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!
Does Yonivore even know what year it is?
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!
Al Gore and the IPCC -- forever linked
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.
Last edited by Yonivore; 04-18-2012 at 04:05 PM. Reason: Important correction from are to are NOT
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 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 of a lot. Its a pattern we see in other "contriversial" scientific issues (IE evolution)
http://www.gallup.com/poll/153365/Re...r-Weather.aspxIt 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 do ented 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 04-18-2012 at 05:34 PM.
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.
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!
You get the media and the AGCC celebrities to tone down the alarmist rhetoric and report the data accurately.
That's how.
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.
.
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.
pfft. if you are not 100% sure then you just blow it off.
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.
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."
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)