WC loves dubya and his politics (dubya doesn't do policies), but not dubya's spending.
Well, dubya's WH has finally come out and said, weaseally, that greenhouse gases (what causes them?) are very likely the cause of global warming and way above levels of past 650K years.
http://www.climatescience.gov/Librar...smentFINAL.pdf
When the WH quits running with the warming-deniers, what's a wrong-headed conservative to do?
What if you are wrong?
I am sure you don't think you are wrong, but is there a possibility that you ARE wrong about this?
Dogmatic belief systems don't allow for the possibility that the belief system is wrong, and, so far, neither have you. I have fully acknowledged the possibility that anthropogenic warming might not exist or have much affect.
I have yet to see you say anything remotely similar, dogma-boy.
You have little idea what I do and don't understand when it comes to physical sciences.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 06-05-2008 at 02:44 PM. Reason: civility
That would be as possible as 2+2=5
If I'm wrong, maybe I should play Power Ball. Those chances are better.
The facts are in favor of most the changes we see being solar intensity driven and that CO2 lags temperature. You say you acknowledge a lessened extent of anthropogenic warming. Fine. You also appear to favor hurting our economy because of the chances you see it to be true. Why don't we also build a super missile defense system also so we can shoot a comet up, so it doesn't strike the earth. The possibilities that the alarmists are right, is so remote, it's a waste of money to impose things like carbon emission limits. I have no problem reducing them as much as reasonably possible. I simple disagree with doing it to a point that is penalizing to the economy.
That's because of the level of certainty I hold on the subject. I say it's more likely the world will end 12/21/12. Yes, I could be wrong. Such a remote possibility however.
If you understand the sciences then why do you take the positions you do? You have come to the point you seen to always disagree with me, but you show no evidence I'm wrong. Why should I believe you understand the sciences better than I do? I give reasonable explanations. Where are yours? I think it's just become a vendetta to you, but you don't have anything but words.
Those of you that are in the "I believe" camp about GW (Global Warming boutons, dont freak out on me), anyways how many of you are living your lives in an "earth friendly" way?
Maybe bought a nice hybrid or are using the bus to get to work, bought those new light bulbs, watching your CO2 emissions, bought one of those nice green bags to put your groceries in?
I think most of the greenie weenies are far less earth friendly than they believe. If they have enough money, they become a Prius owner. The carbon footprint and toxic materials used to make the car is far larger than what is saved while they own it. Some buy carbon credits, which become nothing more than a way to feel good about using energy. People then actually use more, feeling like they have the right to because they pay! I heard studies that say carbon credits and trading them has caused more usage of CO2 rather than curtailing it. How true? I don't know, but it makes sense. The companies that do go green make money selling their excess credits to other companies, then the other companies decide not to go green! Then you have the simple removal of any guilt some Hollywood activists have. Rather then reduce their usage, they buy credits. They are so rich, they don't care, then they expect poor people to either go without, or buy the credits... Give me a break.
Myself, I don't get overly concerned. I have bought several reusable bags I take with me when grocery shopping. Last time I moved, I took out all the bark dust, about 1000 square feet, and planted grass, roses, flowers, raspberries, and huckleberries. I also planted a dwarf Gala Apple tree and Dward Necurine tree. I cannot stand seeing properties with rock gardens, bark dust everywhere, etc. If someone wants to own property, then keep it green and growing dammit.
I have replaced all the lighting with fluorescent. I don't like the fact there is mercury and phosphorus in them, but I just take care not to ever break them.
I don't go overboard with conservation, but I don't disregard it either.
I see Wild Python has gone green!
This is the green we believe in ...
Last edited by Don Quixote; 06-08-2008 at 10:32 PM. Reason: wanted it bigger
I've always loved nature. I just don't believe I have to buy a Prius or do some other dumb thing to make a false statement about it. I do what I can within the limitations I have. Rather than asking for "other peoples money" (tax dollars,) or unreasonable regulations to make a statement, I do things that count.
Why do you call me a constrictor?
I dunno. I'm still looking for a cheeky corruption of your name. Haven't found one yet.
I love nature too -- and we conservatives can even support reasonable ventures that will protect the environment against real dangers. But this global warming business is hooey.
I have YOUR words, and that is enough for me to assign your opinion very little weight when it comes to making decisions aobut anything.
This thread is not about whether global warming is true or not, in case you missed the thread le.
It is about risk mitigation, and taking a truly conservative approach to future events.
You place your ideology over that true conservatism, and do it in a consistantly intellectualy dishonest way.
Like any thread here, we go off on tangents rather than make new threads rather often.
I don't recall for certain, but I probably did address the risk management. It goes like this in case I didn't:
You place a portion of risk control costs based on the probability of the risk. Insurance companies do it all the time. Low risk exposure, low cost insurance. High risk means more money. You alarmists believe we must pay out the ass for something that continues to show itself as having little to no risk. Why would any sane person agree with overpaying for insurance in the magnitudes you alarmists wish us too?
As always, your bias has ended up making you say/think half-assed things in order for your dogmatic beliefs to be maintained.
Risk of loss has TWO dimensions, not one. The one you dishonestly DON'T talk about here, because it suits your case, is severity of loss.
You are an insurance company. You are asked to insure a loss risk. How do you price it?
If we only priced insurance based on what you talk about here, the only thing you should price it on here is the level of probability. This would lead us to ask the owner of a billion dollar oil platform with a 1 in million chance of loss to pay less than a guy insuring a hundred dollar stereo at a one in a thousand chance of loss.
You blather on about the worst case scenario for doing something about global warming when it doesn't exist, i.e. a massive, unneeded drain on the economy.
BUT
You fail to acknowledge the worst case scenario of what happens if you are wrong.
Worst case, what happens if man-made global warming exists, and we do nothing but contribute to it and make it worse?
Don't give me any "it's too remote, so I won't answer", bull-puckey. That is dishonest.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 07-10-2008 at 04:11 PM.
Bump.
Maybe WC will take the time to give a brief answer.
Maybe he will even give an honest one.
I will not hold by breath waiting for the latter...
That would be you. Remember me saying the data you presented on unwanted births was incorrect? Then I showed a chart that was still incomplete showing it was you who was wrong?
You are the "dogma boy!" You assume things unsaid and data not specified.
I wasn't trying to explain the full details of something I know little of.
See... Off tanget! Changing the subject to find something I am weak on so you can ind a win.
OK, You win on that point, but I never tried to argue it! From the start, my arguement, and all along, was a simple one you went off on tangents. Never acknowledging my points... Simple points:
THE ARTICLE WAS NOT ACCURATE!
IT HAD FACTUAL ERRORS!
Then you go on, wanting me to say the report was innacurate? That was never my point, but you tried and tried to get me to say the report was wrong, but it was you who was reading into it wrong. Specifically the same way you let you lemming mind believe the lies in the article. Specifically between NO and NO2, and oxone and smog. You treated them the same like the article did. I tried over and over to get you to distinguish between them, because that was my point.
The article was innacurate!
But it is too remote, and because of the low risk, the insurance premium would be low. Far lower than hurting our economy over. The risk does not justify over insuring.
I don't want an answer to this question, I probably wont respond. It is just something I ask you to ponder:
Why has the data for warming pretty much stopped at 2004? Could it be current data suggests warming isn't real, but a natural cycle?
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
BUT
You fail to acknowledge the worst case scenario of what happens if you are wrong.
Worst case, what happens if man-made global warming exists, and we do nothing but contribute to it and make it worse?
Don't give me any "it's too remote, so I won't answer", bull-puckey. That is dishonest.
In the worst case scenarios, hurting the economy a bit in the short run is less bad, than the environomental, political, and economic meltdown if you are wrong.
While you might be that confident in your half-assed analysis of the problem, I am not willing to accept such a liberal amount of risk, based on the opinion of someone who obviously isn't honest enough to answer straight questions.
I would prefer the more conservative approach of actually doing something about the worst case scenario of global warming.
I rest my case.
Here's another oldy but goody.
Another thread bumped by Random Propaganda proving he is a small minded vindictive troll.
Actually I haven't seen you in a while. You were remodeling your house or something.
bumporoni and cheese.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 11-08-2008 at 08:10 PM.
If you're interested in understanding some of the basic principles underlying warming driven by CO2 and other anthropogenic carbon emissions, references provided earlier in this thread will help you get started. At this point, you appear to be a victim of Internet mythology, listing articles you haven't read or don't understand as implying the existence of controversy surrounding the warming and its significance. In fact, the controversy has almost vanished over the past several years, based on an enormity of evidence that has converged to establish the near certainty of anthropogenic warming (recognizing that science never reaches absolute certainties). Within the science literature, the warming is universally recognized with no exceptions, and all challenges come from outside the journals - from blogs, videos, retired scientists, media sources (particularly those with an ideological agenda), and so forth.
It's for this reason that the science literature currently addresses global climate change on two fronts, neither of which poses a challenge to the existence of significant anthropogenic warming. The first involves specific details that remain unsettled - a prime example is the effect of continued CO2-driven warming on hurricane intensity. The second involves the optimal means of reducing CO2 emissions in time to avert the most catastrophic warming effects. If you begin to acquire a science background to the point where you can read the journals yourself rather than relying on descriptions provided by others, you'll get a sense of why science now sees some urgency in the need for CO2 mitigation.
Although you've made a number of misstatements, let me just mention two areas where a better grasp of underlying principles would help. Tropospheric warming is one, and part of the Internet mythology consists of the claim that there is an "anthropogenic signal" in the troposphere that is missing. Multiple sources, including TAR, AR4, and also basic geophysics make clear that such an anthropogenic-specific signal makes no sense, because tropospheric warming is mediated by any climate influence that warms the surface, whether solar or anthropogenic, simply as a result of convection, based primarily on latent heat transport. In essence, controversies regarding the putative signal are irrelevant to the existence of anthropogenic warming. Nevertheless, the signal, although not anthropogenic-specific, is in fact present, and if you read the recent literature - papers not only by Douglass and his UAH colleagues, but also Allen and Sherwood, Haimberger, Santer, etc., you'll understand that uncertainties regarding troposphere temperatures are those of methodology and not basic principles. The most recent data demonstrate that theory and observations coincide reasonably well after all, and it remains for further work on the methodology of troposphere temperature measurements to refine the details.
A second area you will need to learn more about relates to what you call "extinction"". The term itself is nonsensical, but it has been known for decades (and theorized since 1896 by Arrhenius) that the temperature response to CO2 increases is logarithmic. That is not an "extinction" in any meaningful sense of the word, but it does allow us to predict future temperature rises if CO2 emissions are not curtailed, and is one of the variables underlying the sense of scientific urgency in reducing those emissions sooner rather than later.
--Fred Wooten and Friends
Last edited by RandomGuy; 11-08-2008 at 08:25 PM.
First, it's worth pointing out that all the authors cited by Matthew in his comments above acknowledge the reality of anthropogenic global warming, and so I wonder whether he has actually read the papers in full that he cites, and if so, whether his scientific background was adequate for him to understand them.
Among points made in some of those papers are that natural climate variations affect temperature. This has never been in dispute, but the critical question for the warming of the past 100 years is quan ative - how much is natural and how much anthropogenic? The predominance of anthropogenic carbon emissions, mainly CO2, has been do ented by hundreds of studies over the past several years, but one criticism is the extent to which that conclusion depends on specific climate models. It's therefore relevant that the recent Lean and Rind GRL paper uses model-independent analysis of the variances of climate effectors to draw the same conclusions, finding that >90 percent of the warming has been due to human carbon emissions - Natural and Anthropogenic Influences.
Although the scientific "debate" may be over - the science literature universally recognizes the reality of anthropogenic warming - debate on how to reduce CO2 emissions to avert the worst consequences is only beginning. All nations endorse this goal, but specifics are vague. Both the UK Climate Bill and U.S elections are steps forward. Here, it would make sense for President Obama to involve Al Gore, not for science per se, but for his skill in conveying the scientific perspective to the public. Critics argue that his Inconvenient Truth movie contained inaccuracies, and while that is true, its main points are now established within science as accurate - a reality recognized by the Nobel Committee in 2007 in dividing the Peace Prize between him and the IPCC. (Anyone wondering why the Peace Prize was relevant is advised to read the statement of the Nobel Committee regarding "climate wars".)
--Fred Wooten and Friends.
[This guy is on myspace, and is one of the smartest guys I have ever seen on the internets. I feel sorry for the people he gets into arguments with.-RG]
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v...s/ngeo338.html
Attribution of polar warming to human influence
Nature Geoscience 1, 750 - 754 (2008)
Published online: 30 October 2008
Nathan P. Gillett, Dáithí A. Stone, Peter A. Stott, Toru Nozawa, Alexey Yu. Karpechko, Gabriele C. Hegerl, Michael F. Wehner & Philip D. Jones
The polar regions have long been expected to warm strongly as a result of anthropogenic climate change, because of the positive feedbacks associated with melting ice and snow. Several studies have noted a rise in Arctic temperatures over recent decades, but have not formally attributed the changes to human influence, owing to sparse observations and large natural variability. Both warming and cooling trends have been observed in Antarctica, which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report concludes is the only continent where anthropogenic temperature changes have not been detected so far, possibly as a result of insufficient observational coverage. Here we use an up-to-date gridded data set of land surface temperatures and simulations from four coupled climate models to assess the causes of the observed polar temperature changes. We find that the observed changes in Arctic and Antarctic temperatures are not consistent with internal climate variability or natural climate drivers alone, and are directly attributable to human influence. Our results demonstrate that human activities have already caused significant warming in both polar regions, with likely impacts on polar biology, indigenous communities, ice-sheet mass balance and global sea level.
Science based on computer models that are already wrong.
Gee, sounds good to me. Let's spend lot of money.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
