Al Gore explains "Snowmageddon"

[mvscal]

How much? How much has the Koch Denial Machine spent?

Well, read the fucking article and get educated.

I did. I didn't see any specific figure mentioned. Would you say that it is more or less than the 8.7 billion dollars the Federal government spends to finance their propaganda every year? Of course that is only the US Federal spend. Needless to say, there are billions more being bilked out of naive rubes from other sources in state governments, private non-profits and in Europe etc.

The money is clearly and overwhelmingly on the side of Big Climate Change.

[Felix]

Felix. It was much warmer 5,000 years ago than it was 10,000 years ago. We were coming out of an ice age, but man had absolutely no bearing on it (for certain) at that juncture.

uh, you need to check your dates.....the earth wasn't in an ice age 10,000 yrs ago

It was all just part of the natural evolution of climate. There has always been climate change, dude.

the earth has natural self-correction mechanisms....when those mechanisms are thrown out of whack (increased CO2 output coupled with continual destruction of the rain forests) tend to throw that natural balance out of gibe....there just aren't as many plants to process the increased CO2-hence you can probably see how things could get out of hand pretty quickly (relatively speaking)....it's a pretty delicate balance

It's warmer now than it was 10,000 years ago. I'm sure it's a hell of a lot cooler now than it was at some periods of time within the last 4 billion years.

100 years in the context of 4,000,000,000 years isn't even a blip on the radar.

like I said, it won't have any effect on me or my kids or their kids, but eventually, the balance will tip and by the time we've realized it, it will be irreversible...

I get the idea that a lot of people here would simply prefer that we stop all scientific study of climate change, and I'm not sure I understand why that is...anybody that thinks they've got the answers (s'up dins) is either woefully ignorant, or just plain stupid....

[mvscal]

the earth has natural self-correction mechanisms....when those mechanisms are thrown out of whack (increased CO2 output coupled with continual destruction of the rain forests) tend to throw that natural balance out of gibe....there just aren't as many plants to process the increased CO2-hence you can probably see how things could get out of hand pretty quickly (relatively speaking)....it's a pretty delicate balance

Complete and utter horseshit. The earth has gone through ice ages were there was ten fucking times the atmospheric CO2 levels of today. There are far more trees in North America now then there were 100 years ago. I could shove this up your ass all day long, idiot.

[Dinsdale]

Yup... there's more arable land (and like worldwide) now than there was 100 years ago, thanks to irrigation project (and I'll be the first to admit they're not without fault, but we're beginning to offset our devastation of centuries ago).

[Dinsdale]

I get the idea that a lot of people here would simply prefer that we stop all scientific study of climate change

Another great example of KYOA.


Yeah, continue the study, as long as everyone toes the party line, and of course, anyone who doesn't is a "hack."

And whatever study is done, it has to be edited by a bunch of party-line-toers, and the original data from the "study" gets desroyed before any of the Evil Deniers gets ahold of it -- for these peole, "peer-review" is a good thing... as long as they get to choose the "peers."

scientific study

I laughed.


"Science" involves coming up with a hypothesis, studying as much on the subject as possible, and taking all alailable data into account, to either solidify or dismiss the hypothesis.

The Alarmists do no such thing -- this is inauguable. If they find data that doesn't fit into the preconceived goal, it's thrown out and the word "hack" is attached to it -- sound familiar?

But when the person who signs said scientists' paycheck wants the numbers to come out a certain way, you get people doing things like "hide the decline" and other such shit.


I mean, let's look at this "scientific study" -- involves computer models. Among the many, many unknown variables in the atmosperic system is aerosol solar forcing. Since no one really knows what numbers to plug into the models, since that science is still in its infancy, the modelers run the computer models to end at a predetermined number, then use the results to come up with a constant to plug back into the same model... this is not up for debate, either -- it's exactly how the IPCC folks, et. al. came up with their numbers. That's not "science" -- it's a parlor trick. But of course, it becomes fact, since certain people have decided that there's a set of goalposts to be split, "even if we have to redefine what the peer-review process is!"

And which one of those models has even been in the same area code as what came to be? That's right -- none of them are even close. Yet, solar scientists published papers that predicted warming and cooling trends 30 years ago, based on what they learned from studying solar science -- and somehow these fuckers nailed it 30 years ago...


HMMMMMM


"Wow, when we put more temperature reporting stations in urban areas, the overnight temps skew the results. The obvious solution is to... take down all of the reporting stations in canada, and replace them with urban stations in Europe -- that should make our numbers reallyreallyreally reliable."


And then they sell rubes on the idea that "the more CO2 we pump into the atmosphere, the greenhouse effect is going to be amplified proportionately," even thought this is an absolute, complete, proven impossibility.


Let me teach you some really super-basic SCIENCE, Felix -- for any observable effect/phenomenon that a scientist wants to explain, they gather data and formulate a hypothesis. And here's where "science" has somehow been redefined -- read closely...

If continued observation of data doesn't match what you've predicted according to your hypothesis -- then your hypothesis is wrong.

Period, EOS.

Yet somehow, "back to the drawing board" has been replaced by "redefine what the peer-review process is," and "HIDE THE DECLINE!" Then they start "smoothing" data (I still can't believe you said that... I don't think the term "smoothing" means what you think it means) and dismissing other data to make their miles-off predictions appear true?


That's not "science," it qualifies as "scam."

[Moving Sale]

That's not "science," it qualifies as "scam."

And you qualify as certifiable.

[LTS TRN 2]

How much? How much has the Koch Denial Machine spent?

The article you linked says "nearly $50 million". Chump change compared to what is being fed to Team-AGW by the government each year.

But riddle me this, Batshitcrazyman. If you had $35 billion in personal wealth, and you believed strongly in the truth of your position, would you spend "nearly $50 million" to support it?

Look, you astonishingly inane chucklebeak, just because the Koch brothers believe in rapacious profiteering regardless of the environmental impact does not in any way whatsoever justify their machinations in derailing and distracting the issue and the legitimate efforts being made to deal with it.

They are not interested in Science, nor are they in any way inclined to an attitude of environmental conservatism. There interest is money, period. They have no legitimate place in the debate. And they've certainly no business buying "expert panels." Got it?

As for the money being spent to understand and fight destructive climate change, this is of course money well spent--and of course we want efficiency.

But to simply spray out repetitive choruses of Glenn Beck hysterics--with no evidence whatsoever provided for the ludicrous Soros Conspiracy or anything--this is a disgrace. And you're done.

[Felix]

Complete and utter horseshit. The earth has gone through ice ages were there was ten fucking times the atmospheric CO2 levels of today.

really ten times the CO2 levels we're at now? I'm sure you have something scientific that supports this assertion.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg

here's the graphics from the Vostock Ice Core drillings, which date back about 400,000 years ago and measured the levels of CO2....maybe you can point out to me where there was ever "ten fucking times the atmospheric CO2 levels of today"

There are far more trees in North America now then there were 100 years ago. I could shove this up your ass all day long, idiot.

well, here's what you need to do-first, you need to calm the fuck down and quit with the histrionics....I can see this is pretty emotional for you and you're getting pretty worked up....maybe when you compose yourself, we can chat about this like adults

[Felix]

The Alarmists do no such thing -- this is inauguable. If they find data that doesn't fit into the preconceived goal, it's thrown out and the word "hack" is attached to it -- sound familiar?

no, it doesn't sound familiar at all....I'm not an alarmist and I've never said that Lindzen was a hack....why do you insist on lying

[mvscal]

really ten times the CO2 levels we're at now? I'm sure you have something scientific that supports this assertion.....

Yeah really, you ignorant fuckpuddle. It was called the Ordovician Ice Age.

However, the Ordovician ended in a brief (300-500 ky), but severe, ice age. Gondwana, particularly Africa, straddled the South Pole and became extensively glaciated. There were even glaciers in what is now the Sahara. Metazoans were severely effected. About 60% of animal genera became extinct, making this the second or third most deadly mass extinction of the Phanerozoic [1].

As a natural consequence, a good deal of attention has been focused on the causes of the Ordovician Ice Age. In fact, it is not easy to see how an ice age could have occurred. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are believed to have been 8 to 20 times their current values. This ought to have prevented anything approaching an ice age.

http://www.palaeos.com/Paleozoic/Ordovi ... vician.htm

This ought to be enough to pop your head out of your ass for just a second or two.

While you're at it, you can take a closer look at the Vostock ice cores you mentioned and you will find that they clearly and unequivocally demonstrate that increased CO2 concentrations are a lagging indicator of warming trends which suggests that CO2, beyond a certain minimal level, has little to nothing to do with global warming.

[Felix]

It was called the Ordovician Ice Age.

are believed to have been 8 to 20 times their current values. This ought to have prevented anything approaching an ice age.

http://www.palaeos.com/Paleozoic/Ordovi ... vician.htm

of course, the CO2 concentration may not have been at those levels too...but what you fail to note (either from ignorance or being misleading purposefully) is that the sun's radiance was significantly lower back then.....remember, there are a multitude of factors that drive the earths climate.....I'm not particularly interested in speculation on what might have been, but rather concern myself with what we know...but I'll grant that CO2 levels have been higher than the are now

While you're at it, you can take a closer look at the Vostock ice cores you mentioned and you will find that they clearly and unequivocally demonstrate that increased CO2 concentrations are a lagging indicator of warming trends which suggests that CO2, beyond a certain minimal level, has little to nothing to do with global warming.

yeah, it's called the 800 year lag time and I'm well aware of it...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... ice-cores/

In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway. From model estimates, CO2 (along with other greenhouse gases CH4 and N2O) causes about half of the full glacial-to-interglacial warming.

[Dinsdale]

I don’t pay much attention to shit that’s spewed without scientific evidence to back up whatever claim is being made.

You mean like this?

the more CO2 we pump into the atmosphere, the greenhouse effect is going to be amplified proportionately.

Which completely flies in the face of the laws of astrophysics?

[Felix]

I don’t pay much attention to shit that’s spewed without scientific evidence to back up whatever claim is being made.

You mean like this?

the more CO2 we pump into the atmosphere, the greenhouse effect is going to be amplified proportionately.

Which completely flies in the face of the laws of astrophysics?

so you're saying that increased CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't absorb reflected long wave radiation?

if you don't understand the simple physics of the greenhouse effect, then your simply arguing from ignorance

[mvscal]

...but I'll grant that CO2 levels have been higher than the are now

Substantially higher meaning your so called delicate balance idea is complete bunk.

In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway. From model estimates, CO2 (along with other greenhouse gases CH4 and N2O) causes about half of the full glacial-to-interglacial warming.

Garbage in, garbage out.

The model estimates do not conform to any real world measurements or observations.

[mvscal]

so you're saying that increased CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't absorb reflected long wave radiation?

No, it doesn't. Not beyond a certain point anyway.

[Dinsdale]

Here you go, Felix -- someone expounding what someone wrote on atrophysics like 80 fucking years ago.

http://brneurosci.org/co2.html

I like the statement in there:

The "saturation" argument does not mean that global warming doesn't occur. What saturation tells us is that exponentially higher levels of CO2 would be needed to produce a linear increase in absorption, and hence temperature. This is basic physics. Beer's law has not been repealed.

Not mentioned in that particular paragraph is that at least 95% of all the sun's energy that CO2 is capable of absorbing, it already does. CO2 has the same effect at 300ppm as it does at 380ppm... there ain't any energy left in the spectrum that CO2 hasn't already absorbed.


Whatever it was that gave you the impression that warming/greenhouse effect is in proportion to the concentration of CO2 sure the fuck wasn't "science," you "hack."

And you have the gall to claim your sources are "peer-reviewed," and all the other stupid shit you've claimed?


But according to you, we're supposed to throw out proven science, which can be reproduced infintely, since it doesn't support the Alarmist Agenda, right?

[poptart]

I could shove this up your ass all day long, idiot.

Yeah really, you ignorant fuckpuddle.

This ought to be enough to pop your head out of your ass for just a second or two.

Many times I wish we could speak to people in real life the way we do on the interwebs.

[Felix]

The "saturation" argument does not mean that global warming doesn't occur. What saturation tells us is that exponentially higher levels of CO2 would be needed to produce a linear increase in absorption, and hence temperature. This is basic physics. Beer's law has not been repealed.

simple physics dins...the more CO2, the more longwave radiation that's absorbed....I've never argued that CO2 doesn't have a saturation point-it does, but as the CO2 increases, the amount of radiation absorbed would be proportionately higher....

and don't forget about the methane (another greenhouse gas) that's been added to the atmosphere as a result of millions of acres of the Siberian permafrost being melted....I'll give you two guesses as to what caused this permafrost area to melt

[Felix]

I could shove this up your ass all day long, idiot.

Tropical forests regulate global and regional climate-systems by acting as heat and water pumps. They release moisture into the atmosphere which returns to the ground as rain. When the forest is cleared, the water cycle is disrupted, temperatures increase, droughts become common, and eventually deserts may form. For example, the drought in the Sahelian belt (south of the Sahara Desert), has been attributed to deforestation in West Africa. Estimates suggest that tropical deforestation currently contributes at least 19% of greenhouse gas emissions. Tropical forests have been described as "the lungs of the Earth". However in mature primary forest, storage and release of carbon is in balance. Carbon-dioxide consumed during photosynthesis is equalled by that released when organic matter decays. A standing forest acts as a store or sink of carbon. On the other hand, when forests are burned or logged and the debris left to decay, carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere.

[Dinsdale]

simple physics dins...the more CO2, the more longwave radiation that's absorbed....I've never argued that CO2 doesn't have a saturation point-it does, but as the CO2 increases, the amount of radiation absorbed would be proportionately higher....

:facepalm:

I'm not sure why you're having such a hard time with this.

The laws of astrophysics say that it takes exponentially more CO2 to absorb heat from the very small part of the spectrum that it's capable of absorbing, and it eventually reaches saturation (which it's about 95% saturated at 300ppm CO2), and it's very very much a "point of diminishing returns" beyond 300ppm.

But Felix, either out of sheer ignorance, or a complete inability to grasp the basic concept, has decided that for the sake of not looking the fool on the internet (way too late for that), has unilaterally decided that laws of astrophysics that have been proven hundreds of times in the lab are no longer in æffect, has used his morally-superior position of authority to declare Beer's Law null-and-void (I don't think the term "law" means what you think it does, Felix) since he's looking the fool, and still maintains that it's "in proportion."

PROVEN falsehood.



But that doesn't change the fact that everything he "reads" (translation: "makes up") comes from the best sources that are intensively "peer reviewed" -- although apparently, these "peers" are unaware of some really basic laws of physics.

Or maybe the word "proportion" doesn't mean what you think it means?

Either way, this particular tangent isn''t up for debate -- you're wrong.

[Dinsdale]

I'll give you two guesses as to what caused this permafrost area to melt

OK, I'll play:

1) I don't know

2) You don't know



What do I win?


Since I didn't come up with a party-line answer, I guess I didn't win a $5 million grant though, eh?

[Moving Sale]

Now how do you explain that, Mr. Science?

Why don't you go ahead and list all of the beneficial chemicals that are released into the air when fossil fuels are burned. Think you can handle that Mr. Science?

[smackaholic]

I like the way the AGW tards keep going on about the "delicate balance".

Here's a memo for you dumbfukks. If conditions supporting life on earth were teetering on a delicate balance, we'd all have been gone long ago.

As has been pointed out in a number of ways, the earth's ecosystem actually has amazing self regulatory properties, which is why we are here today.

Feelsdicks keeps babbling on about siberian methane being released. I have a question for you. What else happens when the frozen bits of the arctic start melting? In addition to venting methane, they do something else. Photosynthesis gets kicked into gear. Imagine how much more photosynthesizing will be going on in that frozen hell hole along with the other frozen hell hole we call upper mexico. both pretty good sized chunks of ground.

[mvscal]

but as the CO2 increases, the amount of radiation absorbed would be proportionately higher....

WRONG.

You can double the concentration of CO2 from 357ppm to 714ppm and IR absorbtion is only increased by .17%. Now this is not based on conjecture or guesswork or even computer models. It's based on actual spectroscopic analysis.

http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm

The reactions section is pretty interesting as well. They really do need my help in spicing up their responses with a few well placed 'ass fucked sperm belcher' blasts and the like, though.

[smackaholic]

Any such spicey retorts really should be posted here before hand for peer review. It's how we scientific dudes roll.

[Dinsdale]

http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm

Dude, where the fuck have you been?

Feeldix has already dismissed him as a "non-peer-reviewed hack" because he had the unmitigated gall to quote laws of astrophysics from an 80 year old textbook.


This would be an excellent time for Felix to tuck his pathetically ignorant tail between his legs and forget this conversation happened.


Then again the IPCC should do the same, since they've also declared Beer's Law null-and-void. But I still have more respect for them than Felix, since they're at least making a buck (or a few billion) from being this fucking stupid.

[LTS TRN 2]

Dins...relax and settle down.

You're enthusiastically parroting the droning obfuscation of the Koch brothers denial machine. And you've been provided with all the plain evidence of this fact.

Your twisting and anxiously turning away from the basic all-but overwhelming problem of humanity's infliction of environmental damage on our planet is typical of scared and confused people everywhere. Except...you're not a oil industry insider with immediate interest in business as usual




So....why? keep pretending you actually believe a word of your ludicrous denialism? Who do you think you're fooling? Yourself?


If you really insist on parsing CO2 absorption rates--as per the daily rate of rain forest razing--so what?

Are you really pretending to ignore rising acidity levels in the oceans? Gee, Rusp Limpdick doesn't mention it. How about desertification?

You're entire fake argument is just an empty wrapper of a moldy and rotted--discarded--piece of trash....

pathetic

[Felix]

2) You don't know

sure I do.....and I think you do too....

what causes anything to melt?

increased temperature!!!!!

[LTS TRN 2]

How do you continue to pretend to ask if there's really a problem at all?

What is this nonsense?

Like Dins, SS is completely scared and insistent on ignoring the plain facts of humanity's disastrous effects on the ecosystem.

Let's start with rising acidity in the oceans. Do you suppose this is not caused by humanity? And that does not pose a dire threat to our survival?

How about drastically spreading desertification? So far we've heard childish nonsense to the effect that deserts come and go with a slow geological pace that's indifferent to us.

And there's the disappearing ozone layer. Again, completely caused by human effects.

But the Denialist stalwarts intensely ignore this--and dutifully parrot the bought stats from the Koch brother-funded sites--and just keep repeating their droning bullet points like an alarm clock--with NO actual examination of the overall situation or factors.

And that's what right-wing radio, etc., is all about. Sucks to be you. Too bad for America.

[Felix]

Or increased pressure (at least in the case of ice, since water in solid form takes up more space than water in liquid form).

well, I think increased pressure is pretty much out of the argument, so we know it's attributable to an increase in temperature....this is the first time in 11,000 years that these Siberian and Alaskan permafrost areas have melted...to me, that's kind of alarming....not because they melted, but I know that when these areas melt, they release lots of methane into the atmosphere....and methane is a greenhouse gas....

But identifying that there has been or is an increase in temperature is meaningless. The climate is not static and never has been. It changes all the time.

but significant changes in temperatures always have a trigger...what science is trying to discover is A: is the atmosphere of the earth undergoing a significant change? B: if it is, what is the trigger? Contrary to those that KNOW THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS GLOBAL WARMING (jeezus, I've never heard a climate scientist say they know that global warming is human driven with as much conviction as mvscal and dins, non-scientists profess to KNOW THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS GLOBAL WARMING) I'd prefer that we explore the possiblity before we summarily dismiss it

The questions that must be answered are:

1. What is driving the observed changes in climate?

2. If the answer to question #1 is human activity, then what amount of change is being caused by human activity?

3. If the answer to question #2 is significant, then is it significant to warrant a change in human activity?

So far, science has not answered question #1 or #2. Question #3 is a political question which cannot be answered until questions #1 and #2 have been answered by science.

I totally agree with everything here....what science is trying to determine is: are activities such as burning fossil fuels acting as a trigger? but it seems like AGW deniers (not skeptics) want all research stopped immediately and for everybody just to forget about all this because they KNOW THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS GLOBAL WARMING

[Tom In VA]

They want research to stop ? I hadn't heard that.

The only thing I've heard anyone say is that there isn't enough evidence to support the radical changes being called for in terms of legislation and if that won't work - EPA regulations that will have an adverse impact on the economy.

I'd be interested in hearing about the call to stop all research.

[Felix]

They want research to stop ? I hadn't heard that.

well according to dins and mvscal you know, the ones that KNOW THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS GLOBAL WARMING it's all a great big scam designed soley to keep NASA scientists employed and funnel off grant money to scientists that can't support themselves any other way.......

so I've simply made the assumption that given what they know, spending money on further research is simply a waste of our dollars

thankfully, the people with the pursestrings don't seem to know what mvs and dins apparently do, and want it studied further....

[Tom In VA]

They want research to stop ? I hadn't heard that.

well according to dins and mvscal you know, the ones that KNOW THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS GLOBAL WARMING it's all a great big scam designed soley to keep NASA scientists employed and funnel off grant money to scientists that can't support themselves any other way.......

so I've simply made the assumption that given what they know, spending money on further research is simply a waste of our dollars

thankfully, the people with the pursestrings don't seem to know what mvs and dins apparently do, and want it studied further....

I think you've just provided the impetus behind many a skeptics skepticism. Radical changes to the lives of every day people are being called for, this "the sky is falling" approach and embellishment that you have just displayed - it scares people to the point of not knowing what to believe.

I don't think you can deny that perhaps the scientific aspect of the argument that mankind is worsening and causing un-natural climate change is being capitalized upon by a few "bad actors". Gore, Strong, etc.. and their purse strings - and many others - cause reports to be generated and headlines to be made that will better compel government and people to accept policy that has the potential to enrich them.

Of course LTS has, ad nauseum, pointed out that the scientific community that suggest the man made un-natural climate change is - not worthy of such imposition upon humanity and their big business friends in the fossil fuel industry.

So here we are, at an impasse, AGAIN - with global warming. One side insulting the other and each side "making up things" to get people on their side.

Where's the obective scientific solution to the "problem" ? If one is found to exist. Have they properly laid out the consequences, the death toll, and the tyranny necessary to stop CO2 emissions enough to prolong life on earth while at the same time allowing a select, elite few to not be required to alter their consumption ?

Hey, I'm a team player. Lay it out there. Based on facts. Not Chicken Little crap.

[Felix]

I think you've just provided the impetus behind many a skeptics skepticism. Radical changes to the lives of every day people are being called for, this "the sky is falling" approach and embellishment that you have just displayed - it scares people to the point of not knowing what to believe.

I've never once said "the sky is falling" and I've never heard a climate scientist suggest that "the sky is falling" when it comes to AGW....

I don't think you can deny that perhaps the scientific aspect of the argument that mankind is worsening and causing un-natural climate change is being capitalized upon by a few "bad actors". Gore, Strong, etc.. and their purse strings - and many others - cause reports to be generated and headlines to be made that will better compel government and people to accept policy that has the potential to enrich them.

sure, there are and always will be be people like that...but do you remember the concern raised over ozone depletion....no doubt there are some people that made money from that, but when we (and a large part of the world) started to do away with CFC's, there was no significant life altering changes that were necessary.....

Of course LTS has, ad nauseum, pointed out that the scientific community that suggest the man made un-natural climate change is - not worthy of such imposition upon humanity and their big business friends in the fossil fuel industry.

and I hate that type of alarmist, knee-jerk, "lets tax the shit out of those giant corps) mentality-really, it does more harm than good....

So here we are, at an impasse, AGAIN - with global warming. One side insulting the other and each side "making up things" to get people on their side.

honestly, I don't pay much attention to non-scientific "sky is falling" (sup Al Gore) alarmism....again, I think that type of thing does more harm than good....

Where's the obective scientific solution to the "problem" ? If one is found to exist. Have they properly laid out the consequences, the death toll, and the tyranny necessary to stop CO2 emissions enough to prolong life on earth while at the same time allowing a select, elite few to not be required to alter their consumption ?

Hey, I'm a team player. Lay it out there. Based on facts. Not Chicken Little crap.

we need to look at it pragmatically, determine the best course of action, and implement something that's meaningful....cap and trade and carbon credits are not meaningful in any sense....I'm not smart enough to know what the answer is, but I am smart enough to know a fucking sham (like cap and trade-carbon credits) when I see one...any solution (if in fact a solution is needed) should be equitable for everybody.....

[Tom In VA]

Good read, seems we agree more than disagree on the non scientific part and I am not well read at all on the science.

The unfortunate thing too here is, even if we come up with an affordable solution to energy and fuel, the Chinese and Indian folks might not and they're lighting up the sky.

[Mace]

Rack Felix for being the voice of reason and common sense. Find out what's causing the problem, if there is one, and then find a solution.

And props to LTS and dins for providing the fertilizer for all of the corn fields in Iowa. Farmers and ethanol producers thank you both.

[mvscal]

Find out what's causing the problem, if there is one, and then find a solution.

That isn't the way it's playing out in real life, though. In real life we have (mega trillion dollar) "solutions" first before we have even verified that there is a problem or whether or not we can do anything about it.

[Felix]

That isn't the way it's playing out in real life, though. In real life we have (mega trillion dollar) "solutions" first before we have even verified that there is a problem or whether or not we can do anything about it.

but there haven't been any mega trillion dollar programs implemented (to the best of my knowledge)....so far it's just been discussion of "solutions" (huge fucking rolleyes)....hopefully, someone will come to the realization that carbon credits and cap and trade is unduly punative to production companies in the US...that's all we need is another reason for large manufacturers to move their production facilities to another country

insofar as the rest of your observations, I agree the knee-jerk reactionists are the ones in the spotlight, and unfortunately, scientists tend to fly below the radar, hence the over reactionists are getting all the press

The problem with much of the published climate science, in my opinion, is the lack of an adherence to the scientific method. The original data is not made available for others to verify whether it was collected properly.

you can look through various scientific journals as well as scientific abstracts which are very specific about the data gathered, where it came from, and previous research utilized to formulate their hypotheses...in other words, the scientific method....it's a necessity that scientists publish their work in order for it to be verifiable and checked for errors.....its simply that reading the nuts and bolts of their work is akin to watching paint dry.....you've got to want it bad to get through a research paper like this http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/s ... tFINAL.pdf

Climate modelling software, for example, is not made public. No one knows what kind of changes have been made to the underlying data, assuming it was properly collected. The hypothesis drawn by many is not subject to peer testing and cannot be repeated. There is simply no way to know whether any of it is horseshit or not.

the software is not made public because I believe that most scientists consider something like that as "intellectual property"....but the methods of how they constructed the models are spelled out pretty clearly.....

NASA's Hansen, for example, keeps making wild public assertions. He is an activist. He is not a scientist. If he were a scientist, he would publish all of his data and let others verify his conclusions. But he does not. He chains himself to the White House fence and does other wacky things.

don't kid yourself, Hansen is very much a scientist, but somewhere along the line, he's taken off his scientist hat, and decided to put on the hat of an advocate, which goes against everything that true science stands for.....I for one find it difficult to take anything he says seriously anymore, because he's become an alarmist....when he became a reactionary, it destroyed his objectivity thus, kicked his science credentials square in the nuts....too bad too, because I think he's a pretty intelligent guy.....

[War Wagon]

you've got to want it bad...

No doubt you want something bad, what is it this time?

Free tickets to the NAMBLA conference on how to chloroform unsuspecting victims after a phony writing contest for Mule tickets?

How to pose as a chick on the internet but not come across as AP in a crossdressing moment of indiscretion?

What exactly are you trying to accomplish here? You've gone from global warming activist to doubting Thomas now that 88 has impolitely smacked you for 27 rounds.

Here's a suggestion: Go peddle your tripe elsewhere, nobody is buying it.

[Felix]

The paper you linked is not a research paper, amigo.

look bud, I just grabbed the first thing I stumbled on....google science journals, then do some research on scientific studies and abstracts on climate change...there's thousands of them out there

nothing

if you don't feel compelled to contribute anything of substance in what has really been a relatively decent discussion, why not just avoid posting all together, and stop your fucking incessant ankle biting

educate yourself...then come back and maybe after four or five years, you might be able to add something