horoscope:


You have good control over your own life whether you like the direction it is taking or not. Making changes with your life path could be considered at this time, if you want. You could take little steps toward change -- one step at a time, you can do anything. Consider a more artistic direction. The movement of the business day itself is difficult. A clear-minded insight into your own plans is possible now--new methods or ideas are available to you. This is a very good time to communicate your goals. Sympathy and understanding are emotional qualities that take on greater importance now. It's wisdom that will be most helpful at this time. Coming to grips with the past gives you a sense of knowing and understanding. Moving forward is good.
I think I'll go with the horoscope people, they know me better.

You crack me up, dude.

[Yonivore]

How about the insurance industry?
Credible? :lmao

Ever dealt with one?

[Yonivore]

By the way, I once went to a website that said my IQ was 148. Is that average?

Please tell me it's of average intelligence.

[Winehole23]

a website told you you were a genius and you believed it?

[Winehole23]

whatever you say, genius

[RandomGuy]

By the way, I once went to a website that said my IQ was 148. Is that average?

Please tell me it's of average intelligence.

Higher than mine.

Of course, one of the weaknesses of being intelligent is the ability to rationalize your own decisions and convince yourself that you are right, despite contravening evidence. :p:

[DarrinS]

More faulty logic. I have debunked this type of idea already.

That you can't see how/why this is a bad argument has ceased to concern me. I am a bit tired of spoon feeding you critical thinking. Not only is this bad logic, the underlying idea actually supports AGW. If you can't figure out why I might think that, then you simply prove my OP.

You can stop proving the OP already. I don't need any more from you to prove that to any reasonable degree. Thank you.



Just pointing out that a scientific consensus doesn't mean scientific correctness.

[RandomGuy]

I put on the spot I actually put you on the ground of average when it comes to intelligence. You have yet to surprise me with your acumen and you are certainly intellectually lazy which in large part I think is intentional but at the same time you are definitely the special brand of stupid that WC brings to the table. I really do not for sure though. You do not have a constant litany of plain stupid takes; you just have halflhearted attempts at understanding that falls back on pundits.

Its pretty common in this country and especially this state.

Youre in some ways a generic AM Talk Radio/Drudge Report/news via emails and blogs type but I don't think your far right wing either.

One should never underestimate the intelligence of people you disagree with.

I would quantify WC as being above average intelligence as well, and Yonivore is very obviously intelligent.

The problem is a lack of critical thinking skills, and an inability to analyse problems for critical underlying assumptions.

I'll stop the psycho-analysis there, and simply note that intelligence and wisdom are not always one and the same.

[RandomGuy]

Just pointing out that a scientific consensus doesn't mean scientific correctness.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=219&pictureid=1625

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Credible? :lmao

Ever dealt with one?

I worked in the industry for over 5 years. I know how actuaries work thus my pointing out that they walk the walk in addition to talking the talk. When they make claims like that AND pull out of markets that speaks to me.

Its amazing how you have this perspective concerning them but lack that same insight from the enrgy lobby. As I said no standard will deter you. At least now you've stopped with the 'can't you read' dissembling.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

One should never underestimate the intelligence of people you disagree with.

I would quantify WC as being above average intelligence as well, and Yonivore is very obviously intelligent.

The problem is a lack of critical thinking skills, and an inability to analyse problems for critical underlying assumptions.

I'll stop the psycho-analysis there, and simply note that intelligence and wisdom are not always one and the same.

I think that lack of critical thinking skills underscores a lack of intelligence. What secures me in that knowledge about WC was our discussion about capacitors and flywheels. He had no idea of their properties and has been changing them out litererally for decades. Intellectual dishonesty and laziness only go so far.

When it comes down to it with Yoni, I don't really know. From what I can tell, Yoni is just stubborn. But as I admit my experience is limited.

You've read WC's thought experience. Lets create bullshit graphs or have Dr. EZ Bake Oven Thought experiments that model the ocean using a solubility chart. That would be cute coming from a 6th grader and their first science experiment but when your still stuck on that approach after 4 decades, thats shows serious mental limitations.

His flaglot nonsense and not understanding why a women and other people would be turned off by that demonstrates serious social limitations.

i expect that kind of shit from special needs kids and not a grown man.

[MannyIsGod]

Just pointing out that a scientific consensus doesn't mean scientific correctness.

By all means point out what is scientifically incorrect with the papers I've posted.

I'll hold my breath and wait now.

[DarrinS]

By all means point out what is scientifically incorrect with the papers I've posted.

I'll hold my breath and wait now.


Did I say anything specifically about "your" papers being incorrect?

[Yonivore]

I worked in the industry for over 5 years.
My point is made.


I know how actuaries work thus my pointing out that they walk the walk in addition to talking the talk. When they make claims like that AND pull out of markets that speaks to me.

Its amazing how you have this perspective concerning them but lack that same insight from the enrgy lobby. As I said no standard will deter you. At least now you've stopped with the 'can't you read' dissembling.
Calm down, I'm just fucking with you.

[Yonivore]

One should never underestimate the intelligence of people you disagree with.

I would quantify WC as being above average intelligence as well, and Yonivore is very obviously intelligent.

The problem is a lack of critical thinking skills, and an inability to analyse problems for critical underlying assumptions.
Well, thank God you found a problem. I was beginning to worry.


I'll stop the psycho-analysis there, and simply note that intelligence and wisdom are not always one and the same.
Good idea; I'd only mock you with my lack of critical thinking skills.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

My point is made.

What point would that be?


Calm down, I'm just fucking with you.

Then what is your actual position. this stinks of dissembling.

[Yonivore]

Higher than mine.

Of course, one of the weaknesses of being intelligent is the ability to rationalize your own decisions and convince yourself that you are right, despite contravening evidence. :p:
Did you know that 100% of IQ figures posted in internet forum threads are an underestimated inflation?

[Yonivore]

What point would that be?
Someone else can take this one. I'm pretty sure Fuzzy's the only one in the room that didn't get the joke.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Someone else can take this one. I'm pretty sure Fuzzy's the only one in the room that didn't get the joke.

You've been doing so much dissembling in this thread that you try and take multiple positions. The only real consistent take that i have seen is the "IPCC AL GORE AGCC SCIENTISTS LIE AL GORE!!!"

First time I noticed it on this particular discussion is when you went from FL was supposed to be underwater to the they didn't report what my blogs have told me after they mocked you about the hundred years.

After RG posted their citations you went straight back to the AL GORE IPCC AGCC AL GORE thing then back to the its supposed to be flooded by now.

I will play along and guess that when you said in reference to the insurance industry "I've made my point" you were doing the 'witty' routine along the lines of lawyer jokes. I didn't work in policy service, they didn't work on commission anyway, and I do not have the sense of humor to find cliche funny unless its over the top.

Regardless humor like that in the form of 'sarcasm' typically has a point. I was just asking for one which has been a similar wonderment of mine the entire time. You just seem to be in a pissing contest rather than have a point to how risk assessment should be handled regarding climate change.

[Yonivore]

You've been doing so much dissembling in this thread that you try and take multiple positions. The only real consistent take that i have seen is the "IPCC AL GORE AGCC SCIENTISTS LIE AL GORE!!!"

First time I noticed it on this particular discussion is when you went from FL was supposed to be underwater to the they didn't report what my blogs have told me after they mocked you about the hundred years.

After RG posted their citations you went straight back to the AL GORE IPCC AGCC AL GORE thing then back to the its supposed to be flooded by now.

I will play along and guess that when you said in reference to the insurance industry "I've made my point" you were doing the 'witty' routine along the lines of lawyer jokes. I didn't work in policy service, they didn't work on commission anyway, and I do not have the sense of humor to find cliche funny unless its over the top.

Regardless humor like that in the form of 'sarcasm' typically has a point. I was just asking for one which has been a similar wonderment of mine the entire time. You just seem to be in a pissing contest rather than have a point to how risk assessment should be handled regarding climate change.
OMG! Somebody fucking unplug him.

[Wild Cobra]

OMG! Somebody fucking unplug him.
That's the purpose of the "IGNORE" option.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Someone else can take this one. I'm pretty sure Fuzzy's the only one in the room that didn't get the joke.

Giving up? I just want to know if you have a point other than a pissing contest and incredulity.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That's the purpose of the "IGNORE" option.

You were just being a pussy. As has been pointed out by ohters the level of asshurt in that sig is on the level of a bleeding infected hemorrhoid.

[Yonivore]

Giving up? I just want to know if you have a point other than a pissing contest and incredulity.
Actually, Random and I finished the conversation several posts ago.

I am kind of interested in Manny's impressions but, I think he bailed on the thread a while ago.

You never actually understood the conversation being had so, there is really nothing to give up.

[Yonivore]

That's the purpose of the "IGNORE" option.
No, I meant for his own good. He's free to keep blathering about something not germane to the conversation, if he likes. It's a free world.

[Wild Cobra]

No, I meant for his own good. He's free to keep blathering about something not germane to the conversation, if he likes. It's a free world.
I got to where I couldn't stand the unwarranted attacks and sidesteps myself. Calling me names when he didn't understand my points got very irritating.

[Yonivore]

I got to where I couldn't stand the unwarranted attacks and sidesteps myself. Calling me names when he didn't understand my points got very irritating.
It's more entertaining when he doesn't know that he's the one not on the same page as everyone else.

[MannyIsGod]

Did I say anything specifically about "your" papers being incorrect?

The next time you actually say something specifically will be the first. Yours is a constant stream of implications. If your point was that science could be wrong well then BRAVO. We could after all learn that we're inside the Matrix tomorrow at which point the science would be extremely wrong. We could discover a long hidden molecule that does everything that CO2 seems to do and at that point the science would be wrong. Etc etc etc etc.

I noticed that while you were pointing out that consensus could be wrong, you sure as hell didn't post any articles or blogs about how often consensus is right.

Which do you think happens more often? A case like your bacteria/ulcers situation, or a case like the hundreds of thousands of other theories in science that aren't disproven?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Actually, Random and I finished the conversation several posts ago.

I am kind of interested in Manny's impressions but, I think he bailed on the thread a while ago.

You never actually understood the conversation being had so, there is really nothing to give up.

Repeating that I did not understand the point over and over again is not going to make it true.

I get that you wanted to belabor a point from only the angle that you choose but you did in the midst of your waffling from position to position to their refutations say:

a) that you thought the presidents claims about Florida were innacurate
b) that you felt that the AGCC and AL DERP GORE were poor ambassadors and that lay people such as yourself cannot trust was a serious issue.

If you did indeed make those assertions then how is bringing up the insurance industry as an alternate source that is a major industry with obvious 'conservative' inclinations claiming the exact same thing not germane?

I can get why you don't want to consider it and I know that I am belaboring a point but if you want to force the issue with a serious dissembler thats what you have to do.

You just dismiss it out of hand.

[Wild Cobra]

I noticed that while you were pointing out that consensus could be wrong, you sure as hell didn't post any articles or blogs about how often consensus is right.

That still isn't a scientific method.

Facts make statistics. Statistics don't make facts.

[Yonivore]

The next time you actually say something specifically will be the first. Yours is a constant stream of implications. If your point was that science could be wrong well then BRAVO. We could after all learn that we're inside the Matrix tomorrow at which point the science would be extremely wrong.
Now, if you were being realistic, you would have said we could experience an existential threat between now and 2100 that would make all this global climate science moot.

Asteroid strike.

Super volcano eruption.

Alien invasion.

I think you get the picture.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That still isn't a scientific method.

Facts make statistics. Statistics don't make facts.

Yeah the correlative analysis of BEST cannot be considered factual but modeling using solubility charts and combustion in the troposphere: thats the scientific method.

[Wild Cobra]

I thought the goal to support one's theory in science was to do everything possible to disprove it. Once you couldn't find anything to disprove it, the theory has merit.

Why doesn't the AGW community practice such an approach?

[MannyIsGod]

I thought the goal to support one's theory in science was to do everything possible to disprove it. Once you couldn't find anything to disprove it, the theory has merit.

Why doesn't the AGW community practice such an approach?

:lol

Remind me again about how you understand science?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

DERP!!

The scientific method is a way to ask and answer scientific questions by making observations and doing experiments.
The steps of the scientific method are to:

Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results

It is important for your experiment to be a fair test. A "fair test" occurs when you change only one factor (variable) and keep all other conditions the same.

[MannyIsGod]

Combustion of the troposphere is still pretty damn good.

[Wild Cobra]

:lol

Remind me again about how you understand science?
Peanut gallery comments again. Have anything intelligent to say?

[Wild Cobra]

Combustion of the troposphere is still pretty damn good.
It would be impossible in the current state of the earth. Do you know how the magnetic field, and other variables were that long ago? What other chemistry might have been at play?

I was only making a case that such a thing might have been possible. I never said it did. For you to outright dismiss such a thing is not scientific at all. I will agree it's highly improbable.

Last...

You restated what I said wrong also. I never said troposphere, and I was going for slower molecular changes that most don't think of as combustion.

Please... keep the facts strait.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It would be impossible in the current state of the earth. Do you know how the magnetic field, and other variables were that long ago? What other chemistry might have been at play?

I was only making a case that such a thing might have been possible. I never said it did. For you to outright dismiss such a thing is not scientific at all.

Last...

You restated what I said wrong also. I never said troposphere, and I was going for slower molecular changes that most don't think of as combustion.

Please... keep the facts strait.

See Manny. There you have it: the scientific method at work.

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao

[MannyIsGod]

Maybe my dissertation will be on paleoatmospheric combustion evidence.

[MannyIsGod]

First, I would need to read the research on magnetic field history.

[Wild Cobra]

:lmao

I can see you being the type who if you lived back then, also laughed at the idea it would be possible to go faster than the speed of sound.

[MannyIsGod]

Sick burn.

[MannyIsGod]

WC, remember that one time you said you were testing me? :lol

[Wild Cobra]

First, I would need to read the research on magnetic field history.
Don't be as short sighted as you always are. I said "and other variables" as well.

My point is that the chemistry does allow for it under some conditions. The question would be if those conditions could have been met.

Again, highly improbable. I simply cannot believe that you have no acceptance of unlikely events being able to happen.

[Wild Cobra]

WC, remember that one time you said you were testing me? :lol

No, care to link?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm pretty sure it's clear to most that you are talking out your ass.

The disk of the earth covers about 0.0000000453% of the solar radiation based on a sphere of our orbit. The emission of particles from the sun is about 1.3 E36.second. this mean the earth will collect about 1.86 E34 particles/year, most of which protium. If it were all protium, this would yield to as much as 9.3 E33 molecules of water per year, or 2.78 megatonnes.

Now this is very small as a normal increase in the earths water. Not even measurable. However, if we did go through a large ejection of stellar matter in the past, it could become a very large increase in total water volume.


LOL...

No fucking way. That would be like a research paper.

I do wonder however how much water we possibly gained, by maybe a CME that the earth's orbit went through. There could be some truth to the forty days and forty nights of rain, the Bible speaks of. Proxy evidence tells us that the earths oxygen level use to be higher, which would likely be required for dinosaurs to have existed.

Hes right; I get those 't's mixed up. DERP!

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao

[FuzzyLumpkins]

idiot.

First of all, i said "there could be some truth to the forty days and forty nights of rain, the bible speaks of."

i never said the earth was covered. I intended to convey 40 continuous days of rain. The rest is your delusional prejudiced.

I corrected exosphere to thermosphere, and mentioned it reaches 2500 c when your 1000 degree units wasn't specified. Did you know there is a difference between kelvin, celsius, and fahrenheit? Must i assume you don't since you didn't specify? Am i suppose to read your mind and guess?

I only mentioned this as one of several ways the ocean rises.

I mentioned proxy evidence tells us the oxygen content of our atmosphere used to be greater. I forget what it was, but the link that manny used jokingly say it was 50% more. The hydrogen would have combined with the oxygen already in the atmosphere... My god... Just how stupid are you?

Fuzzy...

It is obvious to anyone being honest that you are a joke.

derp!!!

[MannyIsGod]

WC is the king of trying to beat people over the head with meaningless jargon.

[Wild Cobra]

WC is the king of trying to beat people over the head with meaningless jargon.
I thought you had something about me testing you? I am curious as to what the incident was over. Don't assume I am denying such a thing. It is not outside my character to "test" someone. It's just not something I commonly do.

[Borat Sagyidev]

This debate is really not worth it.

There is A LOT of factual scientific evidence for global warming and from anthropogenic causes. The data and studies contrary to this endpoint generally violate fundamental thermodynamic and physics laws.

The direction of the change is well established, what should be concentrated on are what are the exact effects (even climate researchers are not exactly sure) and what should be done.

If anyone isn't at this point, I don't know the point of debating. It's simply arguing either with a stupid, ignorant or biased person. For the record, having a bias for factual evidence that is satisfies laws of physical nature is not best described by having a bias. That's called objectivity.

Citing a figure form Al gore and Climatologist as different and therefore labeling everything else is completely wrong is a misnomer. Below that level you might as well debate whether Adam and Eve cooked with or ate dinosaurs.

What do I know though, I'm just an internet user.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Below that level you might as well debate whether Adam and Eve cooked with or ate dinosaurs.

You mean like combustion in the troposphere causing 40 continual days of rain? Don't you know what a CME is?

/stupid

[Borat Sagyidev]

You mean like combustion in the troposphere causing 40 continual days of rain? Don't you know what a CME is?

/stupid

I missed that one. I'm begging to think some people in this thread would be better off worshiping the Sun. The Sun does bring life after all.

[RandomGuy]

Well, thank God you found a problem. I was beginning to worry.


Good idea; I'd only mock you with my lack of critical thinking skills.

I am honestly puzzled why someone who is so obviously intelligent buys into what is, in essence, a conspiracy theory about scientists.

You have put forth a few arguments that I know are logically flawed, and do so in a way that suggests to me you are unable to overcome your own confirmation biases. It is frustrating for me. Sorry if this sounds critical.

I allow for the possibility that the scientists may be wrong, but do you allow for the possibilty that they may be right about the ultimate risks posed?

[RandomGuy]

You've been doing so much dissembling in this thread that you try and take multiple positions. The only real consistent take that i have seen is the "IPCC AL GORE AGCC SCIENTISTS LIE AL GORE!!!"

First time I noticed it on this particular discussion is when you went from FL was supposed to be underwater to the they didn't report what my blogs have told me after they mocked you about the hundred years.

After RG posted their citations you went straight back to the AL GORE IPCC AGCC AL GORE thing then back to the its supposed to be flooded by now.

I will play along and guess that when you said in reference to the insurance industry "I've made my point" you were doing the 'witty' routine along the lines of lawyer jokes. I didn't work in policy service, they didn't work on commission anyway, and I do not have the sense of humor to find cliche funny unless its over the top.

Regardless humor like that in the form of 'sarcasm' typically has a point. I was just asking for one which has been a similar wonderment of mine the entire time. You just seem to be in a pissing contest rather than have a point to how risk assessment should be handled regarding climate change.

mF_anaVcCXg

You don't have to believe anyone to figure out what to do.

Risk management. If you work in insurance, you probably will understand this a bit better than most.

[RandomGuy]

This guy seems to be a good candidate for a credible proponent that Yoni seems to want.

(edit)

Here is what actual scientists say:

http://www.issues.org/climate.html

http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/issues/?sa_campaign=Internal_Ads%2fAAAS%2fhome_page%2f201 1-04-20%2fhighlights

[Yonivore]

I am honestly puzzled why someone who is so obviously intelligent buys into what is, in essence, a conspiracy theory about scientists.

You have put forth a few arguments that I know are logically flawed, and do so in a way that suggests to me you are unable to overcome your own confirmation biases. It is frustrating for me. Sorry if this sounds critical.

I allow for the possibility that the scientists may be wrong, but do you allow for the possibilty that they may be right about the ultimate risks posed?
Let me get back to you on this because I don't have any time for much more than snark right now and this deserves as thoughtful a response as the question.

I will say, I don't believe there is some grand conspiracy of global climate change scientists.

[Yonivore]

This guy seems to be a good candidate for a credible proponent that Yoni seems to want.
He needs more tin foil

[RandomGuy]

He needs more tin foil

Heh, his presentation is decidedly low budget.

It is, however, good risk management. Any CRO would instantly recognize it as such.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

mF_anaVcCXg

You don't have to believe anyone to figure out what to do.

Risk management. If you work in insurance, you probably will understand this a bit better than most.

Before i went back to school I did. i just couldn't see myself working at a desk at USAA for the next 25 years. But yeah that the insurance industry is saying what they are saying and more importantly doing as they are doing has huge weight for me.

[Wild Cobra]

I missed that one. I'm begging to think some people in this thread would be better off worshiping the Sun. The Sun does bring life after all.

That's because Fuzzbot is a chronic liar. It was never said.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Idiot.

First of all, I said "There could be some truth to the forty days and forty nights of rain, the Bible speaks of."

I never said the earth was covered. I intended to convey 40 continuous days of rain. The rest is your delusional prejudiced.

I corrected exosphere to thermosphere, and mentioned it reaches 2500 C when your 1000 degree units wasn't specified. Did you know there is a difference between kelvin, Celsius, and Fahrenheit? Must I assume you don't since you didn't specify? Am I suppose to read your mind and guess?

I only mentioned this as one of several ways the ocean rises.

I mentioned proxy evidence tells us the oxygen content of our atmosphere used to be greater. i forget what it was, but the link that Manny used jokingly say it was 50% more. The hydrogen would have combined with the oxygen already in the atmosphere... My God... Just how stupid are you?

Fuzzy...

It is obvious to anyone being honest that you are a joke.


LOL...

No fucking way. That would be like a research paper.

I do wonder however how much water we possibly gained, by maybe a CME that the earth's orbit went through. There could be some truth to the forty days and forty nights of rain, the Bible speaks of. Proxy evidence tells us that the earths oxygen level use to be higher, which would likely be required for dinosaurs to have existed.


I'm pretty sure it's clear to most that you are talking out your ass.

The disk of the earth covers about 0.0000000453% of the solar radiation based on a sphere of our orbit. The emission of particles from the sun is about 1.3 E36.second. this mean the earth will collect about 1.86 E34 particles/year, most of which protium. If it were all protium, this would yield to as much as 9.3 E33 molecules of water per year, or 2.78 megatonnes.

Now this is very small as a normal increase in the earths water. Not even measurable. However, if we did go through a large ejection of stellar matter in the past, it could become a very large increase in total water volume.

Never said huh?

You calling me a liar has as much merit as calling me stupid.

The above is proof that you are dumb.

[Wild Cobra]

WC is the king of trying to beat people over the head with meaningless jargon.
How does anyone even know if that statement is serious, when you are full of laughing fits or lies.

Have any truth to offer?

[Wild Cobra]

Manny... You never answered my questions with this exchange:


Manny...

You are something else.

I never indicated warming was not real. Why can't you get facts strait?

I didn't know they were BEST's records. Are they? I thought they were using other people's records, which I have some suspicions about. I thought I clarified that.

I am sick and tired of people like you and ElNono making the incorrect argument out of my words. You are effectively lying by doing that.

Do you have any integrity?

Comparing sea ice against sea ice seems reasonable to me. Not land ice vs. sea ice like you are changing to.

Please...

Show an ounce of integrity.


Comparing sea to sea ice is reasonable given they are under the same conditions. They are not. Would you care to take a stab at what could possibly be different about the North and South Poles?


They are at least far closer than comparing land to sea ice.



I can't keep track of how quickly your arguments change.
My arguments are pretty consistent. Maybe you should read my words instead of assuming things I don't say. Pull out a dictionary if some are too difficult for you.

I think I know what you are trying to get at, but you are being elusive and want me to assume. I prefer not to when you are so antagonistic and stupid at the same time. I try to have debate, but you come in and start with the put downs. I would rather not go that route, but you have me going there too.

How about just saying what you have to say and be done with it, so I can respond with a reasonable answer, and not assume and be wrong of your intent..


Someone as bright and as informed as you doesn't know what I'm talking about? I'm shocked.
Sorry... I'm not a mind reader. That's why I asked for clarification.


How about the reasons for loss of these ice sheets? You were too chicken to answer my question [clarification] some posts back. Did you know a leading cause of glacier loss... moving faster... breaking up faster... is because of changes in geothermal temperatures? Not temperatures on top of them, but below them.


How about it Manny. What say you?

[RandomGuy]

Before i went back to school I did. i just couldn't see myself working at a desk at USAA for the next 25 years. But yeah that the insurance industry is saying what they are saying and more importantly doing as they are doing has huge weight for me.

USAA is a good place to work, IMO. It consistantly ranks as one of the top employers in the US, and they have full-company profit sharing where employees get a share of the profits if there is a good year.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/business/article/USAA-awarding-hefty-bonuses-again-2675546.php



The San Antonio financial services and insurance company has awarded employees a bonus equal to 18.4 percent of their annual base salary.

Being a full-service financial company, with banks, investment funds, and a full range of insurance companies, (except health), they can offer one a VERY good retirement.

I could go on.

[Yonivore]

I am honestly puzzled why someone who is so obviously intelligent buys into what is, in essence, a conspiracy theory about scientists.

You have put forth a few arguments that I know are logically flawed, and do so in a way that suggests to me you are unable to overcome your own confirmation biases. It is frustrating for me. Sorry if this sounds critical.
No need to apologize; I get what you’re saying. The problem with the criticism is that you fail to take into account I’m not a climate science geek and this is an anonymous internet forum where none of us – you, me, mouse, or anyone else – has any credibility whatsoever. Zero. We don’t know each other well enough for me to take what you say here as truth. Even if I believe you’re being sincere – and I do – there is no guarantee you’re not just suffering from your own confirmation bias with relationship to the information you post here on climate science.

You say you’re smart about these things and the papers you post represent the best science out there on the climate. How do I verify that without engaging in a tedious exercise to research the paper, the author, and the organizations through which they are peer-reviewed and presented. None of us has that kind of time. So, instead, we consume media. And, if you’re honest, much of the information finding its way into the media about the papers (maybe not the papers you post here), the authors, the processes, and the organizations through which the science has passed have been revealed to be corrupt, disingenuous, prone to error, mis-representative of data, and yes, conspiratorial in a way that, almost 100% of the time, biases the science to the side of the equation that confirms the existence of anthropogenic global climate change. I never hear about mistakes in the data that underestimated the effects of humans on climate. And, you don’t need to demonstrate they exist for me to say with absolute certainty, they haven’t made it to the places where I consume my information about climate change.

I think the point being; it’s all well and good that you and Manny and others can find white papers that illustrate the science you believe confirms the validity of anthropogenic global climate change. But, if you look at the wide, wide, world of information consumption – outside anonymous internet forums – your information doesn’t get much play. What makes it for public consumption is the alarmist, sensational, and hyperbolic extremes of climate science. What makes it to my eyes and ears are the scandals, misrepresentations, and mistakes. What makes it into the news are the Al Gores with his faux concern and his overwrought videos that earn Nobel Prizes. In essence, what is consumed by the vast majority of people makes your position look like a farce.

Frankly, lay people are tired of being told we’re killing the planet and only have X number of years to change our ways before it’s too late. We’ve been told that about population, food, cold, hot, asteroids, volcanoes, and aliens. And, as I illustrated with the UN Memo from 1989, we’ve been told that for decades with various deadlines for actions coming and going without any of the cataclysmic results we were promised, if we stood by and did nothing, occurring. And, yes, we’ve been told before, “But this time it’s real!” “This time we know the science better.” “This time, the science is settled.”

Combine that with what I find to be reasonable counter arguments (Lindzer’s comment being a good example) regarding climate science; whether man has an impact or whether it’s even a bad thing and I’m left where I sit with all the other existential threats we’re told we face going into the next 100 years. The same place we were 50 years ago when we were told we face some of the same existential threats. Do the costs of averting this predicted apocalypse justify the predicted benefits we would possibly achieve? I mean, look at the Kyoto protocol. If I’m not mistaken, world governments were supposed to sign on to economically draconian measures (many of which have never even been close to being achieved by the various countries) in order to realize modest (some say insignificant) reductions in temperature that wouldn’t even make a dent in the march to warming that was being predicted. Why put a Trillion dollar bandage on a Quadrillion dollar problem? It doesn’t make sense unless you consider hey, maybe they’re just trying to make money on the deal. That’s what makes sense to me.

That’s when one would become cynical about all the global conferences to which all the global warming congregants take their limos and jets to decide how best to bilk us out of more money in order to modestly affect something I’m being told we are already too late to change. That’s when one would become cynical about the few public faces of anthropogenic global climate change appearing to work so hard to control a message they claim enjoys the consensus of tens of thousands of scientists. That’s when one would become cynical about a cadre of public proponents that refuse to openly and publicly debate the issue with skeptics and critics – saying instead, the science is settled and therefore doesn’t need to be debated.


I allow for the possibility that the scientists may be wrong, but do you allow for the possibilty that they may be right about the ultimate risks posed?
I do. But not only have they yet to prove man is affecting the change that presents the risk, they have also yet to demonstrate we have the ability to reverse them.

I would advocate, instead, that we throw our resources at adapting to change that, arguably, we will be unable to affect.

After all, that seems just as likely -- to me -- to be effective.

I hope that all makes sense.

[DarrinS]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2012/02/09/understanding-the-global-warming-debate/




Likely you have heard the sound bite that “97% of climate scientists” accept the global warming “consensus”. Which is what gives global warming advocates the confidence to call climate skeptics “deniers,” hoping to evoke a parallel with “Holocaust Deniers,” a case where most of us would agree that a small group are denying a well-accepted reality. So why do these “deniers” stand athwart of the 97%? Is it just politics? Oil money? Perversity? Ignorance?

We are going to cover a lot of ground, but let me start with a hint.

In the early 1980′s I saw Ayn Rand speak at Northeastern University. In the Q&A period afterwards, a woman asked Ms. Rand, “Why don’t you believe in housewives?” And Ms. Rand responded, “I did not know housewives were a matter of belief.” In this snarky way, Ms. Rand was telling the questioner that she had not been given a valid proposition to which she could agree or disagree. What the questioner likely should have asked was, “Do you believe that being a housewife is a morally valid pursuit for a woman.” That would have been an interesting question (and one that Rand wrote about a number of times).

In a similar way, we need to ask ourselves what actual proposition do the 97% of climate scientists agree with. And, we need to understand what it is, exactly, that the deniers are denying.

It turns out that the propositions that are “settled” and the propositions to which some like me are skeptical are NOT the same propositions. Understanding that mismatch will help explain a lot of the climate debate.



The Core Theory

Let’s begin by putting a careful name to what we are talking about. We are discussing the hypothesis of “catastrophic man-made global warming theory.” We are not just talking about warming but warming that is somehow man-made. And we are not talking about a little bit of warming, but enough that the effects are catastrophic and thus justify immediate and likely expensive government action.

In discussing this theory, we’ll use the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as our main source. After reading through most of the IPCC’s last two reports, I think it is fair to boil the logic behind the theory to this picture:

http://blogs-images.forbes.com/warrenmeyer/files/2012/02/gw1_500.gif

As you can see, the theory is actually a chain of at least three steps:

1.CO2, via the greenhouse effect, causes some warming.
2.A series of processes in the climate multiply this warming by several times, such that most of the projected warming in various IPCC and other forecasts come from this feedback, rather than directly from the greenhouse gas effect of CO2.
3.Warming only matters if it is harmful, so there are a variety of theories about how warming might increase hazardous weather (e.g. hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts), raise sea levels, or affect biological processes.
In parallel with this theoretical work, scientists are looking for confirmation of the theory in observations. They have a variety of ways to measure the temperature of the Earth, all of which have shown warming over the past century. With this warming in hand, they then attempt to demonstrate how much of this warming is from CO2. The IPCC believes that much of past warming was from CO2, and recent work by IPCC authors argues that only exogenous effects prevented CO2-driven warming from being even higher.


This is just a summary. We will walk through each step in turn.

CO2 as a Greenhouse Gas

The first step in the theory is the basic greenhouse gas theory — that CO2 will raise the temperature of the Earth as its concentration increases (through a process of absorption and re-radiation that we will not get into).

Its probably irresponsible to call anything in a science so young as climate “settled,” but the fact that increased atmospheric CO2 will warm the Earth by some amount is pretty close to being universally accepted.

More debatable is how much warming will occur. We have measurements of warming from laboratory experiments, but these are hard to translate directly to the complex climate system. The generally accepted value for direct greenhouse gas warming from CO2 is something like 1-1.2C per doubling of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, and most past IPCC reports have settled on a number in this range.

While some of the talk-show-type skeptics have tried to dispute this greenhouse theory, most of what I call the science-based skeptics do not, and accept a number circa 1C for the direct warming effect of a doubling of CO2.

So what’s the problem? Why the debate? Isn’t this admission a “game over” for the skeptics? Actually, no. To understand this, let us do a bit of extrapolation. Current CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere today are around 390ppm, or about 0.039%. But even if we were to hit a relatively pessimistic level of 800ppm by the end of the century, this would, by the numbers above, imply a warming of about one degree. While potentially undesirable, a degree of warming is hardly catastrophic. The catastrophe comes from the second chained theory.


The Positive Climate Feedback Theory


As the Earth warms, we expect there to be changes that may further accelerate or decelerate the warming. These are called feedbacks. Take one example — as the Earth warms, there will likely be less snow and ice coverage of the Earth. Snow and ice tend to reflect heat back into space more than does bare land or water, so that this loss could add additional warming above and beyond the initial warming from CO2. On the opposite end of the scale, many plants grow faster with warmer air and more airborne CO2, and such growth could in turn reduce atmospheric carbon and slow expected warming.

It turns out the critical feedback involves water vapor. While CO2 is indeed a greenhouse gas, it is a weak one when compared to water vapor. Rising temperatures may increase evaporation and therefore the amount of water vapor in the air, thus adding powerful greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere and accelerating warming. On the other hand, water evaporated by rising temperatures may form more clouds that shade the Earth and help to reduce temperatures. Whether future man-made global warming is catastrophic depends a lot on the balance of these effects.

The IPCC assumed that strong positive feedbacks dominated, and thus arrived at numbers that implied that feedbacks added an additional 2-4 degrees to the 1 degree from CO2 directly. So in the IPCC numbers, at least two thirds of the future warming comes not from the basic greenhouse gas effect but a second independent theory that the Earth’s climate is dominated by strong positive feedbacks. Other more alarmist scientists have come up with feedback numbers even higher. When Al Gore says that we will see a tipping point where temperatures will run away, he is positing that feedbacks will be nearly infinite (a phenomenon we can hear with loud feedback screeches from a microphone).

But the science of this positive climate feedback theory is far from settled. Just as skeptics are probably wrong to question the basic greenhouse gas effect of CO2, catastrophic global warming advocates are wrong to over-estimate our understanding of these feedbacks. Not only may the feedback number not be high, but it might be negative, as implied by some recent research, which would actually reduce the warming we would see from a doubling of CO2 to less than one degree Celsius. After all, most long-term stable natural systems (and that would certainly describe climate) are dominated by negative rather than positive feedbacks.


Nice Theory, But What Do We Actually See Happening?

At some point, theorizing becomes stale unless the theories are supported by observations. And the most important single observation relative to catastrophic man-made global warming theory is that the world has indeed warmed over the last century, by perhaps 0.7C, coincident with the period mankind has burned a lot of fossil fuels.

Some skeptics have tried, relatively futilely I think, to deny that the world is warming at all. Certainly skeptics have a lot of evidence that this measured warming may be exaggerated — there are some serious flaws in our surface temperature measurement system today and almost certainly much worse flaws in the numbers from, say, 1900 to which we are comparing current readings. But radically new technologies, such as satellites, that are not susceptible to these same flaws and coverage gaps have still measured an upward drift in temperatures over the last 30 years.

http://blogs-images.forbes.com/warrenmeyer/files/2012/02/15yr-temps-500.gif

When looking at the historic temperature record, skeptics today tend to focus more on the fact that temperatures have leveled off over the last 10-15 years. Both sides of the debate play annoying games with cherry-picked end-points and graph scales to try to support their arguments, but most reasonable people look at the graph above of the last 15 years and will agree temperatures have been relatively flat. Even more important for scientists (since the oceans are a much larger heat reservoir than the atmosphere) is the fact that the new ARGO floating temperature stations have measured little or no increase in ocean heat content since they were put in service in 2003.

These facts actually lead to one of my favorite examples of the two sides in the debate talking past each other (this example actually played out in the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal over the past several weeks). Skeptics will say, “temperatures have been flat for 10-15 years.” Global warming advocates will respond, “the last decade has seen some of the hottest temperatures in the last 100 years.” Both statements are actually correct. Imagine spending all day climbing to the top of a tall plateau. Walking around on the plateau, with every step, it is correct to say that you are at the highest point you have been all day, but it is also correct to say you are no longer climbing.

Whichever the case, the flat surface temperatures and ocean heat content create a real problem for the man-made catastrophic global warming theory. There is no reason why warming should take a break, and we are starting to hear more frequently, even among catastrophic global warming supporters, discussion of “the missing heat.”



Attributing the Action of Complex Systems to Individual Inputs


A couple of years ago, the Obama Administration was tasked with figuring out how many jobs, if any, were created by the stimulus. Just adding up jobs at firms that had received government cash was not good enough — the theory of the Keynesian stimulus is that there is a multiplier (similar to the positive feedback in climate) that creates far more jobs than just the ones that can be directly measured. But how do we count these jobs? We don’t have any sort of measuring device to tell us that one job would or would not have existed if, say, Solyndra had not gotten stimulus money.

What the Administration did was this: they took a computer model, the same one that originally said the stimulus would be effective, and plugged in the actual spending numbers to get a modeled job creation number. As political messaging, this made perfect sense. As science, the notion of checking a theoretical model’s output with additional runs of the same model, rather than observational data, certainly leaves something to be desired. But to be fair, it’s a tough problem – how does one sort out the effect of changing one variable in a complex system where hundreds, thousands, maybe even millions of other variables are changing simultaneously?

This is the problem scientists face in trying to determine the causes of the 0.7C warming over the last century. And, ironically, the IPCC’s main argument was very similar to the way the stimulus was scored. They took computer models, which by their own admission left out a lot of the complexity in the climate, and ran them with and without manmade CO2 in the 20th century. Their conclusion: only man’s CO2 could have caused the measured warming. Skeptics like to describe this logic slightly differently: the IPCC says it had to be CO2 because they couldn’t think of anything else it could be.

So could it be anything else? Skeptics will argue that the period of rapid temperature increase the IPCC studied was relatively short, basically the 20 years from 1978 to 1998. Skeptics will point out that the world experienced a near identical pace of temperature increase from 1910-1940, well before our modern society began emitting CO2 in earnest, casting into doubt whether the more recent increase was truly unprecedented and only possible given manmade CO2.

Further, skeptics like to point to at least four other climate factors that might reasonably have contributed to the 0.7C of warming:


* Solar output, which was higher in the second half of the 20th century than the first

* Ocean cycles, like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, which were in their warm period during the critical warming period from 1978-1998 that so worried the IPCC
* Continued recovery from the Little Ice Age, which bottomed out world temperatures in the 17th and 18th centuries

* Man’s land use, including agriculture and urbanization
All told, there is no doubt that CO2 is helping to warm the planet, but skeptics are reluctant to ascribe all of the last century’s warming to this one cause when there were so many other forces working in the same direction.

The problem for global warming supporters is they actually need for past warming from CO2 to be higher than 0.7C. If the IPCC is correct that based on their high-feedback models we should expect to see 3C of warming per doubling of CO2, looking backwards this means we should already have seen about 1.5C of CO2-driven warming based on past CO2 increases. But no matter how uncertain our measurements, it’s clear we have seen nothing like this kind of temperature rise. Past warming has in fact been more consistent with low or even negative feedback assumptions.

To defend the hypothesis of strong positive climate feedback, global warming supporters must posit that there are exogenous climate effects that are in fact holding down the increase due to CO2. Thus has been born the theory of man-made sulfate aerosols, basically pollution from burning dirty fuels, that is keeping the Earth cool. When the rest of the world gets around to reducing these emissions as has the US, the theory goes, then we will see rapid catch-up warming. Skeptics point out that no one really has any idea of the magnitude of the cooling from these aerosols, and that, ironically, every global warming model just happens to assume exactly the amount of cooling from these aerosols that is needed to make their models match history. Skeptics call this their “plug variable.”



Hurricanes and Tornadoes and Lions and Tigers and Bears, Oh My


Certainly changing atmospheric temperatures, and perhaps even more importantly, changes in ocean temperatures, can be expected to have knock-on effects, both negative and positive (yes, I know the suggestion of positive effects borders on heresy, but don’t you think folks in higher latitudes might appreciate longer growing seasons?) Skeptics argue, however, that too often the studies of these effects suffer from one of four types of mistakes:

1. Measurement Technology Bias – Improvements in our ability to accurately count or measure a phenomenon is mistaken for a real underlying change in the frequency of the phenomenon. A great example is tornadoes. The count of annual tornadoes appears to have increased over the last fifty years, but this increase is almost entirely due to Doppler radar and other technologies identifying previously unrecognized twisters. If one looks solely at larger tornadoes (class F3-F5) that were unlikely to be overlooked even with older technologies, annual counts are flat to slightly down over the last fifty years.

2. One sample makes a trend – This is less a flaw of any particular formal study and more a flaw in media coverage and among catastrophic global warming advocates (e.g. Al Gore). Individual extreme weather events are pointed to as proof of climate shifts, even when summary statistics show no such thing. For example, individual hurricanes like Katrina are pointed to as proof that global warming is increasing hurricane frequency and severity, when in fact measures of hurricane frequency and total energy (e.g. total cyclonic energy) have actually been decreasing over the last several years, to near all-time lows.

3. What is normal - Trends in certain variables are labeled as “abnormal” or “unprecedented” or “not natural” despite our having an extraordinarily short history of measurements such that it is almost impossible for us to say with any confidence exactly what “normal” is. In some cases, recent trends are labeled abnormal or unprecedented even when that trend appears to be long-standing and pre-date man-made CO2. A great example is glacier retreat. We have good measurements showing substantial retreats in glaciers dating all the way back to the late 1700s (at the end of the little ice age). However, recent retreats in these same glaciers are portrayed as new and shocking and man-made, rather than in context of a longer-term trend (the exact same situation obtains with sea levels).

4. Everything looks like a nail - Climate is an extremely complex system with many, many variables changing simultaneously. It’s a big, complicated engine we really don’t understand that takes all these inputs and spits out certain outputs (e.g. snow in Washington today). Like a religious zealot that sees the face of God in his piece of toast, some observers seem to be able to magically attribute particular weather outcomes to the action of one single variable out of these millions. Even more amazingly, time after time, it seems to be the exact same variable, man-made CO2, that is unilaterally creating the result.


Conclusion

So let’s come back to our original question — what is it exactly that skeptics “deny.” As we have seen, most don’t deny the greenhouse gas theory, or that the Earth has warmed some amount over the last several year. They don’t even deny that some of that warming has likely been via man-made CO2. What they deny is the catastrophe — they argue that the theory of strong climate positive feedback is flawed, and is greatly exaggerating the amount of warming we will see from man-made CO2. And, they are simultaneously denying that most or all of past warming is man-made, and arguing instead that the amount that is natural and cyclic is being under-estimated.

So how about the “97% of scientists” who purportedly support global warming? What proposition do they support? Let’s forget for a minute a variety of concerns about cherry-picking respondents in studies like this (I am always reminded by such studies of the quote attributed, perhaps apocryphally, to Pauline Kael that she couldn’t understand how Nixon had won because no one she knew voted for him). Let’s look at the actual propositions the 97% agreed to in one such study conducted at the University of Illinois. Here they are:

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

The 97% answered “risen” and “yes” to these two questions. But depending on how one defines “significant” (is 20% a significant factor?) I could get 97% of a group of science-based skeptics to agree to the same answers.

So this is the real problem at the heart of the climate debate — the two sides are debating different propositions! In our chart, proponents of global warming action are vigorously defending the propositions on the left side, propositions with which serious skeptics generally already agree. When skeptics raise issues about climate models, natural sources of warming, and climate feedbacks, advocates of global warming action run back to the left side of the chart and respond that the world is warming and greenhouse gas theory is correct. At best, this is a function of the laziness and scientific illiteracy of the media that allows folks to talk past one another; at worst, it is a purposeful bait-and-switch to avoid debate on the tough issues.

[RandomGuy]

How do I verify that without engaging in a tedious exercise to research the paper, the author, and the organizations through which they are peer-reviewed and presented. None of us has that kind of time. So, instead, we consume media.

Then listen to what the scientific organizations themselves are saying.

Bypass the media.

You don't even have to do that with every research paper.

Argh... time's up. I will get to the rest of the post.

[RandomGuy]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2012/02/09/understanding-the-global-warming-debate/

In the early 1980′s I saw Ayn Rand speak

Stopped there.




















ok, so I skimmed the rest of it. But hey I can dismiss it because I don't agree with it.

The source is obviously biased, so I can't accept any of his conclusions.

That's the way it works, right?

[Wild Cobra]

In the early 1980′s I saw Ayn Rand speak

Stopped there.



















ok, so I skimmed the rest of it. But hey I can dismiss it because I don't agree with it.

The source is obviously biased, so I can't accept any of his conclusions.

That's the way it works, right?
That's how it appears you, Manny, and others operate, then accuse us of the same thing.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I got throught he Ayn Rand part all the way which said that the person that questioned her had not given her a fair premise. I then went to there little flowchart where they 'recreate' the AGW argument. Thats a strawman but lets lecture people on how Rand demands a reasonable premise. You know when you characterize what the other sides argument and then argue that instead of addressing what the argument is.

He at least that the Earth is warming but then hegdes it with the UAH stuff.

He then brings back the old arguments from 10 years ago about solar output and climate variations as if BEST and various other sources did not investigate, quantify and then discard those notions.

They then mischaracterize the risk assesment by acting like we cannot count how many tornadoes, floods and hurricanes that there have been and creates a strawman about a baseline.

And of course my favorite part, bringing up Obama and jobs, and Al Gore in transparent attempt to be inflammatory. The UAH graphs being used is fair but not showing the other major work especially by BEST is egregious especially when it is the lionsshare of whats out there.

Its a hatchet job and pretty transparent. Thanks Darrin!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And Yoni, you keep on with this 'we poor lay people are just not presented with anyone we can trust' but its pretty transparent that you will claim this incredulity towards anything that doesn't support your viewpoint.

You still going to discount my comments about the insurance industry out of hand. Tell me I cannot read and the like?

[Yonivore]

And Yoni, you keep on with this 'we poor lay people are just not presented with anyone we can trust' but its pretty transparent that you will claim this incredulity towards anything that doesn't support your viewpoint.

You still going to discount my comments about the insurance industry out of hand. Tell me I cannot read and the like?
For the last time, and I truly mean it this time, your comments about the insurance industry were not germane to the conversation in which I was engaged.

It was irrelevant. I didn't even read the comments.

Your comments about the insurance industry said absolutely nothing about whether or not the media and the White House misrepresented or exaggerated what was said in the report in question.

Let go, man.